Raf

It means "older leader grad," Mike's term for those to whom his message is most pertinent and directly addressed.

Here's the thing with plagiarism: it's not a matter of learning from others and teaching what we've learned. It's a matter of taking what someone else wrote and passing it off as if you wrote it. There's a difference. I learned a lot from Wierwille, but I don't lift his paragraphs, change a word or two, and slap "By Raf" on the cover. To you, the good in Wierwille's life and ministry far outweighs the negatives. Me? I'm not even keeping score. The good was the good, the bad was beneath contempt. Focusing on the good in Wierwille's life requires separating Wierwille from the good: there is none good but one.

Can you sum up some highlights?

And I accept that you weren't talking about the critics, skeptics, unfit researchers and crybabies when you used the word "phobia."

Phobia's not the word, chief.

Yeah, but when VPW said it, it was special. The earth shook when he said it. Did you see the earth shake when the other ministers said that? Ooh, a new casual intended insult! Now people who look at PFAL objectively have a PHOBIA. It's be funny if it weren't so funny.

I just gotta. Nap Pole Andy Gnome Might. Nappoleandygnomemight. Napolean Dynamite.

=== Let me try a different approach: There are four premises: PFAL is God-breathed. PFAL is not God-breathed. PFAL is valuable. PFAL is not valuable. The first two premises are mutually exclusive, and the subject of this overall discussion. The first premise and the third premise are compatible, but one need not adopt the first premise to accept the third. The second and third premises are compatible. Most Wierwillites, even the staunchest, fall into this category. The second and fourth premises are compatible. The conflict between the third and fourth premises comprise a significant reason Greasespot, and Waydale before it, exists. You and I can have a great discussion about premises three and four, but if I attach premise one to my position, then we're both wasting our time.

That's why I distinguish between actual errors and interpretational errors, a deeper and more substantive discussion. I believe there are errors of interpretation in PFAL, and have discussed several. But if someone is unwilling to face the fact that there are even actual errors, the topic of interpretational errors is moot. Wierwille can write "the moon is made of green cheese," and anyone who disputes that notion is an unfit researcher who has not looked carefully enough at the text in a bid at mastery. "Skeptics," we're called. "Critics." "Naysayers." "Crybabies." I look at the conflict between the Blue Book and Jesus Christ Our Passover concerning the definition of "hanged himself," and I see Wierwille changing his mind over time when he gathers more information. One of those explanations is wrong. But I never lost sleep over it because PFAL never claimed to be inerrant. I think it's a big fat "so what," the only value to the discrepancy being that it disproves the thesis that PFAL IS inerrant. So Wierwille overstated (ie, was wrong about) the significance of heteros and allos in the "four crucified" discussion. So what? We all know the important cross was the one in the middle. So my discussion here (and in related threads) was never about the overall value of PFAL. Some give it high value, some give it low value. My discussion has been about the notion of PFAL as "inerrant," a notion that is demonstrably false when one accepts PFAL's very own definition of what it means to be God-breathed, and one must accept that definition in order to hold onto the notion. After all, how could PFAL be God-breathed while at the same time be wrong about what God-breathed means? I guess I'm saying that your analysis of where I stand on PFAL is partly right, but not relevant to the discussion. I'm simply pointing out that such a position can exist, so those who DO value Wierwille's books do not need to idolatrously exalt them, or him, in order to crack them open and smile while reading them.

Those who point out the imperfections of PFAL are easily dismissed by this standard, because they are not part of Mike's elite intended audience and, thus, not worth listening to. They are dismissed with casual comments intended to be insults, such as "you weren't around when Wierwille was, so you couldn't understand," and "you were poisoned by people who did not grab onto something whenever Wierwille walked by." In other words, anyone who looks at Wierwille's written works with an open mind and sees it for what it is automatically and by definition becomes an "unfit researcher," even if all such a person is doing is applying the very advice Wierwille (perhaps cynically) gave to examine his teachings critically.

The interesting thing, Mark, is that PFAL never was the subject of Mike's threads. PFAL specifically sets the words Wierwille wrote in contrast with what it calls the perfect God-breathed Word, and thus discounts itself as part of that Word. Mike takes VPW's imperfect articulation of this simple and straightforward fact and turns it into a declaration that the PFAL books are perfect God-breathed Word, but maybe his letters to his family and friends and/or earlier editions of his books, complete with Trinitarian references, do not rise to that standard. He injects complexity into the simple, thus twisting the meaning to conform to an already multiply disproven thesis. That PFAL fails to live up to its standard of perfection causes those of us who value its lessons to lose no sleep at all. But to Mike, it undermines his thesis to the extent that he must narrow the intended audience so that it becomes a sort of anti-gospel, aimed not at bringing the gospel message to the world, but a secret and ubiquitously hidden message to the elite. PFAL mastery, as Mike defines it, is the exact opposite of the Great Commission. Go ye therefore unto all the older leader grads, baptizing in the name of the Orange Book, the Blue Book, and the Last/Lust Message of The Teaching Doctor Brains and Brawn.

I think the intent of this thread was to keep all the "Mike wars" in one place, so the replies are appropriate in here, Mark. In fact, the other thread specifically said "Take your fight to the new thread." So, regardless of the title of this thread, the intent was to take all this discussion and put it in one place.

Ooh, I had no idea until I read doojable's musings. Very good pictionary, this. Hint: that's not a troll. It's a denouncer of travel myths.

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. Thanks for the google link, CM. Lots of good stuff there for those who don't want to reinvent the wheel.

You can declare that they're different things, and cite VPW as evidence. But you can't make that argument from the words of Christ, because he used the terms interchangeably.

Biblically, there is none. The remainder of your post is irrelevant to the discussion, but I'm glad you can retype what you read. Whether there's a difference between the church of the bride and the church of the body is arguable. I've seen good arguments on both sides. Whether there's a difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven is not arguable. They are Biblically identical. Try reading this other book, called the Bible, to get that point.

Little did we know Chris Geer... ah well, live and learn. The great thing about ditching with Geer, for me (and I presume I can's speak for WordWolf on this) is that leaving when and how we did showed us how to not be a respector of titles and positions. Made it easier to disregard Geer when the time came.

This calls for coffee!

I'll put it this way: If Wierwille had not read Scofield's work, I'd be stunned beyond imagination. It would be like one of us never having read Wierwille.

That's what I thought it meant. A hearty welcome!

It's so easy to say "the negatives in his life." It's far more difficult to say "his lecherous abuse of those who trusted him, the way he twisted God's Word to serve his lusts, the dishonest way he handled God's Word from the beginning of his ministry until the end." Welcome to the Cafe. Does your handle mean what it sounds like it means?

Mike, because I haven't taken you off ignore, I missed this earlier statement. Good one. Of course, you'd know all about resorting to ad hominem attacks, having used them so ineffectually so often since you began posting here. By the way, at least I have the courage to SHOW my face around here. Nice touch, typing "god" with a lower case "g" to get my goat. Where did you get that stroke of brilliance from? Oh yeah, ME! Dude, at least get an original insult. It is good to see you finally acknowledge, however, that you and I worship different deities. I've never found you at anything other than your weak moments.

Fair enough. First things first, when people say there are errors in PFAL, they are not talking about typos or crooked type. This is a silly attempt at distraction from the real issue. Not one error pointed out by anyone has ever said "the type on p. 32 is a little off-kilter: aha! PFAL is not God-breathed." How far does one want to go in pointing out errors? Well, if you want to get utterly nitpicky, you could talk about crooked type and typos. But the only people who have mentioned such errors are you and Mike. Let's try a few things of a little more substance: The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven are Biblically synonymous. Wierwille said they weren't. The Jews had a name for God that was both pronounceable and pronounced. Wierwille said God had no pronounceable name. How far do we go in discussing errors? Let me reverse it: how many errors (not typos, not page alignment issues) does it take for PFAL to still have the value you ascribe to it, yet not be what Mike claims it to be? According to the standard of PFAL, the answer is one. We've pointed out far more than that, just to confront the error of "PFAL is God-breathed." Do you disagree with every single item on the actual errors list? ALL of them? Or do you believe PFAL to be error-free (typos and page/text alignment notwithstanding)? By the way, I will concede that the existence of typos or misaligned text or anything else of that trivial miniscule irrelevant nature does not disprove Mike's thesis. Why, they make all the difference int he world between a perfect, inerrant word of God and a crumbled, jumbled piece of writing, or something like that. That's PFAL's standard.

Neither do I, and I demonstrate why, and whenever I do, I get nothing but grief from you. Why don't you agree with all of Mike's conclusions?

And there you go changing my words again. I did NOT say "PFAL Mastery=idolatrous pigswill." Can you even read? Tell you what, I'll give you a pass on that ignorant statement since you were probably writing it before I added an explanation in an edit. But Jeez, the way you guys twist words to mean something other than that which is plainly stated leads me to understand fully why you take the positions you take.