Mark Clarke

Why don't cannibals like to eat Pentecostals? Because they keep throwing up their hands!

Mike, Before I address your question, let me respond to your answer to mine. You said you answered it in your citing of I John. This is what you said there: Since I John is after Pentecost, the only thing that paragraph says about what Jesus preached is love. Do you think that the whole point of Jesus' gospel is just love? I even gave you the answer in my post: In the context of that, I also asked you another question. "Where in the Bible does it say that the gospel which Jesus preached (and which he said was the reason he was sent, Luke 4:43) ended and was replaced by a different gospel?" You asked me, "what is missing (besides the mystery and easier forgiveness) in the Matt/Mk/Lk/Jn gospels that Paul's gospel has?" Before I can answer that, you need to demonstrate that Paul's gospel was different than the gospel Jesus preached. I believe they preached the same gospel, the gospel of the Kingdom of God, and the "mysteries of the Kingdom" (note the plural) are previously not understood details that were added to it, some by Jesus directly, some by Paul. But NOWHERE does it say that Jesus' gospel ended and Paul began to preach a new one.

Mike, I find it interesting that you had the time to teach this little "class" of yours but couldn't find the time to respond to my posts. BTW, they were long because they were responding to your rather lengthy one, point by point. I will only address one point from your "class" for now. (Please note that it is only one point I am addressing now; it doesn't mean I haven't read or understood the rest of what you wrote.) You said, I have posted that this “only rule” was irretrievable or catastrophically lost and VPW said that it was “buried.” I submit that those are not the same at all. If something is "buried" it can be dug up. It is not "irretrievable or catastrophically lost." That is the state I believe the Word was in, around the time of the Reformation. Once the Scriptures were available to anyone rather than only the church leaders, the availability of God's Word began to increase.

I guess it comes down to how you define what "of that wicked one" means in I John 3:12. VPW taught that it implied he was born of the devil's seed. A debatable doctrinal issue, for sure. But whether this is one of those "errors of demonstrable fact" like the genealogy errors or throughly/thoroughly, dechomai/lambano, holy spirit in/upon, could be debated, especially by those who believe PFAL has no errors.

Yes we were taught it in PFAL, but can you back it up with Scripture? Where in the Bible does it say that the gospel which Jesus preached (and which he said was the reason he was sent, Luke 4:43) ended and was replaced by a different Gospel? The Gospel of the Kingdom was preached by Jesus, the apostles, and all the disciples throughout Acts, including Paul. (Matthew 3:1,2; 10:7; Luke 10:1,9; Acts 1:1-3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:30,31). What Paul called "the Gospel of the grace of God" in Acts 20:24, he identifies in the next verse as "the kingdom of God" and in verse 27 as "all the counsel of God." You used the old "for our learning" argument. This is another PFAL error. The verse that was supposed to prove that the OT wasn't "addressed to us" was Romans 15:4. The problem is, it doesn't say it was written "for our learning ONLY" nor does it say it was not "addressed to us." The Greek word for "learning" is the same one translated "doctrine" elsewhere. If "the gospel that Jesus preached was addressed to Israel and it was completed" then his words would be less important to the Church today than those of Paul. Yet he said that the holy spirit would bring to their remembrance "whatsoever I have said unto you." The New Testament tells us that it is the words of Jesus Christ, as much as his deeds, which are to be the focus of Christianity. (Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 3:34; 6:63; 12:47-48; 14:23; 15:7; I Timothy 6:3-4). This is the great tragedy of Dispensationalism, in fact. It separates Jesus from his words. BTW, you responded to my rhetorical question, "shouldn't we preach a message that sounds like the one he preached?" But you didn't answer the simple question I asked you: What would you say is the crux of the Gospel Message that Jesus preached?

Mike, to be like him, shouldn't we preach a message that sounds like the one he preached? Simple question: What would you say is the crux of the Gospel Message that Jesus preached?

Was it perhaps the Colbert Report? That's the only show I see mentioned on my favorite website for talk about Paul and the Beatles, Macca Central. I love Paul, as well as John, George, and Ringo, both together and separately.

Thanks. They're on page 34, if anybody wants to look at them. I found Where VP says, "When Israel disobeyed and married Cain's progeny, they brought disaster to themselves." (Vol. III, pg. 77). And yes, Cain's descendants were wiped out in the flood. I also found where he says, "Ahab, Jeroboam's son..." (Vol. III, pg.113), as well as calling Jeroboam Ahab's father on pg. 114. And indeed, Jeroboam was Omri's son, not Jeroboam. What pages are these claims on? I didn't see them on the pages where the above ones were. Was he possibly referring to the fact that the kings of the northern kingdom, Israel, succeeded each other on the throne? This doesn't mean they were of the "line" of Jeroboam, of course. They are also said to have followed the "ways" of Jeroboam, which still isn't the same thing. Where is the reference to Cain and the Canaanites? (Wasn't that a 50's vocal group?) Also, do you have any idea if these things were corrected in later editions or anything?

Part 2: The only "refuting" of Steve was in this post: Other than that you thanked Todd for agreeing with you. But you did not refute Steve's claim; you just said he's wrong. To refute means "to prove wrong by argument or evidence." If he got it wrong, then correct the error. Define your methods with specific examples. Have you in fact used the term "advanced Christ formed within" and if so, can you define what you mean by that, and how it is different from the mind of Christ in Galatians? Then what is it that enables you to completely deny the plain factual errors in the supposedly God-breathed PFAL? You're STILL dodging the issue. It IS relevant to this thread because, for ANYTHING to be accepted as God-breathed and therefore worthy of being the only rule of faith and practice, it has to be at the very least shown to be without glaring errors and contradictions. Somehow I knew you would do that. Why can you not give a straight answer to a direct question? Yes. And I can tell you how I dealt with apparent contradictions in the Bible. Can you do the same for PFAL? You only "addressed" it by saying you have dealt with some and didn't remember how, and some you dealt with but refuse to discuss, and some you still haven't dealt with. Again, why can't you just give a straight answer? You are starting to sound like a child, retorting, "Oh yeah? Well what about YOU?!!" And I keep reminding you that you have NOT given straight answers to the direct questions being asked you. Get it? If you feel you have, please post a reference or a quote to what you think was your answer. I am not assuming you don't know. I have been ASKING, and you have been NOT ANSWERING. You give round about obfuscations that dodge direct questions. If you reread my posts, I dealt with your earlier ones line by line, as I'm doing now. But the more you kept avoiding the questions and accusing me of starting from a preconceived negative viewpoint, I started to find that there was less and less to say in response. That doesn't mean I didn't read or understand what you wrote - there was just less to say in response. I'm not assuming. You have clearly demonstrated that your understanding of those subjects is limited to Wierwille's version of it, which was as full of errors as the rest of his doctrines (a view I came to by examining them, BTW, not by assuming). You seem to miss a lot of what I write too. I think it's because we were never on the same page. That's why I've been asking you to explain how you GOT on that page, but you keep dodging the questions.

This thing is telling me I can only have so many block quotes in a post, so I'm dividing it in two. Part 1: I guess we just disagree on what "the written Word" is. What it actually says is: I Peter 1: 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The "Word of prophecy" is the message which is revealed in "the Scripture" (v. 20). Later in 3:15, it mentions how "our brother Paul has written" these things. But it doesn't call it "the Word" there either. And I notice you jumped to contradict that one statement, and never addressed the main point of that paragraph in my post, which was: In the Bible, the term "the Word" refers to the whole message, the communication of God's mind and plan, and ultimately the embodiment of God's Word, His Son Jesus Christ. All of that is included when I say that my rule for faith and practice is God's Word. That is the only standard that is perfect. Fair enough. But the partial answers you have given reflect Wierwille's faulty history of texts and textual criticism. I did not testify to "more significant other parts of the loss due to language and culture change." The language and culture changes are why the exact words in printed form cannot be a permanent, never changing standard. But they do not mean that the information is lost. It is still there and can be understood in light of the language and culture. Even Wierwille said that. There is no "loss of the original intent." I didn't miss it. I pointed out that you were incorrect, and I stand by that. The change from early fragments to later fragments is only one part of textual criticism. It also has to do with comparing the vast number of MSS and weighing the evidence. It also has to do with other ways of determining what the most likely reading would be, including keys very much like VPW's keys in PFAL. For example, if two MSS have variant readings, but one fits better with other clear, uncontested verses on the same subject, then the one that fits is the more correct reading. You even admit that there is little change from the 4th to the 8th centuries. You're right - NO ONE knows about the changes that occurred from the 1st century to the 4th. So if we have no evidence of change before, and evidence of little change later, why are you so convinced that there were such catastrophic changes? In addition, the quotes of the Scriptures in the early church writers, which were in fact earlier than the 4th century, also attest to the fact that there was no "catastrophic change" in the MSS prior to the 4th century. And again, not everyone forsook Paul. First of all, do you actually know what "criticize" means? I mentioned before that it seemed like you didn't, and I'm wondering even more. Second, Stephens and others compared readings because there were variances, but the part of your quote I said was false was that they were at "extreme variance," to the point that they were unrecoverable, as well as the claim that they were only "fragmentary mis-copies of mis-copies of copies." You seem to agree then, that "not too many crucial doctrines were involved in these disagreements" (although you say "a few were"). Then exactly what do you mean when you say the Word was "irretrievably lost"? While the transmission of NT documents may not have had the same standards as the OT, I would hardly call them "sloppy" and in any case, what variances there are can be worked out by comparing the MSS. I can't believe that God would go to all that trouble to have his message written, and then not be able to preserve it better than that until the twentieth century. You, like Wierwille, attribute way too much power to the devil. Says who? Didn't Wierwille and Bullinger teach that figures of speech involve changing words to make them more forceful? There is more than one way to say things, so if the wording is slightly changed it doesn't completely change the whole meaning. A prime example is the fact that "Kingdom of God" and "Kingdom of Heaven" are two ways to refer to the same thing (contrary to Wierwilles' theology). And I already pointed out that changes in language and culture do not mean a catastrophic loss of the message. They are translations which express the meaning in different words. You still have the same meaning, the same message, the same Word of God. And even copyist errors in the MSS can most often be caught just by their context. For example, in the quote above, you wrote "chang" but I didn't assume you were referring to some Chinese guy. I could tell from the context that you meant "change." The vast majority of variances in the MSS are more like that than complete changes in the idea being communicated. Plus, as I said (which you didn't comment on), "even VP said that 85-90% of the Bible interprets itself right where it's written." Many people have read the Bible, in any number of versions, and learned of God's great plan of salvation and good news of His coming Kingdom without a single commentary or study aid. The biggest contradictions are due to misinterpreting what it says, not to being unable to know what it says. Still dodging the questions. Your explanation of why consisted of repeating that you started by assuming PFAL was God-breathed. But if you want anybody to take you seriously, you're going to have to deal with these questions. And I agree that's not the topic of this thread or the Snowstorm thread. That's why the threads were started in the Doctrinal Forum (the first one not even by me, BTW). You have dodged and avoided direct questions there even more than here. I have read your posts thoroughly and still don't "understand" your position because it's illogical, and you refuse to answer direct questions about how you came to your conclusions. OK, so they aren't the same thing. Then define what your method is, besides "starting with the assumption that PFAL is God-breathed." To be continued....

Ham, Sorry, I seem to have lost where you said VPW's error about the genealogy was (this thread has been around so long it's growing things on it.) Could you give a quick recap?

Mike, We both agree that the "Word of God" is our only rule of faith and practice. We just disagree on what that means. The Scriptures do not refer to themselves as "The Word," they call themselves "The Scriptures." In the Bible, the term "the Word" refers to the whole message, the communication of God's mind and plan, and ultimately the embodiment of God's Word, His Son Jesus Christ. All of that is included when I say that my rule for faith and practice is God's Word. That is the only standard that is perfect. I gave my reasons for saying that one single printed book cannot be our only rule for faith and practice, but you never dealt with that reply. As for your claim that the written Word was "lost," you still demonstrate a lack of knowledge about Church history. You claim that "the revelation was being lost as fast as it was being written, and soon all would forsake the man whom God had chosen to co-ordinate the mystery revelation." While II Tim. 1:15 says, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me," it doesn't say that everybody everywhere turned away from him. In fact it may not even mean "all without exception" in Asia. If everyone had turned away there would have been nobody to copy the NT documents, and no early church writings which quote virtually all of the NT so that we have further corroboration besides the MSS. I referred to the reliability of the Scriptures way back on the Snowstorm thread (here and here among other places), but you never dealt with that either. I said at the time that the NT documents are preserved better than any other ancient documents, with MS evidence that enables us to reconstruct the originals with astonishing accuracy. You simply blow that off and call the scholars "pointy-headed intellectuals" without really knowing what they do or how the reconstruction works. Your claims that "all we had (in 1967) were 4th century fragmentary mis-copies of mis-copies of copies" and that they were at "extreme variance with each other" are simply false. The amazing abundance of MSS, combined with early church writers' quotations of the Scriptures enable scholars to compare and contrast, and with many other principles in the science of textual criticism, we can arrive at something very close to the original readings. The relatively few passages that are still in question do not affect any major doctrine. The majority of doctrinal differences among various Christian groups stems not from mistranslation or text corruption, but from misinterpretation. Not only that, but even VP said that 85-90% of the Bible interprets itself right where it's written, without having to dig. You said above that you were trying to get me to "be specific." Thank you. I needed a good laugh. I have been asking specific questions of you and trying to get you to be specific since I engaged in this discussion. You have yet to do so. Since you claim that PFAL is your only rule of faith and practice because you made the choice to accept it as God breathed, then you must have dealt with the apparent contradictions in order to make that choice and determine that there are no real errors in it. Several of us have challenged you to demonstrate how you dealt with the apparent contradictions according to your methods, and all you have done is talk about how you won't use our methods or "play our game." When Steve put forth what you had said was your methodology, i.e. listening to the "advanced Christ formed within," you seemed to imply that he was misrepresenting you. Yet you have not come out and said what your methodology is for determining that PFAL is perfect and God-breathed. You side-stepped the issue by going on about the mind of Christ in Galatians, but that is not the same thing as what Steve said you described in post #101, above. Let's get specific: is what he wrote an accurate representation of what you told him? If your methodology consists of gaining wisdom from a spiritual source, we are commanded to not believe every spirit, but try them and see if they are of God. Did you do this, and if so, how? What criteria did you use in deciding that PFAL was God-breathed? And what criteria did you then use to deal with those stubborn apparent contradictions? I know you are aware that the devil can counterfeit revelation. What have you done to assure that what you are getting is genuine? If you choose not to answer these questions, that's your choice. But don't keep claiming we don't know what you're talking about just because we disagree with you. And read up on Church history and textual criticism. At least then you will be able to discuss them knowledgeably.

Maybe he could get a job in a dance company! :dance: :dance:

I would advise caution with any Modern English versions. Don't assume they are giving the right understanding of "what KJV was getting at." Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. Just because they read easier doesn't necessarily mean they are more accurate. I like The Message, myself, but we have to be careful with any version really.

I answered your question, even though you disagreed with it. You still haven't answered mine. I'm not holding my breath.

Geotropism - is that when George goes to the warmer climates for the winter?

Thanks, Steve and WordWolf. You confirm what I was beginning to suspect. This has been a great learning experience for me.

ditto.

I actually saw this on a sign in front of a jewelry store in Newport, RI: "Ears pierced while you wait." As opposed to what? Dropping them off and picking them up later? :biglaugh:

Personally, I would recommend starting with Buzzard's books. They work as sort of a reference to other theologians, and then you can look into some of the books he references.

Why would you trust my ability to work within PFAL when the whole debate started with whether or not PFAL is God breathed? I have put forth several challenges which you have not met yet. When you put forth straight answers to those questions then we can proceed. But you can't use your faith in PFAL to prove PFAL is God-breathed. That's circular reasoning and begging the question. Part of your definition of God-breathed is that it has no errors. You claim that PFAL in fact has no errors, and the apparent errors that we see are due to our misunderstanding of PFAL. Fine. Prove that. Get specific. Address the issues we have brought up and demonstrate how you handle them in light of your methodology and determine that they are not errors.

Twinky, I don't expect Mike to change his mind, but I was hoping he would at least answer direct questions so we could debate and discuss it rationally. Steve, Are these direct quotes from Mike's posts? What the Hey, I have to agree with you here.

Twinky, Yes, there is an abundance of material dealing with this subject. It was by no means VPW's idea, nor did he even do that great a job at presenting it in his book. CES/STFI has a book called "One God and One Lord" that you can get from their web site. I haven't actually read it yet (haven't had time) but I hear it does a pretty good job. What I have read includes Anthony Buzzard's books, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self Inflicted Wound, and Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, and the small booklet, Who Is Jesus? They can be gotten through his web site, http://focusonthekingdom.org/index.html. He is a well respected scholar, and in his books he quotes many other scholars' works - and gives references! There is also a number of shorter articles on his site that you can read online. There are a number of other sites that have articles which refer to the scholarly work that has been done on this subject. It amazed me when I found out how much has been done, while we were just expected to use VP's book and nothing else. Rather than copy all the links, I'll just direct you to the links section on my web site: http://godskingdomfirst.org/intro.htm#links

Since you have yet to answer most of my direct questions or handle most of my specific points, I will respond only to the one point that really surprises me: You get bent out of shape about me not understanding you, but here you completely misquote me. What I said was not "pie in the sky" nor was it what you present here. It was exactly what you yourself quoted VPW as saying was HIS rule of faith and practice, which I had quoted in post #420 - that 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." When you answer my direct questions, perhaps this can be a meaningful debate, rather than accusations and judgments about my motivation for asking them.

Yes, I remember a number of things that were said to be wrong in PFAL back then. That was why they started talking about whether or not to replace it. Most of the points were relatively minor, as I recall, and did not contradict the major doctrines of PFAL. I also remember several issues being dealt with after VP's death. W@lt3r C#mm!ns wrote an article about the "Cry of Triumph" that was published in Chr!s G33r's Future Considerations publication, for one. Also, the studies in that publication about Faith/Believing and the Holy Spirit Usages revamped a lot of what VP had done, and it was presented the same way earlier changes were presented: "We're a research ministry, so if new research reveals we were wrong on something, we change it." That only worked up to a point, however. The only errors I heard admitted to were ones that could be explained by saying "we have new research on this." I don't remember hearing any public announcement about the blatant errors of fact that had been in PFAL or VP's other books. Except possibly the one about the Council of Nicea being in France. I'm pretty sure I heard that it was corrected in later editions of JCNG.