Raf

If Wierwille said it does, you'd probably believe it. Karl, Great to see you, lad. You definitely deserve credit for helping with the list. Athletes of the spirit, indeed.

Abigail, The context of that statement was Wierwille teaching people to speak in tongues. I don't think he meant for it to apply to anything else. The Living Epistles Society

No complaints here.

Actually, if I may interject at this point: This is what I meant in the first post when I said I'm looking for actual errors. If you agree that there can be differences of opinion, no matter how strongly you hold your opinion, that is not the kind of error I am interested in exposing. I'm looking for 2+2=5 errors. I'm looking for verifiable, undeniable, indisputable, matter of fact errors. It's no secret that I think the Law of Believing is a bunch of hooey, but I do not list that as an actual error. You don't believe Wierwille was right about "they ceased saying the will of the Lord be done." Fine, but that's not what I mean by an actual error. I think we need to get down to brass tacks, bottom line mistakes: errors that can't be disputed. "Apistia" is used several times to mean people who do not believe even though they know enough to believe. That is a direct contradiction of Wierwille's statement in PFAL. No room for argument or disagreement. There is a word "lama" in Aramaic. Period. No room for error or disagreement. David was called a man after God's own heart BEFORE the Uriah/Bathsheba mess, not afterward as Wierwille wrote. Let's try to stick with actual errors, ones that are not subject to interpretation. I know it's easier for me to see my rules, seeing as I made them up, but I hope people understand what I'm trying to say here.

You guys aren't following the script. We're supposed to all hate Wierwille and be incapable of thinking he might be right on anything. We're never supposed to agree with him, ever. That would reflect independent thought, if we were able to agree with him sometimes and disagree other times. Now get back in line.

One last point regarding Mike's casual dismissal of my list of actual errors in PFAL. Mike writes that these errors are minor compared to the incredible amount of good in PFAL. The problem with that is, it disagrees with Wierwille's declarations regarding God-breathed scripture. It was Wierwille who taught that one word out of place, and your whole Bible would fall apart. Likewise, it was Jesus Christ who taught that he who is faithful in least is also faithful in much. So your casual dismissal of my challenge is disobedient to the "scripture" of PFAL, which you idolize above the Word of God itself. Further, I reject your claim that these are minor matters. Some are, but some clearly are not. Wierwille spent a great deal of time and ink on Eli Eli lama sabacthani. He got it wrong. He certainly thought it was a big deal. The Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven theory is one of the central tenets of Wierwille's theology. He would hardly call it minor.

I miss Jerry Barrax. Here's another Jerry Gem. Wow. It's true: In PFAL Wierwille writes that Nathan was afraid to reprove and correct David, specifically because David was good at beheading people. In truth, we have no record whatsoever of ANY reluctance on Nathan's part, much less a reason for that reluctance. Afterthought: Does Wierwille admit to speculating here? If so, that removes this statement as an actual error. Speculating about the events leading up to a Biblical account is a fun way to engage readers in a sermon/teaching. So, when I get home, I'll check. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 03, 2003 at 11:02.]

Another blind and false accusation. I am not, as you say, "bent on destroying." I reject your false accusation as the ranting of a man who has declared to us all that he has no interest in actual evidence.

I need to research what Wierwille actually wrote about blood in order to respond to this stuff. It is interesting. As for the stuff about tongues, I wonder if that falls into the category of differences of opinion regarding interpretation. It is precisely why I am avoiding discussion of the intermediate class, as it does not really exist in written form. Carry on.

Mike, I concluded that you had plenty of time to respond to my snowstorm questions based on the FACT that you DID respond, at length, on that very issue, with great fanfare, to Lifted's post on the same subject. I also based it on the fact that you've been looking over this INTENSELy for 27 years. I would think you, of all people, would recall the exact wording of VPW's conversation with God. It is, after all, the basis of your ridiculous claims. Wierwille's statement in The New Dynamic Church was specifically applicable to the subject on which he was teaching at the time. For you to apply it to everything else he wrote is failing to read it in its context. As I do not have the PFAL or JCNG books in front of me, I cannot see the "fact" quote you cite. The FACT is, it's irrelevant to the definitions at hand: "all WITHOUT distinction means all within a certain category." "all WITH distinction means all within a certain category." One of those statements MUST be false. Period. They cannot BOTH be true. They are polar opposites. Further, they are GENERAL statements of basic definitions. They do not change with circumstances. So take another 27 years if you want. I've always been absurdly easy to find, Mike. Feel free to write or call. Do a little research: take your mind off things. P.S. Your logic regarding "necessarily" is tortured. You are deliberately removing Wierwille's sentence from its context, in which he CLEARLY exalts the Word of God above his own writings. Further, when he DOES make a claim that his words have as much authority as God's Word, he does it in a way that makes it CLEAR that there's nothing special about it: he says the same thing about YOU (the reader, whoever that may be). It is not a unique claim of divine authority. It is a general claim that when you're in line with the Bible, you're in line with God. Oldies: I am glad you can see that there ARE flaws in PFAL. No one is asking you to discard it all, and I hope people don't think that's what I'm trying to say. I respect PFAL enough to apply its principles to its doctrine. When and where the doctrine falls short (and I believe it does), I praise the principles and let go of the doctrine. Examples would distract from this thread, but I believe my record of posting here proves what I've said. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 03, 2003 at 9:54.]

What does Wierwille mean by "the Word of God?" Well, in the passage above, he's clearly equating the Word of God with "the scriptures." We also know from PFAL Chapter One verse One that "The Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God." Thus, by checking in the verse and in previous usage, and knowing that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other, we can state with certainty the following: The Bible = The Word of God = The Scriptures. We will also note that Wierwille specifically differentiates his own writings from the Word of God. He lumps his work in the same category as the work of other ministers, past and present, in comparison with the Word of God, which he holds up on a pedestal. So, according to Wierwille, his writings are NOT to be taken as "God-breathed" by comparison to the Bible. So what of his statement "not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed?" Does that mean, as some meek masters have said, that SOME of what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed? Let's see how Wierwille defines it: PFAL, p. 89 So, we know that God's Word is the Bible. The accuracy of the Bible is another way of saying a proper understanding of the Bible. When you speak with a proper understanding of the Bible, what you speak is just as though God Himself were speaking it. On this we can all agree. So, taking the two passages together, we may reasonably conclude that Wierwille felt his writings, when they agreed with the Bible, were as valuable as the Bible (to which I say, no duh). Logic dictates that when Wierwille's writings disagreed with the Bible, they would NOT be as valuable as the Bible. Weirwille himself left this possibility open by noting that NOT EVERYTHING HE WRITES is God-breathed. On the contrary, according to Wierwille, ALL of the Bible is God-breathed. One may reasonably conclude, therefore, that PFAL is God-breathed ONLY insofar as it agrees with the Bible, ALL of which is God-breathed. If and when PFAL disagrees with the Bible, the Bible is always given pre-eminence (how can it be otherwise)? The Bible is pre-eminent. Wierwille's writings are no more authoritative than the works of Luther, Aristotle, Kant, Billy Graham or Oral Roberts. WIERWILLE HIMSELF SAID SO. Mike, you have perverted the words of Wierwille, and dismissed the Word of God. You measure the Bible against the standard of PFAL, when you should be measuring PFAL against the standard of the Bible. That Wierwille did not see his book as "The Word of God," or as the equivalent of "God-breathed scripture" is evidenced by the fact YOU brought up, which is that PFAL went through several printings and that changes were made. Wierwille taught that if you change one word of the Word of God, then you no longer have God's Word. You accuse him of tampering with God's Word by fiddling with PFAL. I know this won't change your mind, as you have already stated, quite plainly, that no amount of evidence will persuade you to pull your head out of the sand. That's your choice, but don't expect a bunch of us to stick our heads in the sand with you and call it light.

Dear Meek Master Mike: Oh, for heaven's sake, put up or shut up. Go to that thread and refute those points with the truth. It's very easy to state in another thread that I'm wrong, but go over to THAT thread and refute the actual points with actual facts. I defy you to refute ONE point I raised. ONE. You repeatedly state that a substantiating weather report would not be sufficient proof that Wierwille was telling the truth. I submit that a CONTRADICTORY weather report would be sufficient proof that Wierwille was lying. Further, you had PLENTY of time to post several responses to my comments about the snowstorm. That you chose not to do so tells me that you thought there was an actual snowstorm, not a vision. Well, I can't read your mind, but I openly wonder about that one. You continue to mention the "in fact" statement in Jesus Christ is not God. There is no "in fact" statement in Jesus Christ is Not God, not in the relevant page, not in the page before, not in the page after. What are you talking about? Cast down the idol, Mike. PFAL is the flawed work of a flawed man. Get over it. P.S. If they changed the wording of PFAL from Jew to Judean, then did they change the Word of God?

Actually, yes, he says that in the class. Emotion aside, it's a ridiculous claim. The thought that a Bible version would not sell if someone came up with a controversial rendering of one particular verse is provably false, as the plethora of available Bible versions proves. In addition, The Way's very own Aramaic Interlinear translates the relevant verses as questions. I think that is proof that not even the most devoted Wierwille fans on earth could back up his claim.

Oh, yes, Larry, I forgot: Please feel free to post your own. But try to keep it objective. Knock out the emotion, lest you be accused of having feelings. :)--> In PFAL, Wierwille wrote that all the women of the kingdom were technically the property of the king. In truth, there is no such technicality in scripture, nor is there such a technicality in Jewish tradition. It is utterly made up.

For the record, too many people get the credit for the above observations. I'll take credit for coming up with number 10 on my own, 12 years ago. Oh, wait, it's 2003. Make that 13 years ago. For others who deserve credit: I'm sorry, I just don't recall. I KNOW Jerry Barrax is one. Chris Geer, John Lynn and too may others got to the Kingdom of God/Heaven observation LONG before I did. Wierwille corrected himself on a couple of them. Anyway, these are collected observations, FYI.

I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether you believe in "the law of believing" depends on your interpretation of certain words of Christ. But some errors are concrete. They are objective. If I told you 2+2=5, you would be able to say I am wrong, flat out, and that there was no room for misinterpretation of that fact. I can't say, "well, it's just your interpretation that 2+2=4, but you're just not enlightened enough to know that it's really 5." The purpose of this thread is to document actual errors in PFAL, primarily the book, but also the class. Why rehash this stuff? Simple: for those who believe that PFAL is “God-breathed,” it is necessary to point out that God cannot get things wrong, especially when it comes to matters of Biblical interpretation. So, let’s look at some documentable errors in PFAL. Number 1 In PFAL, Wierwille writes that David is called “a man after God’s own heart” only AFTER the events in II Samuel related to Bathsheba and Uriah. In truth, David is called “a man after God’s own heart” in I Samuel, long before he is king, long before he met Bathsheba. Number 2 In PFAL, Wierwille writes that there is no word “lama” in the Aramaic. In truth, there IS such a word in Palestinian Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. It means “why?” Number 3 In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the word “lama” should probably be replaced with “lmna,” “for this purpose,” which is never used in a question. In truth, “lmna” can be used in a question, something Wierwille acknowledged near the end of his life, and which is acknowledged in TWI’s very own Aramaic Interlinear. Number 4 In PFAL, Wierwille notes the distinction between “thoroughly” and “throughly.” In truth, the latter is an archaic form of the former. They mean precisely the same thing (Wierwille failed to follow his own principle of interpreting words according to their Biblical usage). Number 5 In PFAL, Wierwille writes of the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. In truth, the Bible uses these terms interchangeably. There is no difference whatsoever in their usage. Jesus uses them interchangeably. (I debated whether this is a difference in interpretation or a difference in fact. My conclusion is that this is a difference in fact, as it is plain to anyone who cares to look up the parallel usages of the two terms). Number 6 In PFAL, Wierwille says “apistia” is the kind of unbelief held by people who don’t know enough to believe, while “apatheia” is the kind of unbelief held by people who’ve heard enough, but don’t care. In truth, the word “apistia” is used of the disciples after the resurrection (Mark 16:14) and of Israel (Romans 3: 1-3). Neither can be said to have not heard enough to believe. Number 7 In PFAL, Wierwille defines “apostle” as one who brings new light to his generation. It may be old light, but it is new to the generation that hears it. In truth, “apostle” means “sent one.” It does not carry the definition Wierwille applies to it (indeed, such a definition leads one to wonder how the term could apply to more than one person in any given generation, while we KNOW that there were 12 during Jesus’ lifetime, and 13 if we include Jesus himself – the Apostle and High Priest of our confession. Or is it profession? Whatever). Number 8 In PFAL Wierwille writes that “all without distinction” means anyone within a specific category. In truth, basic grammar tells us that all in a certain category means “all WITH a distinction,” the distinction being membership in that category. This error is so fundamentally blatant that Wierwille himself corrected it in Jesus Christ is Not God. Number 9 In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the gospels are written to Israel and/or to the church of the gospels. In truth, the gospels are all written after the resurrection, and they are written to practicing Christians. There was nothing written specifically TO the church of the gospels. Number 10 In PFAL, Wierwille states that in Luke 2, Jesus was taken to the temple for bar-mitzvah at age 12 instead of 13 because he was considered illegitimate. In truth, the passage in Luke 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with bar-mitzvah. The passage states rather clearly that they were celebrating Passover, not Jesus’ bar-mitzvah. In addition, there is no such custom in Judaism (treating illegitimate children differently for the purpose of bar-mitzvah). Wierwille cites “an old piece of literature” as his source for this bizarre claim. Any one of these FACTS should be sufficient to prove that PFAL is not the perfect utterance of God Almighty, but (at best) the flawed work of a flawed man trying to communicate a system for reading and understanding the Bible.

Hmmm. I'll leave this for others to decide: Should I retract my objection to the snow story or not? I have said all along that I do not have a copy of The Way: Living in Love. It has come to my attention that Wierwille's challenge to God was NOT (as I believed) "make it snow," but, rather, "Let me see it snow." If that's the case, then God could have let HIM see it snow, and no one else (hence, a vision). My problem is that a vision does little to verify a discussion with the Almighty, but since we're parsing words here, if one were to give VPW EVERY SINGLE benefit of the doubt, one would have to leave room for the "vision interpretation." What's funny is, why didn't anyone (Mike) mention this before? It's not like I didn't ask. Ok, so this particular derailment is back on track. ******* Oldiesman: You mean, you don't believe what VPW wrote in Christians Should Be Prosperous?!?! You and I gotta hang out and grab a beer one night. ******** Steve: At the very least, Mike holds the PFAL book and Jesus Christ is Not God to be God-breathed. I come to this conclusion because in at least one case where they CLEARLY conflict with each other, Mike refers to the conflict as an "apparent contradiction" that needs to be resolved using the keys Wierwille taught for clearing up such matters in scripture. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 02, 2003 at 14:16.]

Lifted, I'm just quoting part of your e-mail, for the sake of space. Let's address the timeline of Wierwille's claim, and I'll ask people with a copy of The Way, Living in Love, to verify my facts and correct them if I am wrong. Wierwille claims God spoke to him. He claims it snowed so heavily that he could not see the gas pumps that were so close to him. Then he claims that "approximately one month after" this incident, he starts his radio program. We all know the date of the radio program, right? That's right, Oct. 3, 1942. Do you want to tell me that a freak snowstorm in early September 1942 went unreported? That it sometimes snows in Ohio on the first day of school? Heavy enough that you can't see out your window? Sorry, Wierwille lied. I quote from Carol Van Drie: I simply don't by the suggestion that a September snowstorm would be so localized that only Wierwille would notice it, and that no one would find this storm worthy of mention. Wierwille lied about the snowstorm. Period. And again, he didn't say it was a vision. A vision, we cannot disprove. September snowfall we can. And we have.

I've been reading this and all I can say is that I have nothing to say. Mike, if 27 years of studying PFAL have failed to reveal to you its internal inconsistencies and flat-out inaccuracies, then nothing I can say on this thread or any other will convince you otherwise. You REJECT the Bible and EXALT PFAL. That makes you an idolater, period. You accuse me of being a prosecutor in the court of traditional Christianity, which proves to me you are as illiterate as you are delusional. I pity you. I was away from my computer and could not reply to the snow storm post a kajillion posts ago. I will in due time. I'm just busy at the moment.

You're correct: Aside from the idol you're idolizing, I find no evidence of idolatry in your posts or positions. But you see, that's the point. The idol which you idolize is the written word of VPW, which you equate to the Word of God. You idolize the written word of VPW, which is NOT "the Word of God," and for that, sir, you are an idolater. First off, no one has ever accused me of worshipping Paul. Many people have been accused of exalting the epistles OVER the gospels, but the accusation was NOT that we were worshipping Paul. The accusation was that we were DIMINISHING the gospels and the other writings of scripture. So, if you want to talk about getting your accusations straight, you might want to start there. Of course, if you were to do that, your straw man would have very little relevance to the discussion at hand. I accuse you of holding the writings of VPW on par with the Bible itself, indeed ABOVE par with any version of the Bible we have available to us. I accuse you of exalting the words of VPW over the Word of God itself. Then you admit it. Fine. The FACT that you are wrong about this is evidenced by the fact that NO ONE, not VPW, not LCM, not anyone else who ever knew or worked with VPW, has ever made the same claim. In other words, you are ascribing attributes to VPW's written works that exceed even the wildest egomaniacal rantings of VPW himself. You idolize his words. You worship the creation of a man. That is the textbook definition of idolatry. No, the attack is not on you. It is on your position, which is foolish, unbiblical and ungodly. Anti-tradition. Anti-common-sense. Anti-Biblical. Anti-Christ. Your denials are worth the paper on which they're printed. Think about it.

Oldies, I think what people are trying to say is that if not for TWI-1, God would have found another method to reach you. The problem, of course, is that such a statement is unprovable, unless you go back and change time (which is kind of what makes it unprovable). The statement can only be proven by inference. God is resourceful. I have no trouble believing that if I never encountered TWI, God would have found some other way to reach me with the positive message I heard there. I think that is consistent with God's character and abilities. So in that sense, God is not limited by people or organizations. TWI-1 fell. It no longer exists. So, is God's Word no longer available? Of course it is. God is resourceful. He can reach people, whether or not there's a TWI-1, a VPW, or even (gasp) an RAO! Happy New Year.

And there is your fundamental flaw, Mike. Uniqueness of Wierwille's doctrine (all in one place) is NOT proof that there was a 1942 promise. The fact that he cobbled together an eclectic mix of doctrines does not prove that God spoke to him audibly in 1942. I agree that he taught quite a bit. But I also believe that quite a bit of what he taught was wrong. That would be, to me, a HUGE indicator of the fact that the promise of 1942, if there WAS one, was not of God. Think of all that Wierwille got wrong. 1. The Law of Believing. 2. Tithing. 3. The relevance of the gospels to Christians today. 4. dechomai and lambano (he BUTCHERED those words). 5. Adultery and fornication. Those are not minor points. Those are MAJOR. Ok, so he may have a point on a lot of the things he taught. But if you expect me to think that God made a unique promise to this man, and all you have to prove it is that he collected other people's doctrines and put it together, then I understand why it took you 27 years to believe that stuff. Because if you spent 27 minutes THINKING about it, you would know how utterly absurd it is. And Wierwille had no baloney? Baloney. Well, OF COURSE! You dismiss the blatant dishonesty and sexual depravity that permeated his life and doctrine! That's right, it permeated his DOCTRINE. That's a big deal, man! I don't think there's any danger of that happening. They searched the scriptures to find out whether what Paul said ABOUT CHRIST was true. They did not search the scriptures to find out whether what Paul said about HIMSELF was true. You're asking us to search the scriptures to see if the 1942 promise is true? Puh-lease. An open mind considers evidence. You've already shown yourself to be the one who has discarded evidence specifically because it detracts from your hero-worshipping stance. How DARE you insult the people here at GS, accusing us of not having an open mind to this lunacy? You give people NO CREDIT for having thought these things through over the years. Only you and your 27 years of open mindedness have been honest? How DARE you? Horse hit. As you VERY WELL know, there are plenty of people who are able to separate the good of VPW from the bad, who acknowledge his faults without dismissing absolutely everything he taught. Mike, I want you to read that paragraph to yourself over and over again, especially the last sentence. It applies far more to you than it does to me. Just, trust me on this one, a'ight? Yes it does. What fine balance? They're polar opposites. You have shown yourself to be gullible when it comes to VPW's testimony of himself, and skeptical when it comes to any objective or subjective third person analysis of what anyone else has to say about him. That's not balance. That's Jonestown Kool-Aid. How's this for a higher standard? Study God's Word, learn it, pray to Him for guidance. Rely on Him, His Word and His Spirit/spirit to guide you to a full understanding of Him, through His Son, Jesus Christ. You need help, Mike. Your idolatry cannot stand.

It all goes back to the 1942 promise. Well, here's my nickel. The 1942 promise did not happen. How do I know this? Because VPW cited supporting evidence to prove the promise did happen, and the supporting evidence has been shown to be false. That's why you have to ignore the snow on the gas pumps story, isn't it, Mike? Because the snow on the gas pumps story PROVES the LIE on which you've based your entire brand of Wierwille worship. You see, VPW asked God to make it snow, and VPW said that God made it snow. He did not say it was a vision. He said it snowed. He did not say he asked God to "show him" snow. He said he asked God to MAKE IT snow. It didn't snow. The weather reports from that day in that region prove it did not snow that day. VPW was lying. If he was lying about the snow (and he was), then I have no reason, none, to believe he was telling the truth about the promise. That does not mean EVERYTHING he taught was bunk. But it does mean that the things he taught were of no more value than that of any other Christian teacher. (In fact, I would argue that it places a greater burden on Wierwille's doctrine, as he has already demonstrated a willingness to lie in God's name).

Hey, I was a Geer splinter!

I forget who first said this, but it's so worth repeating here: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Wierwille's abuses, lies and indiscretions are facts. You may decide whether they outweigh his preaching and teaching ministry, but you are not entitled to decide whether or not they are facts. They are. Facts.