Mike

Yes, this bothers many. Not me, any more. Paul was given the exclusive DIRECT revelation of the mystery, and then he put it into written form so OTHERS could have it. I think it's the same way with PFAL. VPW was the only one to get it directly, but now we have it in print. All through the ages God had to find ONE person to get His revelation into print, and it seems that one person never met the criteria of his contemporaries. God looks at different things than people do. His ways are not our ways. If it were up to me I'd not have chose VPW for the job, but what do I know? Sorry. I thought you did admit that your only rule was yourself. So what IS your rule that you measure things by? A Library of Congress number would suffice.

It sounds to me that you don't really have a rule, but you play it loosey goosey, like RumRunner just fully admitted. A RULE is something that we "line up with." A rule is someTHING that we "line up with." A rule is something that we "LINE up with." (how THAT for use of ALL-CAPS all you English teachers?!) It seems to me you, Mark, don't have a substantial rule as it was defined in our past, just whatever you presently think is right. It is a rubber ruler that flops around with your latest hot research. It's not something bigger than you that you line up with. In science, the idea of a "standard" is very similar to this. In fact, for decades the "rule" for linear measure was a bar if iridium located in Paris, and that was the standard for the metric system, the meter. They eventually replaced this with something even better and hard core. If scientists were to use a loosey goosey standard for the meter, the world would fall apart in no time.

NOTE TO MODERATORS Thank you for quelling the straying from the topic. I'm doing my best to stay on topic, and respond to people's posts addressed to me. It's this sticky issue of how slippery an "only rule for faith and practice" is that drove VPW to almost throw in the towel 2 days before the 1942 snowstorm. What God offered him by way of the snowstorm was a RULE that he'd never have to bend, ie, the revelation/teaching God would provide for him IF HE WOULD TEACH IT TO OTHERS. It is for THIS reason I am posting ON TOPIC with this "only rule" stuff. I'm trying to show what was going on in VPW's mind as he sensed a need for an unbendable rule, something he'd "never have to back up on" as he prayed to God and heard the voiced and received the snow as confirmation. THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE regarding "VPW and the Snowstorm" which is the title of this thread. Thank you for quelling the straying from the topic.

Which version? Which translation? What's the Library of Congress number? If it's a RULE, then you can't disagree with anything in it... you have to go with every translated word, with every passage as your final rule. You can't appeal any piece (other than printer's errors, proofreaders' oversights, or peanut butter stains... all of which are very rare) to a higher authority for correction, otherwise THAT higher authority would be your only rule. Everyone I've ever met who claims that some particular edition/translation/version is their only rule will suddenly sidestep and say "this one passage is in error, because of so-and-such, so I've corrected it in the wide margin." So their only rule just got bent, and it will bend again if they run into another passage.

RumRunner, So what IS your only rule for faith and practice? It's sad how many people refuse to answer this simple question. Or refuse to answer it properly by offering something that is obviously NOT a rule, but changeable and/or unreadable. So what is YOUR ruler that you line up with? For most people it is the thought/feeling of the moment. Pretty sad.

Hi socks, The reason I give what's happening in my work life etc is to explain my absences in the face of many people addressing me and waiting for responses. Some get pretty testy in the wait. If you had many posters onto you with many demands you'd know what I mean. Another reason for such reports, that is my stay-at-home-sick is to explain just the opposite: my presence. I did a bow out here at a time when the new rules were just being formulated due to a great NEED for them to be re-formulated, and I knew I was a big part of the reason for such a need. It was my presence here that prompted a lot of less-than-civil responses to me and general behavior that was severely taxing Pawtucket. I had been given a chance to state my message, and he was paying a price for it so I bowed out with gratitude to him. ...............then the rules were changed, and the atmosphere here changed..... then a thread appeared a few weeks ago the Paw might be done. This time it was situations other than me that were weighing him down, and it looked like GreaseSpot as we know it was going to end. I decided, on a pertinent thread, to chime in with a possible last stand. Then I got sick, and my addiction to posting got the best of me. I was mentioning my health situation to explain why I was here without giving away my disease. BTW I'm looking for a 12 Step program that deals with on-line addictions.......... "Hi. My name is Mike and I'm a Postaholic..." Maybe some Internet web site that has on line meetings and discussion boards....... .... ... .. . . *** So you think I was “blatantly duplicitous” ??? Deceptive? Yikes! I don’t think so. Maybe you got the wrong word to describe your feelings? There were times when I defied the abuse I was getting, but I was VERY open and honest when and where I posted my message. If you could give an example that might help me. I think you may be referring to where I would refuse to let people push me around. There I could be pretty feisty. I hope so. *** Now this Bullinger stuff.... Check the context from whence it appeared: waysider had said to my saying the PFAL saved my life: “You might have tried Bullinger's How To Enjoy The Bible. It was readily available long before The "Orange" Book.” I responded that there was no way it could have done that in 1971. That was my main point, but then I went on that it’s still a bit of an arcane book. Then I mentioned that it was a tad out of the mainstream: it is for people steeped in traditional Church of England theology, in a stuffy foreign land with customs of speech vastly differing from ours, and it is in language about a century old. Those factors seem to make it not so usable by the common man, especially young people today. It’s way out of style.

The following was a response of mine to skyrider on another thread, but it belongs even more here in this somewhat immediate context. QUOTE (skyrider @ Jan 14 2009, 07:56 AM) * The only rule for faith and practice for wierwille......was the revelation he was getting??? Well, he said his only rule for faith and practice was GOD'S WORD. Now many thought that meant the KJV, but then we saw him point out errors there, so we had to look back a notch to the critical Greek texts to see VPE's only rule for faith and practice. He had to have something more straight than the KJV to spot where it was crooked, he had to have some OTHER RULE or RULER that he went by to judge the KJV in error. It sounded to us like "critical" meant "most crucially important" so the critical Greek texts, we reasoned, must be his only rule for faith and practice. But then SOME of us found out that those critical Greek texts didn't agree with each other, AND we saw some had glaring errors, AND a small few of us noticed the critical Greek texts were NOT ancient nor critically important BUT were relatively modern. It shocked me to find out that the ink was still wet on the Stevens (oldest) in 1550! We were told all these things about the critical Greek texts but few of us assimilated it. So some small few of us went back another notch in search of VPW's only rule and landed on the ancient tests ONLY TO FIND that they to had problems: only went back to the 400's, were fragmentary, were in disagreement with each other, had errors. So then we took a leap of faith and said AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY GIVEN was VPW's only rule for faith and practice. But HOW did he access that? I figure hardly anyone reading this now in 2009 ever got this far back then. I know I didn't, not until the mid to late 80's and even then I still didn't have the answer to it, only the question. If you haven't gone down this path before and long ago, then you might ask yourself WHY? What were you doing that kept you from trying to figure all this out? Did you leave it to others? Were you too busy? Did you not care? Anyway, it all came together in 1998 for me and I finally got it. I had to have someone show me. Now I'm SO happy that I DO have an only rule for faith and practice, it has physical weight,it's not abstract, it's bigger than me and I dare not correct it, it has a Library of Congress number (or set of numbers) and it's my standard that I plunk on my Table of Challenge. Do you old time posters remember me talking about all this years ago? Oakspear and Abigail seemed to be the only ones who got it back then. They didn't accept it, but the at least GOT it. If you're just getting it now, join the club and give it some thought. It's a new set of synapses waiting for your pondering. Remember in the quyotes we saw on the other thread that the night before the snow in 1942 VPW asked God to give him something that he'd "never have to back up on." He and God worksed something out were Go would show him the end of the road, the only rule he couldn't break, the rule for faith and practice. Yes, he got it by revelation. Now we can get it in printed fonts. If you don't accept written PFAL as your only rule for faith and practice, THEN WHAT IS???? Remember, a rule for faith and practice must be the end of the road. You can't appear to a higher authority to change any of it, otherwise THAT HIGHER AUTHORITY will have to be your unbreakable ruler. A rule for faith and practice can't be abstract (VPW's was, but that was an God's behest to solve a deep problem), and it mus have weight. It must be readable by other people where they read the same thing you read. What is YOUR only rule for faith and practice? Is it a document that's unalterable, or do you wing it as you go. If you wing it then YOU are your only rule for faith and practice. If you alter a physical document, take exception with some aspect of it, then that document is NOT your ruler. What is YOUR only rule for faith and practice? If you haven't pondered this your just beginning (at best) to hear PFAL.

Well, he said his only rule for faith and practice was GOD'S WORD. Now many thought that meant the KJV, but then we saw him point out errors there, so we had to look back a notch to the critical Greek texts to see VPE's only rule for faith and practice. He had to have something more straight than the KJV to spot where it was crooked, he had to have some OTHER RULE or RULER that he went by to judge the KJV in error. It sounded to us like "critical" meant "most crucially important" so the critical Greek texts, we reasoned, must be his only rule for faith and practice. But then SOME of us found out that those critical Greek texts didn't agree with each other, AND we saw some had glaring errors, AND a small few of us noticed the critical Greek texts were NOT ancient nor critically important BUT were relatively modern. It shocked me to find out that the ink was still wet on the Stevens (oldest) in 1550! We were told all these things about the critical Greek texts but few of us assimilated it. So some small few of us went back another notch in search of VPW's only rule and landed on the ancient tests ONLY TO FIND that they to had problems: only went back to the 400's, were fragmentary, were in disagreement with each other, had errors. So then we took a leap of faith and said AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY GIVEN was VPW's only rule for faith and practice. But HOW did he access that? I figure hardly anyone reading this now in 2009 ever got this far back then. I know I didn't, not until the mid to late 80's and even then I still didn't have the answer to it, only the question. If you haven't gone down this path before and long ago, then you might ask yourself WHY? What were you doing that kept you from trying to figure all this out? Did you leave it to others? Were you too busy? Did you not care? Anyway, it all came together in 1998 for me and I finally got it. I had to have someone show me. Now I'm SO happy that I DO have an only rule for faith and practice, it has physical weight,it's not abstract, it's bigger than me and I dare not correct it, it has a Library of Congress number (or set of numbers) and it's my standard that I plunk on my Table of Challenge. Do you old time posters remember me talking about all this years ago? Oakspear and Abigail seemed to be the only ones who got it back then. They didn't accept it, but the at least GOT it. If you're just getting it now, join the club and give it some thought. It's a new set of synapses waiting for your pondering. Remember in the quyotes we saw on the other thread that the night before the snow in 1942 VPW asked God to give him something that he'd "never have to back up on." He and God worksed something out were Go would show him the end of the road, the only rule he couldn't break, the rule for faith and practice. Yes, he got it by revelation. Now we can get it in printed fonts. If you don't accept written PFAL as your only rule for faith and practice, THEN WHAT IS???? Remember, a rule for faith and practice must be the end of the road. You can't appear to a higher authority to change any of it, otherwise THAT HIGHER AUTHORITY will have to be your unbreakable ruler. A rule for faith and practice can't be abstract (VPW's was, but that was an God's behest to solve a deep problem), and it mus have weight. It must be readable by other people where they read the same thing you read. What is YOUR only rule for faith and practice? Is it a document that's unalterable, or do you wing it as you go. If you wing it then YOU are your only rule for faith and practice. If you alter a physical document, take exception with some aspect of it, then that document is NOT your ruler. What is YOUR only rule for faith and practice? If you haven't pondered this your just beginning (at best) to hear PFAL.

I guess you're talking about prior to our discussions here. But Tom, you and Abagail were the only ones who figured it out that FOR DR the only rule for faith and practice was the revelation he was getting. Remember? It was maybe 5 years ago. It was a long dragged out argument here, where many were asserting that they had a "rule" while they didn't, and you and Abigail figured out what I was saying. You were the only ones. I AGREE, I was dumfounded on this prior to 1998, when I figured it out. If Dr hadn't hidden the thing, waiting for us to figure it out, I too would have never spent the time in PFAL I did. I'M GLAD HE HID THIS FROM US. He gave us enough clues to figure it out, but we didn't. This NOW gives me a retro tool to see who really was a deep thinker back then. Almost NONE of us.

Yes, this is correct. I have repeatedly denied that I'm making a logical argument here. It's more of a presentation. If you want proof you got to crack the books and master them. No hard work; no proof. Sorry. If you want some kind of abbreviated algorithm for enlightenment then please don't expect it from me. I'll try to be logical in untangling the thickets that prevent grads from giving this a try, but I will never waste my time and try to prove this stuff to grads who seem to me to have not done their homework, at least not after a certain point in time. I know lots of grads did lots of study before all the books were finished, but things slacked off in the study department for most of us well before 1985. Plus there are scads of magazine articles most grads have never looked at CAREFULLY.

Have you ever tried to read that book? ...ALL the way through? I'd say I would have fallen asleep if someone PAID me to read it in my early prePFAL searching days, in my late teens and early twenties, with pot and hippie music rattling my head. That book is a hard nut to crack EVEN NOW. It was only when I saw how similar it was to PFAL that I had the motivation to slog through it's arcane and scholarly English style. The Orange Book was written for the people, while Bullinger's book was for pointy heads of a previous century. BUT THANKS FOR THE FREE DOWNLOAD LINK!!! :)

Hi Don'tWorryBeHappy, Gosh! I’m finally back to work after a 9 day chest cold. In addition to frantically playing “catch up” in my business, I see the thread here is far from over. Twice I thought it was in its last gasps and I said everything I could. Now, I see it’s far from over. I’m logging some of the most begging-to-be-responded-to posts to try and catch up when I get a little more time, but it looks bleak as to when that will happen. In the meantime I can’t resist (just like all my posts here) looking at your re-entry post and doing some preliminary responding. I've added my responses in red.

Read what I wrote: Unless someone is into ancient languages the DEAD SEA SCROLLS are a distraction. A non-language scholar cannot read the OT from the Dead Sea Scrolls. A non-language scholar CAN read the OT in his KJV and not be distracted by the sensation of the news surrounding the scrolls. I never said anything about the OT being a distraction. Why would you want to put those words into my mouth?

Interestingly, EVEN John the Baptist seemed to have his difficulties recognizing Jesus as the Christ. Can you document this like a good scholar would, or is this another possibly hasty conjecture on your part? I was able to find out in the 70's that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not worth looking into for the reasons cited, and I too am not a scholar.

Did you not see my Post #275 where I wrote what I think he got directly and indirectly from God?

Didn't you also say that his counterfeit label was "hasty" ??? How would you know that was hasty? From what I know the Dead Sea Scrolls have a lot of the book of Isaiah which is pretty much into the coming of the Messiah. That "Teacher of Righteousness" socks talks about sounds like Messiah too. From the 4 Gospels we see that pretty much everyone had the WRONG idea as to how the actual coming of the Messiah was to take place. If that applied to the Essenes too, then the expectations the Dead Sea Scrolls expressed of his coming would be counterfeit, and vpw' label of counterfeit would be correct. I think VPW was right in steering us away from them. The fact that the scrolls could be useful in OT language studies is not contradictory with their message being counterfeit. ******** This is correct, and socks was correct also. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain NOTHING on the NT and NOTHING on Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. Unless you're into ancient languages they can be a huge distraction.

Can you tell us where he claimed this? Can it be you got this from secondary sources that were inaccurate? If you got it straight and direct, can you remember where you heard it or read it? And if so, why didn't you recognize back then that such a claim would contradict the printed and taped published accounts we have displayed? Can you come to grips with the idea the you simply got it wrong?

How about it Twinky and waysider and leafytwiglet? Do YOU GUYS know of anything directly relating to Jesus Christ or New Testament scriptures in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Hey, I really don't want to miss out on anything important. Fill us in.

What if I showed you that we were told that when he used the term "research" me meant some different and far more simple, like simply REsearching something? We were clearly told to NOT think of research that way. We weren't scholars and we weren't told to try and become like them (a few of us did attempt it.) We were urged to think of the way of a Father with His family and to develop a relationship with Him by enjoying simple materials to assist in our KJV work. I'm so glad the Blue Book and others are not cluttered with distracting pointy headed footnotes and such. I simply enjoy it. ***** Here is where he published his scholarship disclaimer (one of them) AND his explanation (one of them) of that we weren’t to get too carried away on the term “research.” This is from the Our Times Editorial titled "How the Word Works" in the May/June 1979 The Way Magazine. I’ve posted this in the past here. “I have had the opportunity over the years to see much of how God’s Word works. When I speak of research among our believers, I do not mean, primarily, discovering something new in the Bible. I mean establishing in your heart the wonderful truths of God’s Word--to the end that these truths are your own; you can understand them, you have mastered them. Someone who has been exposed to the Word for only a short while (such as a new grad of the foundational class on Power for Abundant Living) perhaps could not do as much with it as I could, but this is simply because of time. Any individual can work the Word of God and understand it. I have never said that I am a Bible scholar; all I know is that I love God, I love His Word and I want to help people.”

We were led to believe that much of the material WAS known, but it was not collected together. From the TW:LIV p. 209 quote in Post #252 we were told: "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could," We were told that much of it WAS known, but it was just not all in one place. If we didn't pay attention to exactly what was published, THEN we could spin our the wrong story that it was totally unknown. We often lead ourselves into the wrong understanding, doing the spin ourselves. Going back to the source is the only way to avoid that. It we just heard it in the wind, or from some person, or picked it up from the TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) and didn't seek better knowledge, they we were stuck with partial understanding and many misunderstandings. We have two more quotes on this matter that may have been neglected by inattentive spinners in the past: From "Light Began to Dawn" found here http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=1871 in the older thread : "That if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to teach it to anybody [sINGULAR] since the first generation." From Elena's book we have: "He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others." We were clearly NOT led to believe that it was "material that hadn't been known since the first century" as you spinned it and would have readers of your post led to believe. We were plainly told that most of it was known BUT that it was not all in one place and it was mixed with error. It was not known LIKE it was in the first century, not known AS it was in the first century. Those are important words that shouldn't have been dropped. Those grads who paid good attention to him have known these things all along. All this may cause you and others to wonder HOW MANY OTHER THINGS DID YOU SPIN and thus get the wrong message on?

Twinky and waysider and leafytwiglet, From your research into the Dead Sea Scrolls, could you please tell me WHICH books from the New Testament are included in that discovery? I'd just like to know ANYTHING that they say directly about Jesus Christ, OK?

What if I showed you documentation where he claimed NOT to be a scholar? That would mean all dashed expectations that he WERE a scholar must be based on lack of attention, right? No they DON'T contradict, you just WANT them to. Here's my pick: 1. God showed him WHICH things were useful to us, and being THE OWNER of such, God told him to collect it for us. 2. God showed him which things were NOT useful to us, sometimes even from the same authors above, and to exclude that material. 3. God showed him some few and much needed original things. 4. The sum of the above was far more than any one author/teacher of VPW's ever had. Now there's no contradiction.

I found it. Below is a dialog that took place here years ago (with my use of bold and color fonts): *** First dmiller wrote: Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works, and passed it off as his own. *** Then oldiesman wrote: dmiller, sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you, and I base my belief on the following: “Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.” Victor Paul Wierwille, 1972 The Way Living In Love Elena Whiteside page 209 The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.” In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that, there it is, right before your eyes. He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own, but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.” If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own, he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books, from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.

I think what he claimed is that he "put it all together." ...meaning he collected from OTHER sources all the most necessary and useful items we needed, and filtered out the bad. It was mostly on THIS point that he claimed unique guidance from God. He claimed to originate very little. Oldiesman, do you have that quote you found on this last point?