Jbarrax

Wellllll, let's take another look at this soul thing, shall we? Y'see here Ecclesiastes 12:6 & 7 say that when a fellow dies, the spirit goes back to God who gave it. Sounds like the Bible vindicates VP's law about everything going back to its source. BUT On page 235 of PFAL, DOCTOR wrote (by revelation of course) There are two problems with this paragraph. The first is the assertion that the idea of the soul going back to God is not biblical. As we see above, Ecclesiastes 12:6&7 say exactly that. The second error in this paragraph is VP's assertion that if one believes the soul goes back to God, he must also believe that the sould of animals do also. This too, contradicts the Bible. Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 indicate that both men and animals have soul life, but their destinations are diametrically opposed to each other. So let's summarize. VP says that the soul of a man either goes to his progeny or nowhere (PFAL, page 237, paragraph 5). VP says that if human souls go back to God, animals do too. The Bible says that soul life goes back to God who gave it, but that animals' souls go down to the earth. I say, Actual Error. What say ye, O Rafael, Keeper of the Thread? Peace Out Homies! :D--> JerryB

Uh.....yeah. But yes, you get the general idea. This is the same type of doctrinal conflict one runs into when comparing the PFAL teaching on the origin and fate of soul life. At one point, he says that soul life is passed on via the male sperm cells. Yet when he was explaining where the soul goes, he invoked the "law" that everything must return to its original source. (We know it's a law because DOCTOR said so). He claimed that because of this law, the body goes back to dust, the little-h-little-s holy spirit goes back to God who gave it, but the soul life...just goes away into thin air. You breathe your last breath and it's gone. But what about the LAW?? Why doesn't it go back to Daddy who gave it? If everything must go back to God why didn't Herr DOCTOR teach that the soul life goes back to your Daddy's sperm cell? Or at least the origninal dwelling place thereof? :-) Probably because that would be a blatantly absurd notion not even wild-eyed hippies would accept. So his doctrine on the mortality of the soul contradicts his statement that everything must go back to its source. In other words, Where a=7 and b=10, a+b does not equal 17. Either a does not equal 7; [soul life does not come from a sperm cell, but from God or some other source] or b does not equal 10; [soul life doesn't evaporate into thin air, but rather goes back to God who gave it]. Or the whole thing is a mystery and will never make sense, no matter how you wrestle it. Gotta go pick up the kids! Peace JerryB

I don't know if this will qualify in the final analysis as an Actual Error, but I think we have a clear example of 2+2=5 in the teachings from Jesus Christ is Not God and the "Christ in You" teaching from PFAL. As part of his opposition to the Trinity, VP taught that since Jesus was a man when he was in his earthly ministry and Hebrews 13:8 says he is " Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. " Way dogma held that since Jesus was born a man Hebrews 13:8 means he could in no wise become God. Not even if you put him in Calvin's transmogrifier. But in PFAL, Dr. said (several times) "It's Christ in you, Christ in you, Christ in you" and added that wherever you are, Christ is. This was presented in more detail in the Advanced Class as Christ being the literal inner man; Christ's eyes behind your eyes, his ears behind yours, etc. So here's the problem. If Jesus Christ is a man and has to remain so, how can he be inside all of us at the same time. If VP was right in the Advanced Class, doesn't that mean Jesus Christ the man became Jesus Christ the spirit? 2+2=5 JerryB

Very well said, Mr. Olmeda. JerryB

Datway, could you please edit your post? I think your string of z's has pushed the frame of the thread to about 500% of the width of my browser. Thanks dude. Btw, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment. Mike's response isn't worth reading. Hey Mike, we're still waiting to hear you address ONE AE, let alone 32. How bout it? JerryB

Mike Like Rafael, I have presented thorough and direct arguments against your ABSURD notion that PFAL is "God breathed." You continue to ignore those arguments for a variety of lame reasons and yet have the gall to present yourself as some kind of apostle or guru, inviting people to experience some great blessing from recommitting themselves to a doctrine that has been proven time and again to be fallacious. You sir are in need of therapy. JerryB

Mike, I've got bad news for you. This isn't a Ubiquitously Hidden Teaching. It's nothing more than VP's style of delivery. I think you mentioned that your first impression was that Vic was just being flashy. As LarryP has kindly revealed, you got it right the first time. I heard this from a Corps grad years ago. VP told them that whenever they assigned a title to a teaching, it should include elements of human dan divine or physical and spiritual. It wasn't some deep spiritual message preserved for later generations. It was just his way of coming up with a catchy title. Call it showmanship, call it literary style. But don't call it "important". Peace JerryB Let me just say that I'

I called my Dad. He's going to check the verse and get back with me. :-)

If Ferbies' definition of a relative pronoun is correct, then the use of "whomsoever" in John 13:20 doesn't fit because it doesn't refer to an antecedent noun in the sentence or context. I'm checking with my Dad on this. He's a professor of English Lit and a Pulitzer nominee. (Not that I'm bragging or anything :)-->) Yeppirs! JerryB

Let's take another look at the Eternal life quote, shall we? Before we do though, I'd like to say one thing. I think this is one of the biggest paradoxes of the class material. One would think that the Scritpures regarding salvation are so simple, so clear that this would be one of the easiest subjects to study. Quite the contrary. In the original PFAL Review project we got bogged down discussing the meaning of the terms "new birth" and incorruptible seed before I took my 'leave of absence'. Both of the related threads here, Steve Lortz' "Even Deeper Doo-doo" thread and this'n here, have gotten bogged down in seemingly endless discussions and debates relating to aspects of salvation. This is quite a surprising and interesting development. One would think we all agree on what it means to be saved, how one receives eternal life and what it is, but it seems the more we discuss it, the farther apart we go. I think part of the reason for this is we are under the misconception that the Scriptures present a clear and unequivocal doctrine on salvation. In fact, VP said something to that effect in the class. The way is so plain that even a fool couldn't err therein.(or something like that) Yet when you look long and hard at what the Bible actually says about eternal life, you will find that it is far from plain. In fact, the phrase itself is not clearly defined in Scripture. Only by associating it with related terms like "salvation" "Kingdom of Heaven" can we begin to get a specific idea of exactly what eternal life is. And it is my considered opinion, as real scholars are fond of saying, after having studied these terms and doctrines for the last 6 months or so, that the Bible does not present a harmonious truth about what eternal life is, and how it is received. Try as I might, I cannot reconcile all the verses about eternal life with each other no matter how I look at it. The closest I can come to a unilateral teaching is by throwing out at least two major books of Scripture. I haven't decided to propose such a radical approach. I'm just stating how serious these contradictions are and how challenging the solution is. I wish I could say I'd toiled long and prayed fervently and God had shown me the answer, but alas that ain't the case; at least not yet. Wasn't I supposed to be posting something from PFAL somewhere in here? Oh yeah, the eternal life question. VP says eternal life wasn't available before Pentecost and Rafael proposed the possibility that his use of the phrase in that statement is a figure of speech. Well, as you may have already surmised, I don't think an answer to the underlying question is going to be that simple. But I do think Mr. Olmeda has a valid point about how VP used it here. The context here is not eternal life in general, but the "new birth" specifically (sorry Steve). His main point is that no one could have been born again before Pentecost. The use of the term "eternal life" in the last sentence seems almost an afterthought. The phrase "without eternal life" is used as a synonym for not born again. Wierwille was equating eternal life with being born again. From what we've seen from the Gospels, I'd say on the surface that this is an actual error. But, I think what he did here was use the phrease "eternal life" as a synonym for "holy spirit". What he meant literaly is, Everyone until that time was just body and soul, without holy spirit. So, I think that, if we're going to excuse this as an interpretational erro based on a figurative usage of "eternal life" we have to decide if the literal meaning is an actual error or not. In other words, is it true that before Penetecost, everyone was just body and soul. The simple answer is NO. John the Baptist was born with holy spirit upon him. Jesus received the spirit without measure and he put holy spirit upon the Apostles. Likewise every prophet in the time between Abraham and Christ had holy spirit upon them. But if we further excuse VP's use of the phrase "just body and soul" and read into it his distinction between conditional holy spirit upon people and unconditional holy spirit in people, we are back to the land of figures of speech and interpretational error. (ain't this fun? :-)) I think it all comes down to how much leeway we're going to afford VP in deciding how well he expressed what we think he believed. Thanks for "listening" JerryB

Actually, VP's statement about a relative pronoun referring to its nearest antecedent noun was in the context of verse 8, not verse 11. From Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, page 172 So, the point is moot. The pronoun, antecedent rule has nothing to do with VP's interpretation of verse 11. Peace JerryB

Okay, several comments to make here. Sorry, no time for complete sentences. Ferbie: Howdy! Welcome to the discussion. Your a-n-t-e-c-e-d-e-n-t P.S. was a hoot! Rafael: I'm going to follow your invitation and get the quote from RHST.At this point, I think it's an error of interpretation, but I may change my li'l ole mind after more specific investigation. And regarding Error #1, I disagree. Wierwille explicitly states in PFAL that David was not a man after God's own heart until after the correction of Nathan was received. The pertinent passage from pages 87 & 88 reads as follows: Seems to me the context clearly indicates that VP was saying that David was not called a man after God's own heart in the chronology of the Scriptures until after this incident. Peace JerryB PS. I still haven't had time to reconsider the figure of speech involved in VP's statement about eternal life, but I'll try to give it some time tonight.

Hey Raf, I think you've got a point. He summarized II Tim 3:16 at the beginning of the paragraph. Okay, let's strike that one. I'll have to give the metonymy question some thought after my thinker gets some sleep. Peace JerryB

Zix & WW Maybe where we're not connecting is on our understanding of the term "eternal life". I am equating Jesus' many public statements about how to receive eternal life with his emphatic promise to the robber that he would surely be with him in Paradise. In my mind, that means the man received the promise of eternal life. The fact that he hasn't received the fulfilment yet doesn't make him any different from any post-Pentecost believer who has died and is awaiting the Return. Those believers will get the fulfilment of the promise earlier, but in the end, both them and the repentant robber will be in the same place with the same Lord. So, to use your analogy, neither the repentant robber nor Ananias and Sapphira have been paid yet. So what's the difference? Peace JerryB

Zix, even if you agree with VP on the punctuation, you have to deal with the fact that that man died with a promise from Jesus that he would be with him in Paradise. The man died knowing that he would be with Christ in the new heaven and new earth. Just as thousands of born-again Christians have died with the same hope. So how do you figure that what he received is not eternal life? JerryB [This message was edited by Jbarrax on March 18, 2003 at 18:19.]

Zix,I'm not following you. How does predestination figure in the verses in Luke 23:43 or Matthew 19:16&17?

WW, I think you're missing the point. Read the Gospels with the understanding that they are historical documents. They record what Jesus Christ spoke to Israel. Read what he told them and put yourself in the shoes of those to whom he spoke. He didn't say, "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood might one day have eternal life" (Of course since Jesus spoke Aramaic, he didn't actually say "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath have eternal life". But you get the point) Jesus Christ told those people eternal life was something they could receive, not hope for. Whether they received it by works, as Matthew, Mark, and Luke record, or by faith, as John wrote, they could still receive it in their lifetime. Jesus preached that those who followed him could have eternal life right then. He told the robber just before he died on the cross that he would be with him in Paradise. How could that man inherit something that wouldn't be available until after Pentecost when he didn't live to see it? Wierwille wrote, You see, if we accept VP's statement in PFAL as true, we have to assume that the man on the cross did not and will not receive eternal life despite the fact that Jesus told him in no uncertain terms that he would be with him in paradise. The only way to accept both Dr. Wierwille's statement and Jesus' promise as true is to say that someone can be with Jesus in paradise yet not have eternal life. Personally, I think that's a very shaky position to take. Peace JerryB

Wordwolf. What is "eternal life per se"? If eternal life could be received, whether by the law or by faith, it's still eternal life. Jesus told his apostles they would receive not only eternal life but special rewards. This was before his crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and the day of Pentecost. Please read Matthew 19:27-29. So again it seems to me that, to paraphrase VP, if it's available, it's available. Wierwille wrote in PFAL chapter nineteen that the new birth wasn't available and therefore, all those who lived before Penetecost didn't have eternal life, thereby equating eternal life with being born again. This is an erroneous teaching because eternal life was available before the "new birth", before the day of Pentecost. And before you write it off based on the conditions by which it was received, you should note that not every reference in the Gospels says it was "conditional" or received only by the law. Most of the reference to eternal life in the gospel of John say the opposite. You get the point. The majority of the verses in the Gospels that mention eternal or everlasting life (aionios zoe) are in John. And most of these indicate that it was something Jesus gave to those who believed on him. The conflict between this and the works based standard set in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is a matter for another discussion perhaps, but what is abundantly clear to me is the fact that Jesus spoke of everlasting life as a present reality during his ministry, not something available only in the future. Therefore, Dr. Wierwille's statement is a contradiction of the Scriptures. Peace JerryB

Oh. :)--> So whaddayasay Mr. Olmeda, AE or IE? JB

???? I don't see how receiving eternal life by the works of the law agrees with what VP said. He said that before Pentecost, eternal life was not available; that everyone who lived before then, was just body and soul, "without eternal life". If eternal life was available by works, it was still available, which Wierwille denied. I don't see your point Zixar. JerryB

In my mind,it's a contradiction of the material in the class. On the video class he refers to a chart saying "ALL Scripure Interprets Itself" wiht the word "All" underlined. And he makes reference to the underline in order to further emphasize his point that ALL Scripture interprets itself. However, since he hedged later wiht the clause about there being no interpretation possible, I'll withdraw it. This is another one I got from the video class, in which the statement is more dogmatic. But to be fair, we are talking primarily about the written material here and VP should be given credit for moderating what was committed to press. Withdrawn sir. Sorry, I meant to do that last night, but I worked about 13 hours and had to do answer e-mail and make some phone calls when I got home, so I forgot to follow up on it. Here's the quote from PFAL, page 289; right at the beginning of Chapter 19. So according to VP, eveyone who lived before Pentecost was without eternal life. Matthew 19:16-29 contradict that. It's a rather long passage and we've all cited and read it before, so this is the truncated version. I think that's a fairly clear case of VP Vs. JC. What say ye? Peace JerryB

Just remembered another one. In the beginning of the section on the New Birth, VP states that before Pentecost, eternal life wasn't available. This is a direct contradiction of the famous Kingdom of God verses in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I'm at work, so I can't pull up the references at the moment. I'll post em in detail in a few hours unless someone beats me to it. Peace JerryB

Here's another error in PFAL, overlooked form session one. Again, I'll leave it to Rafael to decide whether this is an Actual Error or one of interpretation. I think it's a clear case of "fudging the data". One of the many instances in which VP read things into the Scripture, a cardinal sin in his eyes, in order to manufacture Biblical support for his teachings. In session one, after presenting the five keys for receiving anything from God, he said that each record in the Bible where someone received deliverance, all of these five keys are present. That's quite an extreme statement. The statement in the PFAL book is more moderate. On page 20, we read the following. Then he presents the story from Mark chapter three about the man with the withered hand. Where in this passage is there ANY indication that this man knew that God's ability is equal to his willingness? Are we to assume that just because Dr. Wierwille says so? Nor does this passage mention anything about the man's need and want being parallel. The man didn't even approach Jesus, as many others did, and ask for healing. He was simply present in the synagogue and Jesus told him to "stand forth". There is not one word form this man in the Scriptural record, so we have no indication of what his desires ,attitudes and beliefs were. This is a very poor example of VP's theory, but a good example of how much he stretched Scriptural evidence to make his teachings fit. I wonder why he chose this particular example when there are others in which, at least the person delivered spoke and expressed a desire for healing or a belief that Jesus could deliver them. Perhaps he was more interested in presenting the conflict between Jesus and the Church leadsers than he was in documenting the keys for deliverance. But that's a topic for another thread. JerryB

You're welcome Outin88! I'm working on a topical index so specific issues will be easier to find. I hope to have it done by the weekend. It's turning out to be a somewhat valuable resource as there's a PFAL class being run here by an offshoot fellowship of staunch Wierwillite Corps grads and one of the newer fellowship members has come to me with her questions. We're going to get together this weekend with her Corps fiancee to discuss it in more depth. won't THAT be fun!:)--> And I agree, the similarity to some of the posters there with current GS Wierwillites is interesting. Kind of funny, but also sad. Back to the topic at hand....Speaking of some of those "old, odd" things that Alfakat mentioned, I remember being told that VP suggested to the married men in the Corps that they buy and read Penthouse magazine to help marriages. Can you imagine any other Christian leader suggesting that their married seminary students introduce porn into their marriages? I wonder if VP ever sent a letter to the Penthouse Forum? ;)--> Peace JerryB

To Seaspray: Why not come back to Power For Abundant Living? Because it's full of errors that's why. VP didn't follow the keys he taught. If you take a closer look at it, this will become apparent. And since PFAL claims to be the key to an accurate, systematic understanding of God's Word these systemic problems make it a complete sham. Is there some great truth in Power For Abundant living? Yes there is. Is it the revelation of keys to the understanding of God's Word VP said it was? Not on your life. For more information, please visit the Actual Errors in PFAL thread or the PFAL REVIEWwebsite, which is my current homepage. But be warned. There's probably more wrong doctrine, illogic and nonsense in that class than you can possibly imagine. You may not like what you read. Peace JerryB