TLC

Walter and you... (enough already.) You sat at a table with him how many times? Name drop all you want. Given the Pauline epistles are never found in any other order, it's a rather common belief that Paul probably set them in order after requesting that Timothy bring them with him to Rome. Quite frankly, how some of the others are organized just isn't as important or relevant to whether or not they were ultimately included. Maybe you'll remember even better if (or after) I have time to pull 'em out and listen to them again.

Worth repeating, as it's still true. But just for the record, I have heard him (from his own lips, in person) speak quite plainly on the matter as to what he believed Paul did NOT do when writing them. As proud a man as vpw was, and as much as he might of viewed himself as an apostle, I don't believe he ever put himself in the position of "writing scripture." Well, there's a few things about J. Fred that would probably surprise you. Not only did I probably hear it taught live, I also have those U of L tapes, and (years ago) listened to them (more than once.) Never did I hear what you now claim are there. Something like that just doesn't fit with anything I've ever thought, and it would undoubtedly have jumped out at me and slapped me in the face had anything like that been said. So, I'm calling your bluff. The Canonizing of Scripture (which I'm not that ignorant of) is an entirely different matter than scripture itself. If indeed you spent 11 years on said topic, you surely ought to know that. But, as noted below ...you evidently have a thesis to prove. Which probably pretty much explains why nothing whatsoever is going to derail you. You have a mission. (Mission Impossible, move over.) Funny (almost... but not really) how when a man gets a notion so stuck in his head he easily molds things to it, yet remains oblivious to the fact that he's changed anything.

I disagree. But take it for what it's title says it is. It's a book about how to live life more abundantly. (Which might not absolutely or necessarily be, more Godly.)

Where in the world did you ever get the idea in your head that vpw was ever "selected to get the Word into writing"? Certainly not from vpw himself (as that little quip would have made its way to surface many, many long years ago...) And yeah, neither am I unaware aware of what CG said some time after the POP paper about putting things into book form. Good grief. Why would you think that ANY of his writings were "God-breathed" when he himself didn't think (much less believe) that? Or perhaps you never listened to (or weren't around to hear) him expound on how the scriptures were originally written by revelation. Evidently you've not seen (or heard about) a preliminary draft for one of his books (or pamphlets.) Are you aware they were others that proofed and "edited" his work? Think Karen Mart1n (or anyone else) would dare to change even one word if it were "God-breathed?" Furthermore, whatever fellowship you attended that taught you that you must find out everything you can by the 5-senses, and THEN seek and expect revelation... probably never received any (or they might have had a little better understanding of how it really works.)

Perhaps it's a bit of a philosophical issue (and worth making some distinction between truth and what is true,) but however they're ultimately defined, I think truth directly reveals the pertinent facts, while facts do not always (or necessarily) signify, relate to, lead to, or directly reveal the real truth.

Personally, I don't see it as doubletalk. Rather, it's a matter of trying to make a distinction between information received naturally, and that which is received spiritually. Which, from our "senses conditioned mind" tend to look and feel the same.

With so much dissecting and parsing of words resulting from this sort of interpretation of 2Timothy 2:15, you'd think that someone in twi would have done a little better job of looking at that verse in light of Paul's ministry (i.d., gospel), and consider what all that verse might really have meant to communicate. Perhaps it would help to refer back to Phil. 1:9-10 (but do check out the meaning of the word "excellent" there... it's not what you might think.)

It's rather hard for me to think that anyone would place anything (or any portion of anything) written in these modern times (by anyone) on par with scripture. I suppose that may have something to do with my own deep rooted beliefs about scripture before ever hearing or seeing anything about vpw. What the above quote does do, however, is carve out a nifty place for vpw alongside of Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, and/or Roberts. Evidently we never knew each other while with TWI.

The unanswered questions I had for you start on page 4, then jump to page 6. (I'm not sure how to link to a specific post.)

(clipped from Mike's post) Aside from any and all consideration of plagiarism, and any and all failures in his own life... IF the revelation that he received was genuine, then why did the way in which it was/is all "put together" not end up being correct, Mike? It took me years, literally, to arrive at the perspective that I have now on it... years which were long after the over 30+ years of thinking of it in a way that, while nowhere near the extreme as yours appear to be, might not have started as far removed from certain of the points you are evidently content to be stuck on. Where would you care to start unraveling it? (I responded to the earlier questions you posed, but they seem to have been lost in the shuffle here.) How about the title itself. Power For Abundant Living. No problem, actually, if we take it as a book on how to live life more abundantly. However, I'm actually no longer of the persuasion that those words were ever written to us, nor intended for anyone outside the nation of Israel (at that time.) And, there is very good, sound scriptural evidence to back me up on that, should you ever care to hear it. (Probably best suited for a doctrinal forum, however.)

I question what you think or intend to communicate with your use of "in the light of New Testament revelation." Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining that for me.

it's festschrift. (figured someone should correct it after the second misspelling...)

Yeah, well... we obviously see and speak on things differently, so please accept my apologies. I think I'll just bow out of the conversation and move on.

Hey, Mike. Given the importance you felt in asking... where are you now?

Didn't think that would be hard to figure out. If truth can be found and separated from whatever else is written, then whatever is written might be thought useful or profitable. How many other ways can the something like that be said? Neither did I think that so difficult to be understood. My concern with giving any narrow example of it is that it might somehow limit or minimize the scope of its relevance or actual effect. Maybe I think it necessary to pray before eating, Maybe you don't. Maybe you think the essence of rightly dividing the word of truth necessitates knowing Greek and studying the etymology of each and every word in the verse. Maybe I think the essence of it necessitates knowing to whom it is written, In short, how or why any scripture is applicable (or is not applicable) to situations in life needs to be considered in light of when it is meant to apply, and not just in light of what is found written in the words of the verse.

It is (and he does) according to VPW, That's why he stopped writing his sermon down.

Wasn't an accident. 100mph straight into a tree. But you probably knew that already...

The answer to your first question is, NO. To your second question, YES, but I doubt it would make much difference. Your other questions imply that God must not know what He's doing. But, as revealed by Isaiah, man's thoughts are not God's thoughts, and His ways are not man's ways. Consider this, if you can, Mike. When God called out Abraham, and separated Israel from all the other nations of the world... giving them all the advantages that could possibly be given them (blessing those that bless them, cursing those that curse them, etc.), showing them signs, miracles, and wonders (more than can be recounted)... what did they lack? In a word, nothing. They had it all. Yet, with all that they had (probably more advantages than we can even imagine), they still failed to recognize and accept their Messiah (which God had explicitly promised would come.) So, what was the point of God's separating them and giving them every advantage, above all the nations of the earth? Well, to prove that they were no different. Man, by his five sense, just does not (nor can he ever) really know God, no matter what material knowledge or "tools" (however you want to think of it) he has or is given. Matter of fact, they had the God-breathed documents in the first century. What do you honestly think it did or accomplish for them? Peter (and the other 12 apostles) had a hard time understanding some of the things Paul wrote, even in their "perfect" format. Do you really think it would be any different today?

Like it hasn't been known since the first century, right? Yeah, I too was adjoined to that line for way too long. Does a remarkably fine job of inflating (and maintaining) gigantic egos. But consider this, if you can. Given your obvious infatuation with what VPW said or taught, do you not also recall him saying that (to paraphrase), As the time for the fulfillment of prophecy draws near, a better understanding of it begins to unfold? However, if true, then isn't it reasonable (and logical) to think and say that since we are closer now then ever before, shouldn't (and wouldn't) there be (or is) better or greater understanding now than there was 60, 50, or 40, or even 30 years ago? Even if it there was (at that time) some truth in what you have evidently glued yourself to, why stick with it, when different (better) is available now? We all start to learn about God and Christ by our five senses. If, as was supposed back then, that the purpose of having or "knowing" the Word of God was to teach people to walk by the spirit... at what point do you actually learn to walk by the spirit (i.e., believe the Living truth)?

Yes, a rather stupid question. Perhaps you should spend some time learning/thinking about what Paul meant by being "changed" in 1Cor. 15:51-52. If we (who are Christ's) are changed, then there won't be any question about whether or not you will know you are changed. So, you do or don't believe that Jesus Christ is God? And if not God, why suppose that he (Jesus) would need to teach us anything if we (then) know God on a face to face basis?

I disagree. In a nutshell, it was the inherent result of a clash of enormous egos (from all involved.)

I think 70 AD is a somewhat common belief for most Preterists (at least, any that I've had any sort of discussion with.)

Whatever belief "the brain trust of the ministry" (what the three called themselves) had evidently wasn't well known or widely circulated, probably because it resulted in their being shown the door when it surfaced quite early in their first year in residence in Emporia. So early, in fact, that something of it must have been brewing when he was at HQ as part of his in-resident training. But it never came up in any conversation we had, so I don't know what it was.

So, there's a Preterist espoused to amillennialism on board here, eh? Probably akin to the same sort of things that tripped up Fanning and his other two 8th corpse buddies.

Well, if it matters to you, I was pretty well aware of them before ever hearing of TWI (or, as it was called back then, The Way.) Can't say that I agree with that, as I'm not convinced they were ever in complete agreement on some number of things. I presume you'll eventually given chapter and verse (and a better explanation) along with that. Probably not, as this is in the doctrinal section.