Mark Clarke

Thanks! You just reminded me of another of VP's patently false one-liners.

You're on the right track, in arguing against eternal punishment in everlasting flames. But I think the Scriptures are even more specific. They tell us that the wicked will be destroyed, not live forever without God. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life..." Man does not have an immortal soul, and must be given the gift of eternal life in order to live forever. Those who reject Jesus Christ are not given that gift, and will die in the second death, and be forever destroyed. I wrote about this in detail on my website. You're on the right track, in arguing against eternal punishment in everlasting flames. But I think the Scriptures are even more specific. They tell us that the wicked will be destroyed, not live forever without God. "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life..." Man does not have an immortal soul, and must be given the gift of eternal life in order to live forever. Those who reject Jesus Christ are not given that gift, and will die in the second death, and be forever destroyed. I wrote about this in detail on my website. However, I agree that idea of eternal torture is barbaric and could certainly not be the will of a loving God.

I wrote above: The same goes for the rest of the Bible. The Gospel of Matthew is the only book of the Bible that uses the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven." And since the parallel records in the other Gospels substitute the phrase "Kingdom of God" they are obviously interchangeable.

Also this one: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...=17920&st=0

Mike, if you're reading this, I am actually curious as to how you explain these simple points. We agree to disagree on methodology, since I see no reason to start with the assumption that VPW's writings are God-breathed in the same way that you do. And I understand you not wanting to get into lengthy examinations of deeper doctrinal issues. However, while there may be varying opinions about a lot of the doctrines in PFAL, the points I referred to involve demonstrable facts: 'Throughly' is an archaic form of 'thoroughly'. VP's definitions of lambano vs. dechomai are wrong according to virtually all Greek lexicons. There are OT refs to 'spirit IN', and NT refs to 'spirit UPON', in contradiction to VP's distinction of those terms. I am wondering how you, in your quest for a single rule of faith and practice, dealt with these obvious errors (or you might call them 'apparent contradictions') in VP's God-breathed writings.

Mike, if you're reading this, I am actually curious as to how you explain this. We agree to disagree on methodology, since I see no reason to start with the assumption that VPW's writings are God-breathed in the same way that you do. However, I am wondering how you, in your quest for a single rule of faith and practice, dealt with the fact that such an obvious contradiction is in VP's God-breathed writings. (Or how you handle this 'apparent contradiction' if you prefer.) There may be varying opinions about the kingdom of God, but it is a demonstrable fact that "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are used interchangeably in the Gospels, in direct contradiction to VP's definitions.

Didn't they fix that one in later editions of JCNG?

Garth, Thanks! Now I understand the reference to Smikeol I've seen in a couple of other posts! I realize it's an endless journey. As I said somewhere else, I don't expect Mike to change his mind. I see it as an exercise for me to apply logic to the twisted ideas that I held for so many years, even if he doesn't see it. And anybody else that might read this and has wondered about things may benefit as well. Besides, the Doctrinal Forum has been too quiet lately.

I agree - it's good to look at other views and see what's out there. This gives you a fighting chance, as opposed to thinking there is only one way to understand something. As for your specific topics: - the dead are dead until the future - Actually, this is not as blatant an error as you might think. Scriptural evidence aside, many others besides VPW hold and have held this belief, even back to early Church Fathers. - the book of revelation is not for us - I agree with you here. The mess that is Dispensationalism fragments the Bible and separates Jesus from his words. Although, it's not quite as easy to see the errors of it as some of the things I mentioned. - claiming interpretative authority over an ancient jewish book - It's precisely because most people don't recognize that is a Jewish book that it is so misunderstood! - avoiding the vast majority of the entire 2 millenia record of christian experience, doctrine and practice involving the same book - I agree with you here too. The history of the Christian church, and specifically the development of various doctrines, helps you to see where various ideas originated. Again, sadly, it's not as easy to see, because most people don't know much about history.

I didn't expect any particular answer. I was really curious how you would respond. Why? It seems like a valid question. That's why I posted a specific example. We can continue that line of thinking in the Doctrinal Forum if you want. Threads have been started.

For clarification: The definitions VP gave 'throughly' and 'thoroughly' are incorrect. 'Throughly' is simply an archaic form of 'thoroughly' and means the same thing. It does not mean an 'inside job'. From Merriam Webster dictionary: Main Entry: through·ly Pronunciation: \ˈthrü-lē\ Function: adverb Date: 15th century archaic : in a thorough manner *** The definitions he gave for lambano and dechomai are not found in ANY Greek lexicon. It was said that dechomai meant to receive subjectively, while lambano meant to receive to the end of manifesting. However, after checking several Bible dictionaries and lexicons, I find that there is no basis for making such a distinction between these two words. Not even Bullinger makes this distinction in his lexicon. Dechomai is defined as receiving passively that which is offered, while lambano is a more forceful receiving, rather like “taking to oneself.” Even with that, there is nothing on which to base the notion that one form of receiving becomes the other when manifesting comes into play. *** VP taught that Old Testament believers only had the holy spirit "upon" them, while believers after Pentecost had holy spirit "in" them. But this does not hold true upon closer examination. Joseph was called "a man in whom the spirit of God is" in Genesis 41:38, and Joshua was called that in Numbers 27:18. God's ministers were said to be filled with God's spirit in Exodus 28:3; 31:3; and 35:31. Isaiah 63:11 reads, "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?" On the other hand, Acts 2:17 implies that the outpouring of the holy spirit on Pentecost was a partial fulfilling (or foreshadowing) of God's promise to "pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." And Peter specifically states in I Peter 4:14 that, "the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you." (There are some other things that I think are discrepancies in how the holy spirit field was handled too. If anyone is interested, they can read about it on my website.)

That's why I posted a specific example. You mean, like reading? What invalid inquiry principles am I using? Did he or did he not say that the Kingdom of God meant God's reign over all, but the Kingdom of Heaven refers to the reign of the King from Heaven. He lifted that largely from Bullinger, and doesn't seem to have checked it out. Anyone reading and comparing the Gospel records can see that the terms are synonymous.

Yet another spinoff from the Snow Job Storm thread. I wanted to respond to Mike but not derail the other thread. I didn't expect any particular answer. I was really curious how you would respond. Why? It seems like a valid question. That's why I posted a specific example. You mean, like reading? What invalid inquiry principles am I using? I didn't start off trying to find errors in PFAL. I wanted it to be right, since I had dedicated almost 30 years of my life to it. But when I saw blatant errors, I could not ignore them. Why do you continue to make these blanket assumptions about people you don't know? It's actually very condescending. I still have those books and I know what's in them. I examined them and found these errors. How much in-depth examining of them do you have to do to see these simple things that VP claimed? I got to know the whole thing. Forget unturned stones - can you explain the ones that are turned over already? There are a number of more in-depth errors that would take more time to discuss, but I'm just focusing on blatant, surface-level things. All within the framework of the overall problem - if PFAL is "God-breathed" how can there be such errors. Besides the Kingdom of God issue, which was given its own thread, I wonder how you explain some of the other obvious errors: Throughly vs. thoroughly lambano vs. dechomai holy spirit UPON vs. holy spirit IN (look it up - there are OT refs to spirit IN, and NT refs to spirit UPON). Let's just start with those for now.

Part of a post from the other thread; this relates to the One Rule question:

waysider wrote, before the Kingdom of Heaven stuff was split off to the doctrinal forum: I'm not just talking about points of doctrine that we might disagree on. I'm talking about obvious errors like the Kingdom of God / Kingdom of Heaven question, as well as other things like throughly vs. thoroughly, lambano vs. dechomai, and holy spirit UPON vs. holy spirit IN (look it up - there are OT refs to spirit IN, and NT refs to spirit UPON). We can have more detailed discussions in the doctrinal thread if you want, but the question is relevant to this thread topic because I still maintain that since nobody saw the snowstorm "phenomenon" it can't be proved or disproved, so it can't be viewed as proof that VP was specifically called of God to "fix" the problem of the Word being "hopelessly lost." The blatant errors in the teachings themselves are the proof they are not "God-breathed" - even aside from the lack of fruit in his life.

I thought I wrote about this somewhere else, but now I can't find it. Anyway, if I remember correctly, VP's take (and TWI's) was something along the lines of, you can ask God for something and He may or may not give it to you, but He will often work in your heart what to ask for. Then when you ask for what He inspired you to ask for, you're asking according to His will. Supposedly God worked in VP's heart to ask for the snow sign, just like He worked in Gideon's heart to ask for the fleece. So it wasn't "forcing God" so much as asking for what God wanted him to ask for, according to how they looked at it. As for how it affects his credibility, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that God could work that way. I still maintain that we can't prove or disprove the snow storm story, but his poor research standards and ungodly fruit invalidate his "Man of God" status.

Yeah, I gather that. I'm just hoping some kind of logic might at least show up the inconsistency, since VP never claimed his writings should take the place of the Bible. I don't really expect Mike to change his mind, but maybe someone reading these things will benefit. I was also curious to see how he would actually answer my points. I'm learning how to go from incredulity at his responses to calmly and rationally pointing out the faults in his logic. It's a good exercise for me. Thanks for the heads up.

The fact that Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven are synonymous has nothing to do with the Trinity or whether Jesus is God. I did not say Kingdom of God is the same as Kingdom of Jesus. The following is from my website: Consider the following verses: Matthew 5: 3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Luke 6: 20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. The same statement, in two different gospels, is worded two different ways. Here are two more: Matthew 18: 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Luke 18: 17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. Again, two different ways are used to say the same thing. The Gospel of Matthew is the only one that uses the phrase "kingdom of heaven." The other Gospel writers always use "kingdom of God." One is literal, the other figurative. Both refer to the same thing. Consider the preaching of John the Baptist. Matthew 3: 1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, 2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Luke 16: 16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. What John the Baptist preached is called "the kingdom of God" in Luke, and "the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew. Did John preach two different gospels? Jesus' call to repentance also uses different phrases in Matthew and Mark. Matthew 4: 17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Mark 1: 14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Did Jesus preach two different gospels? When he sent out the twelve, what were they told to preach? Matthew 10: 5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Luke 9: 1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. 2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. Again, did they preach two different gospels? It is called by different names, but only one gospel is meant. Matthew 11: 11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Luke 7: 28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. There are a number of instances in which the same thing is said, using one phrase in Matthew and another in the other gospels. Compare Matthew 13:11 with Mark 4:11 and Luke 8:10. Compare Matthew 13:31 with Mark 4:30,31 and Luke 13:18,19. Also Matthew 13:33 with Luke 13:20,21; and Matthew 19:14 with Mark 10:14 and Luke 18:16. There is even a passage in Matthew in which both "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" are used. Matthew 19: 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. But the parallel records in Mark and Luke use only "kingdom of God" in both sentences. Mark 10: 24 And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Luke 18: 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. As you can see, the phrases "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are synonymous. It is so obvious that I am amazed and somewhat ashamed that I never saw it in my many years of supposed Biblical research! So, you may ask, what did Jesus actually say--"kingdom of heaven" or "kingdom of God"? Some people might even consider it a contradiction. But the gospels do not record a verbatim word for word quotation of the words of Jesus Christ, or of anyone else for that matter. God is interested in conveying the meaning that He wants people to understand. Biblical research which focuses on minutely detailed word studies often miss the point of what's being communicated. There is no indication in any of the words of Jesus that there is a distinction between "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven". The two terms are synonymous. "Kingdom of God" is the literal term for what Jesus preached, while "kingdom of heaven" is a figurative way of saying the same thing. It is figurative because "heaven" is put for "God" who dwells there. Daniel 4: 26 And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule. The heavens do not literally rule, but refer figuratively to God who dwells there. In the parable commonly known as "the prodigal son" recorded in Luke 15, the son says that he sinned against heaven. Luke 15: 18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee. 21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. He did not literally sin against heaven, but against God. This is a common figure of speech in Hebrew culture. Things from God are frequently said to be "from heaven" or "heavenly". The kingdom of God is called a "heavenly kingdom" in II Timothy 4:18, because it is from God in heaven. "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of heaven" are two different ways of saying the same thing. It may be worth pointing out at this point that another common misunderstanding of the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" in Matthew is that of a kingdom in heaven, which is commonly thought to be the final destination of Christians. But as I pointed out, "Kingdom of Heaven" is a figurative way of saying "Kingdom of God" and does not refer to the location of the kingdom, but to its origin. We shall see that nowhere does Jesus promise a "home beyond the blue" as a disembodied soul or spirit in "heaven" but rather speaks of a perfect kingdom on earth to be established when he returns.

Mike, You keep saying, "which version?" every time I mention the Bible. VP himself said his standard is "not the King James Version, but THE Word of God which was given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit." I consider that to be my standard as well. And how did VP get to that "original" Word of God? By utilizing the keys by which the Bible interprets itself, which he taught and expected his followers to use. They are a system of checks and balances within the Scriptures themselves which enable us to know when we have the "God-breathed Word" on a given subject. Far from "tuning this out," many of us did use them, and by doing so have seen the errors in his doctrines. You have yet to deal with this; you just keep harping about "which version." You want a single printed version of THE TRUTH that is unchangeable and never varies. Guess what, that's never going to happen. You know why? Because language changes, people change, cultures change, idiomatic expressions change, and the way the same ideas are communicated in one culture at one point in history is not the same way they'd be communicated in other languages and at other points in history. Witness your difficulty with Bullinger's writing, and that wasn't even a century before PFAL. God knew that language changes, and that His truth would be communicated with different words over the centuries. In fact when the Bible itself uses the term "the Word" it is referring not to the written Scriptures, but to the message which is COMMUNICATED by the written Scriptures. That's why He made sure there were MANY MULTIPLE manuscripts which could be diligently compared, so that people could discover what the correct understanding would be, and thus learn His message. If you think that's "loosey-goosey" you obviously know nothing about how textual criticism, and languages in general, work. Wierwille NEVER made any claim that "PFAL (book and magazine form) is THE Bible and is the Word of God in written form." In contrast, Paul made the clear statement, more than once, that he was writing by direct, divine revelation. If PFAL is the "New Bible" why did VP never come out and say so? Plus, Paul offered PROOF that he was writing by revelation, because his words fit with the other Scriptures that existed before (i.e., the Old Testament), and because his life was characterized by the fruit of the spirit as well as OBSERVED miracles. He didn't base his credibility on some "sign" that nobody saw! By the way, VP kept talking about THE WORD as the overall message of God, as given by the original writers. If he is the new interpreter and communicator of that message, how did he get it so wrong? He didn't even get it right about what Jesus' primary message was, which anyone who reads the Bible (in ANY version!) can see is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. But VP didn't even get that right. Not only did he not get the overall message right, but he made HUGE glaring errors about some things that are obvious to anyone who can read. Just one, related to the overall message, and which I mentioned before, is that he claimed that the Kingdom of God meant God's reign over all, but the Kingdom of Heaven refers to the reign of the King from Heaven. If VP's writings are the new God-breathed Word, how do you explain such a glaring blunder? Anybody that can read can see that the phrases Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven are synonymous and interchangeable. How do you explain such an obvious error in the "God-breathed" writings of Wierwille? (Not to mention the many other errors in his writings.)

As I recall, from some teaching or other (don't remember if it was in the Foundational Class or not) we can pray for something like a sign, but it's still up to God whether He will grant that request. Also, it was said that God would put it on your heart to ask for such-and-such, so when you asked you'd be asking according to His will. (Example: Gideon and the fleece.) This was the logic that was used to explain VP asking/telling God to make it snow. The specifics of things like phenomena and miraculous signs are not that clearly defined in the Bible, so there is enough wiggle room for anyone, including VP, to get around it. That's why I maintain that since nobody else was there, we can never "prove" or "disprove" whether the snow thing was real. What identifies it as valid or invalid, IMO, is whether or not the "Word" that he taught is accurate, as well as the fruit in his life. (By their fruit you shall know them.)

Sorry, I don't understand the "Picasso Dora Maar au Chat" reference. Could you clarify your question?

It's people like this guy that give serious Biblical Unitarian scholars a bad name. There are quite a few who can give better, more solid answers on this subject. The interviewer countered with the same "proof texts" that Trinitarians always use, and this guy just bungled it. It's like VP's Jesus Christ is Not God. Good premise, poor presentation.

The rule "as it was defined in our past" was that the Bible is the communication of God's Word. It was something that we all endeavored to line up with; some were more successful than others at lining up. I still endeavor to line up with it. Trouble is, the ruler as viewed by VPW was warped. But he still pointed us in the general direction of the standard, even though he misused it. These days I have a better view of the standard. Far from "my latest hot research," it is a standard that is trustworthy because it's been tested and proven since long before VPW was even born. I spent several years rethinking everything I was taught in TWI, by holding it up to the standard of the Bible. I did so because I wanted to know what the truth was, as opposed to all those years I had spent "studying" the Bible to prove VPW's theology. That has made all the difference. Some of what he had taught was good, and held together when examined closely against the Scriptures. Much of it did not hold together. But the plain, simple understanding of what the Bible says, without the TWI goggles, is still the same rule that thinking Christians have used for centuries. Just because I don't claim to have all the answers does not mean I "play it loosey-goosey." The answers that I do have can be verified from the Scriptures, which have stood the test of time. VP claimed the same thing, of course, and so have other teachers. So what "standard" or "rule" do we use to determine which teacher has it right? Can we use a teacher's own words as the standard by which his words are judged? Of course not. That would be circular logic and begging the question. Obviously we have to use a higher standard to judge those teachings. And he himself claimed to be using the Scriptures as his standard. So it's simply a matter of comparing VP's teachings with what is clear from the Bible. And when that is done, he is weighed in the balances and found wanting. His OWN STANDARDS disprove many of his doctrines. To ignore that fact and hold to his words IN SPITE of that is worse than "loosey-goosey." It's like a warped iridium bar (if that were possible) still being held up as the standard meter.

Hi, Mike! :)

That's why no one version or translation is my "only rule for faith and practice." The "rule" is to allow the Bible to interpret itself, as VPW claimed to do. As I said, many of his wrong doctrines have been proven wrong using the VERY KEYS HE TAUGHT. My "rule" is that NOBODY can claim to have all the answers from God, just as no one member of the Body has completely manifested Christ in every area of their life. But the "Big Picture" which forms the context and pattern for understanding the rest of it is more solid than you think. God has given us His Word and has preserved the Scriptures in a remarkable way, compared with any other ancient writing. And more people are starting to get the "Big Picture" without relying on one Teacher to put it together for them.