I find that an odd criticism. Tell me in 1000 words or less "Why does wordiness bother you so?"
**********************************************
rascal,
I think you see the outer surface of what I?m promoting, and then resort to debating, not picking up much further detail.
**********************************************
shazdancer,
You have a point. However it?s not getting people understanding the details from ME that I seek. It?s seeing people get the details in this Word God taught Dr and Dr taught us
**********************************************
Steve,
I said several times earlier that there are many more places where Dr discussed this dichotomy. I?m impressed with your lack of interest in seeing ALL the places where Dr expounds on this topic. Isn?t that one of the research keys Dr taught us in PFAL, to consider all the places where a topic is dealt with? Your focus on only one place tells me you?re more interested in tripping me up in some statement I made, than you are interested in understanding Dr?s presentation of this topic.
You wrote: ?we cannot explore what *you* say about PFAL without exploring *your interpretation* of what Wierwille wrote.?
To this I suggest you therefore give up exploring my ?interpretation of what Wierwille wrote? and give up exploring ?what I say about PFAL? and simply READ PFAL! This later alternative is the simplest, and you can count on my lack of cooperation for the earlier two.
What?s actually in the PFAL text is far more exciting than grilling me endlessly, looking for slip ups. What if you find one? It won?t negate my message that the PFAL writings are rich in benefits to us that we forgot about or never saw the first time around.
Steve, play detective all you want, but when I?m ready to post some more PFAL page references I will. Why don?t you do your sleuthing there, within the pages of PFAL? Now, THAT could get exciting.
**********************************************
Exy,
You can be excused, or you can curl up with your blanky in the corner until we?re done.
My priorities are such that proving anything to you is very low in how much time and attention I?m willing to give it. It?s obvious from the challenging questions I?ve posed to you and your refusal to answer, that you do not want to understand PFAL better. That's what this thread is all about, understanding PFAL better.
I?m impressed with your lack of interest in seeing ALL the places in the PFAL books where Dr expounds on this topic of the physical/spiritual dichotomy.
This manifest disinterest of yours plummets your challenges to me on my priority charts.
I will spend my time discussing my posts here with the focus on the internal text of PFAL, and not me, my interpretations, postings, understanding, credentials, etc.
I?m impressed with your aversion to explore within the text of PFAL.
No Mike....what I *SEE* is that you are promoting lies, you are operating under the false premise that God spoke to vp...I have SHOWN you IN the bible, incontrivertable proof that vp was a *man after the flesh* and has *NO inheritance in the kingdom* of God....
You have to throw out galations in order to trust and support vp...
Heck if he has *no inhertitance* then How the heck can he get revelation from God to *make known the word since it hasn`t been known since the first century* ??....geeeeeze
God did NOT entrust his *new and improved* version of the bible to a man such as that.
I am truly Sorry Mike ... you have been decieved, we ALL were....thing is....you are wanting to draw folks back into counterfit doctrine after we have seen the real God at work outside of the box of twi religion.
No way we can go back to that bondage once we have experienced the genuine article....we`d love to see you freed from the destruction of vp`s false doctrine...
I beg your pardon Mike, *I* didn`t usurp or assess ANYTHING concerning vp`s inheritance .... GOD however CLEARLY did in Galations! ... friend you aren`t rejecting MY opinion ...... but God almighty`s clearly stated view.
Vp`s behavior was NOT labeled as simply *giving in to old man nature* occasionally....it wasn`t viewed as *taking one for the team because he was in the line of fire*.... He was guilty of 2/3 of the *attributes* listed in Galations...
GALATIONS itself condemnds him as a *man after the FLESH*!!!!! and whom would have *NO inhertance in the kingdom of God*... by virtue of vp`s OWN lack of character ....His OWN bad behavior ...... His OWN betrayal of the trust that God and believers placed in his ministry....ain`t nobody elses fault but his Mike.
Sorry fellow, YOU are following a man of the flesh... in no way can we, nor should we,
place credence in his view of *spiritual* matters.
I find that an odd criticism. Tell me in 1000 words or less "Why does wordiness bother you so?"
Why is it an odd criticism Mike? You critizized folks for not comprehending what you write because they were not reading with "precision" the same lack of precision you say that most read Wierwille with.
If you expect folks to comprehend what you write, then you should write with precision, but you do not. Your insupportable theories and ridiculous notions go in circles and get tangled up in themselves. Instead of going strait to what ever point you may have you talk in nonsensical and evasive dtivel much of the time. You talk of ubiquitous and hidden teachings, and of telescopes, yet you have not produced any. Just get to the damn point, whatever the hell it is - will you. There is no need to try and butter up folks or try to de-sensitize them before dropping your stupid theological hammer.
What now Mike? Are folks now supposed work the Word of Mike to see some kind of scientific precision or mathematical exactness in it? You are deluded.
(I think this is less than 1000 words, OK?)
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
(1) I don?t trust any of your judgements in the area of understanding exactly the meanings of those verses.
(2) I don?t trust any of your judgements in the areas of knowing exactly what took place in Dr?s life.
You have failed to earn my respect in these two areas. You are not alone in this failure. Very few people have earned my respect in these two areas.
*******
Goey,
Someday I will clear up the telescope mystery. Honest. And I'll try to be brief. You may get a small chuckle.
As for now, it?s not the word of Mike that needs detailed examination, it?s the Word of God that He taught Dr and Dr taught us in written form. THAT?S what folks need to work carefully.
*******
WordWolf,
I've been frequently up front here with admitting that I?m not out to prove, but more to present.
I think the proof is in the pudding, or in the putting. Putting PFAL into the mind is where the proofs happen.
When people approach PFAL with proper respect then God can go to work and furnish all the proof you need. The kind and style of ?intelligent discourse? you demand of me is not available. I just don?t have the time nor the inclinations. I don?t trust your attitudes and your approaches.
You can point out how much I fail to meet your demands all you want. I?ll even help you with this up front re-assurance that I will NOT engage you in the sport of your choosing.
I came here to present crucial information in the teaching record of VPW that we either didn?t recognize or remember. There?s a lot more information to present, and I do like to engage in some rich discussion along the way. But, if you want full rigorous debate you?ll have to find someone else to do it with. I?m just too busy with something I consider much more important than your investigations.
*******
dizzydog,
Correct. Beyond my sincerity and beyond my obstinacy are the details of the PFAL text. If I?m correct, and God had His hand in their writing, then His Word will speak for itself better than I could ever. That?s where the truth is guaranteed.
Is salvation based soley on the words of a man writing about the Bible?
I spent blood, sweat and tears (and a few other things) for an organization known as TWI that was led by a man named VPW, who wrote and spoke about God, but said nothing.
It all should have been translated Blah, blah, blah............
My opinion........"where's your crown, King Nothing"
WordWolf - Thank you very much! You said it much more cogently, and much more politely, than I was inclined to put it.
Mike - You wrote, "If I'm correct, and God had His hand in their [PFAL texts'] writing, then His Word will speak for itself better than I could."
If you are correct, and God wrote "As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world", then one would expect for it to speak for itself by making sense. Especially since it is such a foundational concept.
Grads were discouraged from answering questions during the course of a PFAL class because the new students weren't "spiritually mature" enough to receive the answers. Yet we allowed *prospective* students to read the Blue Book. It shouldn't require much "spiritual maturity" to understand Wierwille's sentence from the Blue Book. Certainly a prospective student wouldn't be expected to glean an understanding of Wierwille's simile from his knowledge of the rest of the class, because he hasn't even taken it yet!
This sentence is one of the most basic statements in PFAL. You yourself quoted it in your post of April 01, 2003, 00:19, (page 2), wherein you introduced the topic of this thread. In your post of April 13, 2003, 16:13, (page 6), before launching into an exposition of "Christ Formed In You" you wrote, "This teaching depends heavily on an understanding of the Natural/Factual versus Spiritual/True."
This simile is *foundational*, yet the truth is, you cannot explain it. You can't explain it because it doesn't make any real sense. It has an appearance of meaning, but there is no substance.
Wierwille's words *do* speak for themselves. God *did not* have His hand in writing this simile. You are *not* correct.
"Correct. Beyond my sincerity and beyond my obstinacy are the details of the PFAL text. If I?m correct, and God had His hand in their writing, then His Word will speak for itself better than I could ever. That?s where the truth is guaranteed."
PFAL was produced to direct us to the truth, God's Word. Nowhere in the text's of PFAL or the collaterals did VPW encourage us to vaunt the class or it's writings above the scriptures. Quite the contrary as I have proven before. I also am unfamiliar with any statements in PFAL that guaranteed truth in the details of the text of PFAL.
You and I disagree on what VPW meant when he talked about the Word of God. I believe as he wrote and taught that the Bible (KJV, NIV, NKJV, what have you), scriptures, written word was what he taught was the Word of God.
PFAL does not show how to be born again, Romans 10:9-10 does (even if it is written in the PFAL materials). PFAL is not first place the one body, grace, the manifestations et'al was written. Remember one of the keys to research is to seek the first place something was written.
VPW taught us himself not to take his word for it but to search the scriptures. And yes he meant the Bible, I personally watched him point to his Bible as he was declaring this.
Mike, I think I understand you after reading a number of your posts. And I am willing to say my judgements of you were wrong.
I realize now how concerned you are with trying to teach others the value in PFAL. Believe it or not I actually agree with you of the value in the materials. And I am unwilling to discount it's value because of the author and the record of The Way International. I mean this sincerely.
I also agree with many here that VPW was not the first to write much of what he taught. There is value in seeking those writings as well. All with the goal of understanding God's written word, THE SCRIPTURES. And no I do not mean the KJV. I mean the scriptures researched in as many texts, with as much depth as is available using the keys to research as taught in PFAL.
I wish there were a better way to discuss these things with you but unfortunately you seem unwilling to honestly discuss questions and issues with these materials. The hint that someone disagrees with you makes you discount them personally. Questions are met with repeated promises that you will get back to them on that, you rarely do. And you have yet to give anyone else any credit for points well made.
And some have been made.
For whatever this is worth, I respect your determination.
Mike, you can attack me personally ALL you want, it WON`T change the fact however, that you have dismissed and ignored entire sections of scripture to support your position.
I neither asked for, nor need your respect....it is galations, the BIBLE itself that you have no use for and refuse to give credence to.... you are a fool to dismiss scripture in favor of your *man after the flesh*
Have you READ galations recently ?? I`ll bet not, There simply IS no room to wiggle... No room for yours OR my private interpretation....
If you could just bring yourself to read galations and TELL me how you can get around what is clearly stated about a *man after the spirit* vs a *man after the flesh*...maybe I could consider your position.
You probably wont though... I can just see you hunched behind your computer fingers fiercly jammed in your ears, eyes screwed tightly shut ...frantically singing LALALALALALALALALAAAAAA just to keep the fragile illusion that you have manufatured for youself intact.... you are a coward Mike, and that is sad.
"In 2 Timothy 3, where it reads, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," "all scripture" means without any exception from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21."
Page 82
"The testimony of the Word of God is that all Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine, which is able to teach us how to believe positively. If we are going to tap the resources for the more abundant life we must know how to believe rightly. To the people who say that the Bible has lots of errors in it, I would like to state that the true Word of God is accurate from Genesis to Revelation. The errors have come in by man propounding those errors."
Page 83
"The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let's see this from John 5:39. "Search the scriptures...." It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, "Search the scriptures..." because all scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed.
John 5:39:
Search the scriptures; for in them ... ye have eternal life: and they (the Scriptures) are they which testify of me.
The Scriptures tell us the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ, and about God: this is doctrine - it is right believing."
In some previous posts I have mentioned page 83 in the pfal book and a "Thus saith the Lord" statement hidden in some slightly complex grammar. This is my attempt to explain that grammar, and thus reveal what's been on that page all this time.
My goal is to produce a paraphrase equivalent of a sentence on that page. Also, I am particularly focused on attempting to fully incorporate the use of the word ?necessarily? that appears in the original sentence. The sentence is:
?Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.?
Just for simplicity, let?s temporarily remove the word "necessarily" and see what happens. Now we have:
?Not all that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.?
The sentence almost seems to still say the same thing. It's almost like nothing was altered, but don't believe it. Soon we'll see why "necessarily" was in there.
Practically speaking, if I eat NOT ALL of a pie, then there?s SOME pie left for you. In the sentence under study the phrase "not all" implies "some." Mathematically speaking, the phrase ?not all? is equivalent to ?some or possibly none.? So, substituting the phrase ?some or none? for the phrase ?not all? in the sentence we then have:
?Some (or possibly none) that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.?
This then can be separated out to two possible sentences:
?Some that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.?
?None that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.?
Now let?s restore the word "necessarily"
?Some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.?
?None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.?
The second sentence is rather strained grammar and logic. It also radically contradicts what Dr. wrote on page 34 of the Green Book: ?...you will find that every word I have written to you is true.? I believe for these and other reasons it must be rejected in favor of the first sentence.
The first sentence fits (and the second does not) with all that we spiritually sensed when we first took the class. Likewise the first fits with the 1942 audible promise from God. And it fits with the last night of the class when Dr. said:
?...if you're in this class, you've heard the Word, you've
believed God's Word, God is always faithful. And nobody ever
misses, if you'll do exactly what I tell you to do, right
down to the minute detail.
It's like, in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember
where the Apostle Paul said: ?I thank my God, that, when you
received the Word of God which you heard of us, you received it
not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God.?
Now, if you'll be as honest with God as that Word of God says,
you too can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the
power of God. But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille
talking, you'll never get it. But if you know that what I am
saying -- it's V.P. Wierwille saying it, but these are words
which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is utilizing and speaking
to you through my ministry and my life, then you too will
manifest forth the greatness of the power of God.?
So, in a nutshell: the use of the word ?necessarily? eliminates the possibility of ?none? of Dr?s writings being God-breathed. Recently I came up with a paraphrase of the original page 83 sentence that incorporates this perspective.
The context of page 83 is God-breathed words are trustworthy; man-breathed words are not. We know that Jesus Christ said that he did not speak forth HIS OWN untrustworthy, man-breathed words, although he was tempted to. He only spoke forth the words his Father told him to speak. He was the only one to achieve this TOTAL purity of all words issued.
Here's the paraphrase:
?Even MY own writings... (and I was commissioned by God?s
audible voice in 1942 to bring forth God-taught explanations
of the Bible, and because of that SOME of my writings are not
really my own, but are REALLY God-breathed)... but even MY own
writings, when they?re merely my own, are not trustworthy like
God's are.?
The word ?necessarily? implies the contents of the above parenthesis. The original sentence on page 83 says that even someone who is given the job, by God, to teach the Word ?like it hasn't been known since the first century? is going to have words, his own words, that fall short of the perfection of God.
Therefore, because not all, but just SOME of what Dr. Wierwille wrote is NECESSARILY God-breathed, the next step is identifying WHICH of his writings ARE God-breathed.
Hint: Dr?s Last/Lost Teaching contains the MOST IMPORTANT thing he could want to tell us.
Well then, Mike, you better start getting out the works of Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, and Roberts, and lauding them to the skies as much as Wierwille, because according to your logic, some of the time THEY had God-breathed writings, too.
And if that be the case, just who is the arbiter of what should be considered revelation, and what should be thrown out?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
119
656
81
Popular Days
Jun 15
86
Jul 3
73
Jul 12
50
Mar 31
49
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 82 posts
mj412 119 posts
Mike 656 posts
Steve Lortz 81 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2003
86 posts
Jul 3 2003
73 posts
Jul 12 2003
50 posts
Mar 31 2003
49 posts
Popular Posts
Yanagisawa
Did you say "get the ball rolling" or get the kaballa rolling...for it sounds like that's your current freak - some sort of hidden, mystical kaballa-esque gnostic esotericism. I'm fascinated with you
Mike
Goey,
I find that an odd criticism. Tell me in 1000 words or less "Why does wordiness bother you so?"
**********************************************
rascal,
I think you see the outer surface of what I?m promoting, and then resort to debating, not picking up much further detail.
**********************************************
shazdancer,
You have a point. However it?s not getting people understanding the details from ME that I seek. It?s seeing people get the details in this Word God taught Dr and Dr taught us
**********************************************
Steve,
I said several times earlier that there are many more places where Dr discussed this dichotomy. I?m impressed with your lack of interest in seeing ALL the places where Dr expounds on this topic. Isn?t that one of the research keys Dr taught us in PFAL, to consider all the places where a topic is dealt with? Your focus on only one place tells me you?re more interested in tripping me up in some statement I made, than you are interested in understanding Dr?s presentation of this topic.
You wrote: ?we cannot explore what *you* say about PFAL without exploring *your interpretation* of what Wierwille wrote.?
To this I suggest you therefore give up exploring my ?interpretation of what Wierwille wrote? and give up exploring ?what I say about PFAL? and simply READ PFAL! This later alternative is the simplest, and you can count on my lack of cooperation for the earlier two.
What?s actually in the PFAL text is far more exciting than grilling me endlessly, looking for slip ups. What if you find one? It won?t negate my message that the PFAL writings are rich in benefits to us that we forgot about or never saw the first time around.
Steve, play detective all you want, but when I?m ready to post some more PFAL page references I will. Why don?t you do your sleuthing there, within the pages of PFAL? Now, THAT could get exciting.
**********************************************
Exy,
You can be excused, or you can curl up with your blanky in the corner until we?re done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Mike, honey,
Have you noticed at least 1/2 curled up in the corner...and some even fell out the window fast asleep...Wrap it up already...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike - Are you admitting that what Wierwille wrote doesn't make sense to you either, and you can't explain it?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I?m admitting that I am not paying much attention to the details of your demands.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve,
Now for the long form.
My priorities are such that proving anything to you is very low in how much time and attention I?m willing to give it. It?s obvious from the challenging questions I?ve posed to you and your refusal to answer, that you do not want to understand PFAL better. That's what this thread is all about, understanding PFAL better.
I?m impressed with your lack of interest in seeing ALL the places in the PFAL books where Dr expounds on this topic of the physical/spiritual dichotomy.
This manifest disinterest of yours plummets your challenges to me on my priority charts.
I will spend my time discussing my posts here with the focus on the internal text of PFAL, and not me, my interpretations, postings, understanding, credentials, etc.
I?m impressed with your aversion to explore within the text of PFAL.
From whence does it stem?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
PFAL sucks....so does the whole VPW thing. God didn't teach him .......breath some fresh air, dude...your stagnant....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
No Mike....what I *SEE* is that you are promoting lies, you are operating under the false premise that God spoke to vp...I have SHOWN you IN the bible, incontrivertable proof that vp was a *man after the flesh* and has *NO inheritance in the kingdom* of God....
You have to throw out galations in order to trust and support vp...
Heck if he has *no inhertitance* then How the heck can he get revelation from God to *make known the word since it hasn`t been known since the first century* ??....geeeeeze
God did NOT entrust his *new and improved* version of the bible to a man such as that.
I am truly Sorry Mike ... you have been decieved, we ALL were....thing is....you are wanting to draw folks back into counterfit doctrine after we have seen the real God at work outside of the box of twi religion.
No way we can go back to that bondage once we have experienced the genuine article....we`d love to see you freed from the destruction of vp`s false doctrine...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
rascal,
You are not the official ?inheritance assessor? and I utterly reject your attempt to usurp that authority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I beg your pardon Mike, *I* didn`t usurp or assess ANYTHING concerning vp`s inheritance .... GOD however CLEARLY did in Galations! ... friend you aren`t rejecting MY opinion ...... but God almighty`s clearly stated view.
Vp`s behavior was NOT labeled as simply *giving in to old man nature* occasionally....it wasn`t viewed as *taking one for the team because he was in the line of fire*.... He was guilty of 2/3 of the *attributes* listed in Galations...
GALATIONS itself condemnds him as a *man after the FLESH*!!!!! and whom would have *NO inhertance in the kingdom of God*... by virtue of vp`s OWN lack of character ....His OWN bad behavior ...... His OWN betrayal of the trust that God and believers placed in his ministry....ain`t nobody elses fault but his Mike.
Sorry fellow, YOU are following a man of the flesh... in no way can we, nor should we,
place credence in his view of *spiritual* matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Why is it an odd criticism Mike? You critizized folks for not comprehending what you write because they were not reading with "precision" the same lack of precision you say that most read Wierwille with.
If you expect folks to comprehend what you write, then you should write with precision, but you do not. Your insupportable theories and ridiculous notions go in circles and get tangled up in themselves. Instead of going strait to what ever point you may have you talk in nonsensical and evasive dtivel much of the time. You talk of ubiquitous and hidden teachings, and of telescopes, yet you have not produced any. Just get to the damn point, whatever the hell it is - will you. There is no need to try and butter up folks or try to de-sensitize them before dropping your stupid theological hammer.
What now Mike? Are folks now supposed work the Word of Mike to see some kind of scientific precision or mathematical exactness in it? You are deluded.
(I think this is less than 1000 words, OK?)
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
On other forums where younger teenagers post,
I have occasionally had a specific comment.
It was this. They felt very defensive that they
posted what were seen as silly ideas, and were
challenged on them. So, they reacted in a
hostile and defensive fashion.
My reply was to explain a basic rule of
decorum in debate, which works on other boards.
You put forth a statement, or advance a
position. That position is then challenged by
others. You now have three possible VALID
responses.
A) RETRACT your position-
"I've seen the error of my ways!"
B) REPHRASE your position-
"I've been misunderstood, and here's how!"
C) SUPPORT your position-
"Here's why you should agree with me!"
--------------------------------------------
Like many people here and elsewhere, I have
found it necessary to rephrase myself from time
to time. That's because I know what I meant,
but somehow it didn't translate into a post
that others could easily understand. That
happens sometimes. We're human. Anyone here
who's seen me start a post with the words
"thank you for giving me another change to
explain that", or "Yeah, THAT'S what I meant"
has seen that in action.
I DON'T think it's proper to immediately attack
people for misunderstanding what I MEANT to
say. I accept that I make imperfect posts, and
that's not proof of a conspiracy.
Some people might reconsider their approach to
the INEVITABLE misunderstandings.
Shazdancer has ALREADY pointed this out, with
both eloquence and greater brevity than me.
-----------------------------------------------
Further, it's BAD form to advance a position
and then insist it's right without defending
it. "My position is right! You disagree
because you are too lazy to read up on it, and
those of you who've read up and still
disagree are wrong because you didn't read it
correctly!"
Steve Lortz addressed a specific issue. He
asked a specific question. Steve pointed out
the reasoning is circular and incomplete.
Mike then had 3 valid possible responses-
A) agree and RETRACT his position
B) REPHRASE his position
C) SUPPORT his position
Mike's response?
"..you're more interested in tripping me up in
some statement that I made..."
"I'm admitting that I am not paying much
attention to the details of your demands."
"My priorities are such that proving anything
to you is very low in how much time and
attention I'm willing to give it."
That's NONE of the three approaches. That's an
evasion. Further, it's a clear violation of
Robert's Rules of Order, concerning decorum in
debate. That is, you debate the POSITION, not
the PERSON. Tossing around accusations and
insults does NOT support one's position.
Steve was approaching Mike's assertions in a
respectful tone, and with honest discussion.
Mike's response: I'm not answering that!
You're obviously trying to trip me up!
NO, MIKE-he's challenging your thesis!
If your position is CORRECT, it can stand a
little HONEST scrutiny in discussion.
If it CAN'T stand up to scrutiny, then it's
NOT correct, and you should sit down.
(I'm not addressing comments that were not
made between Mike and others that were more
insult-slinging, just between honest attempts
at discussion and Mike's responses.)
-----------------------------------------
Further, Mike, "posing challenging questions"
is not the same as "I told you to read
everything VPW wrote!" That's not a question
at all-that's a demand.
Further, it's an evasion, and a refusal to
support your position.
If you're going to post at the GSC, you have
accepted the climate here. That includes the
reality that you will be engaged in REAL
DEBATE. Either roll up your sleeves and
prepare for some INTELLIGENT DISCOURSE, or be
prepared to have the deficiency of your
positions pointed out over...and over...and
over...and over......
with your only response being
"None of you can read correctly! You are all
unfit researchers! You have all decided to
misunderstand me! I'm the only honest one here!
All of your challenges are invalid!"
That's just going to look worse and worse as
time rolls on. Tiresome, too.
Well, you've got a choice. I figure I know
what decision you'll make, but, hey, you might
surprise me (and the rest of us who actually
discuss things.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dizzydog
Sincerity is no guarantee for truth? and neither is obstinacy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
rascal,
(1) I don?t trust any of your judgements in the area of understanding exactly the meanings of those verses.
(2) I don?t trust any of your judgements in the areas of knowing exactly what took place in Dr?s life.
You have failed to earn my respect in these two areas. You are not alone in this failure. Very few people have earned my respect in these two areas.
*******
Goey,
Someday I will clear up the telescope mystery. Honest. And I'll try to be brief. You may get a small chuckle.
As for now, it?s not the word of Mike that needs detailed examination, it?s the Word of God that He taught Dr and Dr taught us in written form. THAT?S what folks need to work carefully.
*******
WordWolf,
I've been frequently up front here with admitting that I?m not out to prove, but more to present.
I think the proof is in the pudding, or in the putting. Putting PFAL into the mind is where the proofs happen.
When people approach PFAL with proper respect then God can go to work and furnish all the proof you need. The kind and style of ?intelligent discourse? you demand of me is not available. I just don?t have the time nor the inclinations. I don?t trust your attitudes and your approaches.
You can point out how much I fail to meet your demands all you want. I?ll even help you with this up front re-assurance that I will NOT engage you in the sport of your choosing.
I came here to present crucial information in the teaching record of VPW that we either didn?t recognize or remember. There?s a lot more information to present, and I do like to engage in some rich discussion along the way. But, if you want full rigorous debate you?ll have to find someone else to do it with. I?m just too busy with something I consider much more important than your investigations.
*******
dizzydog,
Correct. Beyond my sincerity and beyond my obstinacy are the details of the PFAL text. If I?m correct, and God had His hand in their writing, then His Word will speak for itself better than I could ever. That?s where the truth is guaranteed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
firebee
What came first?
Pfal or the Bible?
Did God really need VPW to make known His Word?
Was TWI and Pfal the only path to follow?
Is salvation based soley on the words of a man writing about the Bible?
I spent blood, sweat and tears (and a few other things) for an organization known as TWI that was led by a man named VPW, who wrote and spoke about God, but said nothing.
It all should have been translated Blah, blah, blah............
My opinion........"where's your crown, King Nothing"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
WordWolf - Thank you very much! You said it much more cogently, and much more politely, than I was inclined to put it.
Mike - You wrote, "If I'm correct, and God had His hand in their [PFAL texts'] writing, then His Word will speak for itself better than I could."
If you are correct, and God wrote "As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supercedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world", then one would expect for it to speak for itself by making sense. Especially since it is such a foundational concept.
Grads were discouraged from answering questions during the course of a PFAL class because the new students weren't "spiritually mature" enough to receive the answers. Yet we allowed *prospective* students to read the Blue Book. It shouldn't require much "spiritual maturity" to understand Wierwille's sentence from the Blue Book. Certainly a prospective student wouldn't be expected to glean an understanding of Wierwille's simile from his knowledge of the rest of the class, because he hasn't even taken it yet!
This sentence is one of the most basic statements in PFAL. You yourself quoted it in your post of April 01, 2003, 00:19, (page 2), wherein you introduced the topic of this thread. In your post of April 13, 2003, 16:13, (page 6), before launching into an exposition of "Christ Formed In You" you wrote, "This teaching depends heavily on an understanding of the Natural/Factual versus Spiritual/True."
This simile is *foundational*, yet the truth is, you cannot explain it. You can't explain it because it doesn't make any real sense. It has an appearance of meaning, but there is no substance.
Wierwille's words *do* speak for themselves. God *did not* have His hand in writing this simile. You are *not* correct.
Love from a certifiable OLG,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dizzydog
Mike wrote:
"Correct. Beyond my sincerity and beyond my obstinacy are the details of the PFAL text. If I?m correct, and God had His hand in their writing, then His Word will speak for itself better than I could ever. That?s where the truth is guaranteed."
PFAL was produced to direct us to the truth, God's Word. Nowhere in the text's of PFAL or the collaterals did VPW encourage us to vaunt the class or it's writings above the scriptures. Quite the contrary as I have proven before. I also am unfamiliar with any statements in PFAL that guaranteed truth in the details of the text of PFAL.
You and I disagree on what VPW meant when he talked about the Word of God. I believe as he wrote and taught that the Bible (KJV, NIV, NKJV, what have you), scriptures, written word was what he taught was the Word of God.
PFAL does not show how to be born again, Romans 10:9-10 does (even if it is written in the PFAL materials). PFAL is not first place the one body, grace, the manifestations et'al was written. Remember one of the keys to research is to seek the first place something was written.
VPW taught us himself not to take his word for it but to search the scriptures. And yes he meant the Bible, I personally watched him point to his Bible as he was declaring this.
Mike, I think I understand you after reading a number of your posts. And I am willing to say my judgements of you were wrong.
I realize now how concerned you are with trying to teach others the value in PFAL. Believe it or not I actually agree with you of the value in the materials. And I am unwilling to discount it's value because of the author and the record of The Way International. I mean this sincerely.
I also agree with many here that VPW was not the first to write much of what he taught. There is value in seeking those writings as well. All with the goal of understanding God's written word, THE SCRIPTURES. And no I do not mean the KJV. I mean the scriptures researched in as many texts, with as much depth as is available using the keys to research as taught in PFAL.
I wish there were a better way to discuss these things with you but unfortunately you seem unwilling to honestly discuss questions and issues with these materials. The hint that someone disagrees with you makes you discount them personally. Questions are met with repeated promises that you will get back to them on that, you rarely do. And you have yet to give anyone else any credit for points well made.
And some have been made.
For whatever this is worth, I respect your determination.
I would not have said that a few weeks ago...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I had forgotten how pointless and hopelessly futile these threads were... now I remember.
Be like MIKE!
It don't mean a thing if it ain't PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Mike, you can attack me personally ALL you want, it WON`T change the fact however, that you have dismissed and ignored entire sections of scripture to support your position.
I neither asked for, nor need your respect....it is galations, the BIBLE itself that you have no use for and refuse to give credence to.... you are a fool to dismiss scripture in favor of your *man after the flesh*
Have you READ galations recently ?? I`ll bet not, There simply IS no room to wiggle... No room for yours OR my private interpretation....
If you could just bring yourself to read galations and TELL me how you can get around what is clearly stated about a *man after the spirit* vs a *man after the flesh*...maybe I could consider your position.
You probably wont though... I can just see you hunched behind your computer fingers fiercly jammed in your ears, eyes screwed tightly shut ...frantically singing LALALALALALALALALAAAAAA just to keep the fragile illusion that you have manufatured for youself intact.... you are a coward Mike, and that is sad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dizzydog
Power For Abundant Living
Published 1971
Second Impression 1972
Page 66
"In 2 Timothy 3, where it reads, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," "all scripture" means without any exception from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21."
Page 82
"The testimony of the Word of God is that all Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for doctrine, which is able to teach us how to believe positively. If we are going to tap the resources for the more abundant life we must know how to believe rightly. To the people who say that the Bible has lots of errors in it, I would like to state that the true Word of God is accurate from Genesis to Revelation. The errors have come in by man propounding those errors."
Page 83
"The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let's see this from John 5:39. "Search the scriptures...." It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, "Search the scriptures..." because all scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed.
John 5:39:
Search the scriptures; for in them ... ye have eternal life: and they (the Scriptures) are they which testify of me.
The Scriptures tell us the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ, and about God: this is doctrine - it is right believing."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hey! Now we're talking!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
In some previous posts I have mentioned page 83 in the pfal book and a "Thus saith the Lord" statement hidden in some slightly complex grammar. This is my attempt to explain that grammar, and thus reveal what's been on that page all this time.
My goal is to produce a paraphrase equivalent of a sentence on that page. Also, I am particularly focused on attempting to fully incorporate the use of the word ?necessarily? that appears in the original sentence. The sentence is:
?Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.?
Just for simplicity, let?s temporarily remove the word "necessarily" and see what happens. Now we have:
?Not all that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.?
The sentence almost seems to still say the same thing. It's almost like nothing was altered, but don't believe it. Soon we'll see why "necessarily" was in there.
Practically speaking, if I eat NOT ALL of a pie, then there?s SOME pie left for you. In the sentence under study the phrase "not all" implies "some." Mathematically speaking, the phrase ?not all? is equivalent to ?some or possibly none.? So, substituting the phrase ?some or none? for the phrase ?not all? in the sentence we then have:
?Some (or possibly none) that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.?
This then can be separated out to two possible sentences:
?Some that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.?
?None that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.?
Now let?s restore the word "necessarily"
?Some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.?
?None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.?
The second sentence is rather strained grammar and logic. It also radically contradicts what Dr. wrote on page 34 of the Green Book: ?...you will find that every word I have written to you is true.? I believe for these and other reasons it must be rejected in favor of the first sentence.
The first sentence fits (and the second does not) with all that we spiritually sensed when we first took the class. Likewise the first fits with the 1942 audible promise from God. And it fits with the last night of the class when Dr. said:
?...if you're in this class, you've heard the Word, you've
believed God's Word, God is always faithful. And nobody ever
misses, if you'll do exactly what I tell you to do, right
down to the minute detail.
It's like, in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember
where the Apostle Paul said: ?I thank my God, that, when you
received the Word of God which you heard of us, you received it
not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God.?
Now, if you'll be as honest with God as that Word of God says,
you too can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the
power of God. But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille
talking, you'll never get it. But if you know that what I am
saying -- it's V.P. Wierwille saying it, but these are words
which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is utilizing and speaking
to you through my ministry and my life, then you too will
manifest forth the greatness of the power of God.?
So, in a nutshell: the use of the word ?necessarily? eliminates the possibility of ?none? of Dr?s writings being God-breathed. Recently I came up with a paraphrase of the original page 83 sentence that incorporates this perspective.
The context of page 83 is God-breathed words are trustworthy; man-breathed words are not. We know that Jesus Christ said that he did not speak forth HIS OWN untrustworthy, man-breathed words, although he was tempted to. He only spoke forth the words his Father told him to speak. He was the only one to achieve this TOTAL purity of all words issued.
Here's the paraphrase:
?Even MY own writings... (and I was commissioned by God?s
audible voice in 1942 to bring forth God-taught explanations
of the Bible, and because of that SOME of my writings are not
really my own, but are REALLY God-breathed)... but even MY own
writings, when they?re merely my own, are not trustworthy like
God's are.?
The word ?necessarily? implies the contents of the above parenthesis. The original sentence on page 83 says that even someone who is given the job, by God, to teach the Word ?like it hasn't been known since the first century? is going to have words, his own words, that fall short of the perfection of God.
Therefore, because not all, but just SOME of what Dr. Wierwille wrote is NECESSARILY God-breathed, the next step is identifying WHICH of his writings ARE God-breathed.
Hint: Dr?s Last/Lost Teaching contains the MOST IMPORTANT thing he could want to tell us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charlie
boy oh boy, you and some others are really 'hurting' over that crap
boy oh boy ciao
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Well then, Mike, you better start getting out the works of Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, and Roberts, and lauding them to the skies as much as Wierwille, because according to your logic, some of the time THEY had God-breathed writings, too.
And if that be the case, just who is the arbiter of what should be considered revelation, and what should be thrown out?
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Hint: Dr?s Last/Lost Teaching contains the MOST IMPORTANT thing he could want to tell us.
Mike, if you find an apology in there let us know...Otherwise most don't care what he had to say or if it was important....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.