There is one word that you are missing that makes PFAL page 83 come alive, but I think you may have missed it. It?s in the quote you posted, though.
There?s one pivotal word that, if I removed it from the text you posted, few would be able to tell, especially with only one reading. With a careful slow search of a parallel column word processor file, the word could come fast. But one or two readings, or a verbal hearing or two, and few can detect the difference in meaning of the passages. That means the secret word is being totally ignored. What is that word?
Do you mean the word, necessarily? I agree that when he writes, quotes, what he himself calls the Word of God, the traditional Bible, then it is God-breathed. Everything else is just his spin.
I've done extensive work researching as many places where Dr uses the word "master" so that I can have him tell me what he means by that word in his last teaching's final instructions to us OLGs.
If I have a choice between Dr's words in the record, and your opinions from memory, then my choice will be the record Dr left us.
I've reported on another thread the dual Way Magazine articles Dr did in 1979 titled ?Masters of the Word? and How the Word Works.? In both he uses the word master quite a bit, plus the two articles, one an ?Our Times? editorial, are linked in other ways I?ve pointed out. Plus in the 1979 Advanced Class Dr uses the word ?master? regarding ALL Advanced Class grads (now OLGs) having fallen behind in their mastery of the Holy Spirit book.
Here?s what he said: ?I have set for our people, and it's set in the book on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today," and people, when you reach the Advanced Class, you ought to be able almost to quote this line for line. You should have mastered this book by the time you get to the Advanced Class. If you haven't, you better get busy and do it - work it to where you understand the Word of God in every facet, in every way of it's utilization regarding the holy spirit field - all of them, you must know this book, in and out. But I've discovered as I've worked among my people, and even all the grads of the Advanced Class, there still are areas where we got to push ourselves.? ....( 1979 Advanced Class segment #5)
Again in Sound Out?84 Dr brings up the subject of mastery.
In Dr?s last Limb Meeting, Kentucky he told the audience of the great importance of mastering the PFAL books.
In Dr?s last teaching at Emporia he taught the same thing.
Dr?s use of the word ?mastery? can be accurately discerned from the record. Some of which I?ve posted, and there is more to come.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 11, 2003 at 1:47.]
Mike, I thought the advanced class wasn't part of the god-breathed works? Is Zix spreading nasty rumors? If you don't except the AC that quote doesn't apply.
That thing about the Advanced Class not being "canonical" is not from me per se. I've not put half the energy into discerning the exact boundaries of what is God-breathed and what isn't, than some other posters here. It seems that this is high on others list, but not mine. The exact boundaries are low on my priority list, like AEs.
My priority list revolves around the contents of what Dr left us... receiving, retaining, and releasing.
As far as that Part II title, I've wondered about that for a while. I have seen abbreviated headers in other books, and mistakes, typos, in the headers of other books. I don't know about that.
The preponderance of clear textual evidence has me standing behind:
"... the Bible is the revealed Word of God."
"...the Bible gives God's Word."
When Dr uses "Bible" he is emphasizing the 5-senses realm, the material, the ink, the paper. He also means the originals, not translations nor versions.
I mentioned Dr's Last Words at Emporia earlier, and I now want to get into some of their details.
Reconstructing past events is no where near as accurate as printed records or tapes, but some things can be brought out by memory and partial print/tape records, especially if it's multiple witness testimony.
An interesting example of such a reconstruction came to me by e-mail.
Several years ago I posted a small announcement on the www.eph320.com website about finding Dr's last teaching. It was posted there for about a year and I received about 40 inquiries. All of them were unaware of this teaching so I sent them copies. Like in my posting here, I also offered them other e-documents of VPW's material. A number of them developed into pen pals over time. Reproduced below is a letter I received from one such person regarding Dr's last words at Emporia. Your going to see a pattern developing.
**********************************************
Dear Mike,
Yes, we certainly would like more. Hey! My name is MB. I used to be MS and I was in the 15th Corps. I was wondering if you were in the Corps too or if by chance I might have met you? I just wanted you to know I certainly did enjoy reading "The Joy of Service" again.
The year that Dr. Wierwille died, I was in residence at the Way College of Emporia. I will never forget the last 10:30 Fellowship we had with him up in the Ambassador Room.
He said,
Kids, the Word is not going to go over the world
unless you and I take the collaterals and master
them to the point you can teach them at the drop
of a hat to someone you happen to run into.
He said,
Its not in how many classes you run, its in how much
of The Word of God you know and are able to teach
on the spur of the moment.
He said,
You've got to master it. And what I mean by mastering
it is you don't turn to the next page until you completely
understand and have committed to memory the first.
I have never forgotten those words and have shared them many times with believers that I know and with our fellowship that W and I ran for 9 years before we moved to XY. So it really blessed me to read your e-mail and see that someone else really caught on to the greatness of what Dr. was saying. God is great. We love you our brother and we will be anticipating more.
God Bless You,
MB
**********************************************
The twice repeated phrases regarding ?mastery? in Dr's very last teaching are AGAIN repetitions of his last teaching at Emporia.
I keep in mind that this ?record? of Dr?s at Emporia is anecdotal, from an attendee's memory, and not a tape or published transcript. However, stacked with the accumulating mountain of hard evidence, this soft evidence can be appreciated since it fits well with that mountain. It in no way contradicts it, and adds more supporting data. I feel confident in placing this in the category of secondary confirmation of the theme that Dr wanted us to master the PFAL books, NOT the principles in them. We aren?t qualified to say what all those principles ARE until we?ve finished mastering everything.
Just to enrich your appreciation of these Emporia words, let's look again at these near-quotes of Dr:
1. Kids, the Word is not going to go over the world unless
you and I take the collaterals and master them to the
point you can teach them at the drop of a hat to someone
you happen to run into.
2. Its not in how many classes you run, its in how much of
The Word of God you know and are able to teach on the
spur of the moment.
3. You've got to master it. And what I mean by mastering it
is you don't turn to the next page until you completely
understand and have committed to memory the first.
In the first paragraph (1) he instructs us to master the collaterals
...................to the degree of total impromptu teaching adeptness.
In the second paragraph (2) he instructs us to know "The Word of God"
...................to the degree of total impromptu teaching adeptness.
Does this seem to imply something? Did Dr say by implication that the collaterals are or reveal or give us The Word of God here?
It would seem that if he was talking in paragraph (2) about Bible mastery, then paragraph (3), if it too refers to Bible mastery, would be an impossible task.
But if he was talking about the collaterals in all three paragraphs, then it's a totally do-able mastery task for us all, and everything fits consistently here, as well as with the other hard evidence we have.
The collaterals CAN mastered. That's not an impossible task at all. Mastering the KJV/etc is not humanly possible. Just "Figures of Speech" can fully occupy a full-time scholar's entire life span.
If at Emporia Dr meant collaterals in paragraphs (3) and (2) then this last Emporia address would then be in complete harmony with "The Joy of Serving" where collateral mastery is explicitly mentioned.
From that 1979 Advanced Class quote I posted, until his death in 1985, Dr explicitly hammered away at our need to master the collaterals. I understand now why he did this, after having attempted this mastery for over 5 years now. There's lots of surprises hidden in them. Lots of confirmation that it's the right track back to what we used to have, and more. Lots of AEs get cleared up as we go.
And now, just for review, let's compare these Emporia paragraphs with the "Masters of the Word" that I mentionjed above and posted elsewhere and discussed in detail. There are several sentences in "Masters of the Word" that I'd like to point out.
These sentences of Dr?s are:
1. We can only recondition ourselves to this as we
ourselves become masters of the Word.
2. And if you want to know about the head of the Body,
you've got to go to God's Word and read it.
3. This is why we have to be masters of the Word, we have
to gain a knowledge of God, and we have to get our
minds at peace with the Word so that our minds are no
longer warring against it.
4. You've got to get to that point that you quit disputing
with God's Word; just start believing it and then master it.
5. We just have to master the Word and let the Word have
mastery in our lives.
6. Mastery of God's Word is not just my pleasure and
responsibility because I am a preacher or a teacher.
It is as much yours as it is mine...
7. Let's become masters of God's Word and let it reign
supreme in our lives.
We see that in all of these sentences from that article, whenever Dr refers to God's Word he doesn't mean the KJV, he means the collaterals. The KJV is for beginners, but not for mastery. We have something much better in them and straight from God.
.
.
.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 11, 2003 at 12:40.]
quote: Ephesians advises in chapter 6, ?Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord?? It does not tell us to be strong in what a theologian may say or in what a Bible teacher may say. If the theologian says what The Word says, if the teacher says what The Word says, then you have to be strong in what they say because of The Word, not because of the men.
Ephesians 6:10:
Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and
[be strong] in the power of his might.
We know VP?s definition of the Word of God.
Mike, show me were in the Word of God it says to master PFAL. According to VP?s own words we shouldn?t listen to him if the Word doesn?t say it.
You're showing many places where the Bible and the Word of God are very similar. They SHOULD be similar. But they do differ? How? Spelling! When the different spellings are employed, then different aspects are being emphasized.
The Word of God is bigger than the Bible.
Plus we lost the original Bible.
In Session Three of the class (segment 16, page 127 in the book) Dr. says:
"No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen
very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's
all we have today at best are translations. No translation
may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!"
Then a minute later he repeats:
"Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone
a version, no translation may properly be called The Word
Of God..."
Then several minutes later he hits it again:
"And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I
refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version
or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not
mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was
originally given when holy men of God spake as they were
"The KJV is for beginners, but not for mastery. We have something much better in them and straight from God."
Mike, you are one sick puppy, you know that? I don't know whether to thank you or really get ....ed off at you. You have almost convinced me that VP believed the same as you about PFAL. I wasn?t one who believed he was evil from that beginning. I thought he started out good and through his arrogance and self-righteous pride gave into the ways of the world. I can understand being human.
But you have succeeded in destroying what little respect I had left for him. At this moment I can honestly say I hate the man. And I really don?t like the way it feels.
It appears that you hold a higher regard for the traditions of men and the ways they handed down the Bible over the centuries, than you have for the pure revelations God gave to Dr and Dr gave to us.
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. The word ?necessarily? seems out of place. The second sentence 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, a next step is identifying WHICH of his writings ARE God-breathed. I?ve mentioned that this next step is a lower priority, but is still on the list.
I?ve mentioned how Dr?s Last/Lost Teaching contains the MOST IMPORTANT thing he could want to tell us as he said so in Living Victoriously session #1 and in the Blue Book page 139. In that last teaching he twice tells us to master the PFAL written materials. As we obey this directive from our teacher, the boundaries on what?s worth mastering will become clear. As we come back to PFAL LOTS of things will become more clear.
I think it follows that if one doctrine in the Advanced Class is incorrect, then the whole thing is necessarily not canon -- Mr. Wierwille may have spoken truth once in awhile, but that doesn't mean he was speaking from revelation. (When I say, "the sky is blue today," I speak the truth, but it isn't God-breathed.) The same holds true for everything he ever said or wrote. He may have spoken the truth at times in each book or class, but if there is only ONE error, then it MUST be thrown out in its entirety AS CANON, because God does not err. Can we learn or be inspired by the writings of VPW? Possibly. But treat them as canon, inerrant? Absolutely not.
The other point of canonicity that Mike refuses to face is the integrity of the author. The Bible itself says that scripture was given to "holy men." Not perfect men, but holy ones. I think a great enough cloud of witnesses has come forward to prove that Mr. Wierwille was not a holy man when he wrote any of his books or made any of his classes. He had altruistic moments, perhaps, but he could not be described as a holy man. Therefore, the writings of Victor Paul Wierwille must be thrown out as noncanonical.
From 1972 to 1983 I studied the Canon of Scripture. It was my favorite subject, and in those 11 years I accumulated a file that is almost 3 inches thick. I don?t see the need to delve into the subject of a canon at this point in time. I see the need to come back to the books Dr pointed out in his Last/Lost Teaching.
How the first century canon did develop and was finally recognized is a fascinating subject. I suggest some here could do well to think through some of the details as to how Paul?s epistles were first received, how Paul and the epistles were then rejected, and then MUCH later finally recognized as of God.
As to holy men, can you please tell me how Kings Saul, David, Solomon, and the ?prophet? Baalam fit into your official definition of ?holy? and who made you the paragon of virtue that you can call me evil? I?d also like to know how you, in this powerfully lofty position, avoid the corruption of power that the people under your scrutiny have succumbed to. Did you get this power while at TWI?
As to holy men, can you please tell me how Kings Saul, David, Solomon, and the ?prophet? Baalam fit into your official definition of ?holy? ... ?
Saul never wrote anything: therefore irrelevant.
Did Baalam write anything? Not that I know of. Scratch the relevance of that question.
The difference between David and VPW has been discussed ad nauseum (highlight: David's sin was horrible, he repented and paid dearly for it; Wierwille's sin was habitual and rather than repent of it, he excused it by denying the clear Biblical doctrine forbidding adultery in every administration).
Solomon's an interesting case. You'll note that in the Bible, after Solomon rejects a godly course for his life, the Bible pretty much rejects anything else he has to say or do. So the question of whether he was a holy man or not is irrelevant because he certainly was at the time he wrote anything in question. When he was NOT holy, he never wrote anything that's accepted canon. If anything, he proves the case against Wierwille's works being God-breathed.
As for Saul, he IS relevant in that he was chosen to be a leader by God, and then he did poorly. God still inspired David to respect him, AFTER Saul?s great sins and not kill him when he had the chance.
The relevancy is that the esteemed panel of self appointed GS Character Judges here seem to have not educated themselves in the character judgements and precedents that God set in His Word, and then they accuse me of the evil of setting my heart against the same God and His righteous written judgements, which they are willingly ignorant of.
We have some God-breathed records of what happened to David?s heart. We don?t have the WHOLE story of David?s heart in God-breathed form, though. We know nothing of how many times David had relapses in his sex and power trips.
We do know that in normal human psychology, once a weakness exists in a man?s life, the devil will always try again to exploit that weakness, sooner or later. These cycles are utterly normal.
David didn?t suddenly flip out with Bathsheba, and then flip farther with Uriah. He had to jade his conscience for YEARS to get that far gone! It became habit, and he must have gone through many cycles of approach/avoidance in the early stages to achieve that jaded conscience.
We have NO God-breathed record of any of Dr?s flesh trip cycles, only anecdotal accounts that are already 20 years old. We also have no idea how many cycles God can tolerate. He does seem to suggest 770 for OUR tolerance level, out of the lips of the lord who died for all our sins, but I expect God can tolerate MUCH more than we.
I just wanted to remind and document the VASTLY differing surety levels here, in ?deciding? whether VPW repented to our satisfaction or not, like David did to God?s satisfaction. God is the final Judge here.
Rafael, if you or Shaz or any other Judges of hearts have any other GS members in you sights after me, I think it?s only fair to warn them.
Also, for any readers out there who are contemplating signing up and posting, it would be nice to them if you posted the modus operundi that goes into your Judgements. I?m thinking of what the rules are for collecting evidence and testimony (sworn or not) and so forth. That way they can better line up with the true doctrine(s) here and not run afoul of the law people can run into her like me and VP.
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
Zixar and Jesse Joe,
There is one word that you are missing that makes PFAL page 83 come alive, but I think you may have missed it. It?s in the quote you posted, though.
There?s one pivotal word that, if I removed it from the text you posted, few would be able to tell, especially with only one reading. With a careful slow search of a parallel column word processor file, the word could come fast. But one or two readings, or a verbal hearing or two, and few can detect the difference in meaning of the passages. That means the secret word is being totally ignored. What is that word?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JesseJoe
Do you mean the word, necessarily? I agree that when he writes, quotes, what he himself calls the Word of God, the traditional Bible, then it is God-breathed. Everything else is just his spin.
Jesse
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jesse Joe,
I've done extensive work researching as many places where Dr uses the word "master" so that I can have him tell me what he means by that word in his last teaching's final instructions to us OLGs.
If I have a choice between Dr's words in the record, and your opinions from memory, then my choice will be the record Dr left us.
I've reported on another thread the dual Way Magazine articles Dr did in 1979 titled ?Masters of the Word? and How the Word Works.? In both he uses the word master quite a bit, plus the two articles, one an ?Our Times? editorial, are linked in other ways I?ve pointed out. Plus in the 1979 Advanced Class Dr uses the word ?master? regarding ALL Advanced Class grads (now OLGs) having fallen behind in their mastery of the Holy Spirit book.
Here?s what he said: ?I have set for our people, and it's set in the book on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today," and people, when you reach the Advanced Class, you ought to be able almost to quote this line for line. You should have mastered this book by the time you get to the Advanced Class. If you haven't, you better get busy and do it - work it to where you understand the Word of God in every facet, in every way of it's utilization regarding the holy spirit field - all of them, you must know this book, in and out. But I've discovered as I've worked among my people, and even all the grads of the Advanced Class, there still are areas where we got to push ourselves.? ....( 1979 Advanced Class segment #5)
Again in Sound Out?84 Dr brings up the subject of mastery.
In Dr?s last Limb Meeting, Kentucky he told the audience of the great importance of mastering the PFAL books.
In Dr?s last teaching at Emporia he taught the same thing.
Dr?s use of the word ?mastery? can be accurately discerned from the record. Some of which I?ve posted, and there is more to come.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 11, 2003 at 1:47.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JesseJoe
Haven't looked at PFAL in such a long time. VP calls Part II of the book, The Bible is the Word of God. Well that simplified matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JesseJoe
Mike, I thought the advanced class wasn't part of the god-breathed works? Is Zix spreading nasty rumors? If you don't except the AC that quote doesn't apply.
Can't have it both ways.
Jesse
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JesseJoe
Another thing, the titles of the the dual Way Magazine articles Dr did in 1979 were?Masters of the Word? and How the Word Works.??
But what is VP's definition of the word? According to PFAL it is ...
Jesse
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jesse Joe,
That thing about the Advanced Class not being "canonical" is not from me per se. I've not put half the energy into discerning the exact boundaries of what is God-breathed and what isn't, than some other posters here. It seems that this is high on others list, but not mine. The exact boundaries are low on my priority list, like AEs.
My priority list revolves around the contents of what Dr left us... receiving, retaining, and releasing.
As far as that Part II title, I've wondered about that for a while. I have seen abbreviated headers in other books, and mistakes, typos, in the headers of other books. I don't know about that.
The preponderance of clear textual evidence has me standing behind:
"... the Bible is the revealed Word of God."
"...the Bible gives God's Word."
When Dr uses "Bible" he is emphasizing the 5-senses realm, the material, the ink, the paper. He also means the originals, not translations nor versions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jesse Joe,
I mentioned Dr's Last Words at Emporia earlier, and I now want to get into some of their details.
Reconstructing past events is no where near as accurate as printed records or tapes, but some things can be brought out by memory and partial print/tape records, especially if it's multiple witness testimony.
An interesting example of such a reconstruction came to me by e-mail.
Several years ago I posted a small announcement on the www.eph320.com website about finding Dr's last teaching. It was posted there for about a year and I received about 40 inquiries. All of them were unaware of this teaching so I sent them copies. Like in my posting here, I also offered them other e-documents of VPW's material. A number of them developed into pen pals over time. Reproduced below is a letter I received from one such person regarding Dr's last words at Emporia. Your going to see a pattern developing.
**********************************************
Dear Mike,
Yes, we certainly would like more. Hey! My name is MB. I used to be MS and I was in the 15th Corps. I was wondering if you were in the Corps too or if by chance I might have met you? I just wanted you to know I certainly did enjoy reading "The Joy of Service" again.
The year that Dr. Wierwille died, I was in residence at the Way College of Emporia. I will never forget the last 10:30 Fellowship we had with him up in the Ambassador Room.
He said,
Kids, the Word is not going to go over the world
unless you and I take the collaterals and master
them to the point you can teach them at the drop
of a hat to someone you happen to run into.
He said,
Its not in how many classes you run, its in how much
of The Word of God you know and are able to teach
on the spur of the moment.
He said,
You've got to master it. And what I mean by mastering
it is you don't turn to the next page until you completely
understand and have committed to memory the first.
I have never forgotten those words and have shared them many times with believers that I know and with our fellowship that W and I ran for 9 years before we moved to XY. So it really blessed me to read your e-mail and see that someone else really caught on to the greatness of what Dr. was saying. God is great. We love you our brother and we will be anticipating more.
God Bless You,
MB
**********************************************
The twice repeated phrases regarding ?mastery? in Dr's very last teaching are AGAIN repetitions of his last teaching at Emporia.
I keep in mind that this ?record? of Dr?s at Emporia is anecdotal, from an attendee's memory, and not a tape or published transcript. However, stacked with the accumulating mountain of hard evidence, this soft evidence can be appreciated since it fits well with that mountain. It in no way contradicts it, and adds more supporting data. I feel confident in placing this in the category of secondary confirmation of the theme that Dr wanted us to master the PFAL books, NOT the principles in them. We aren?t qualified to say what all those principles ARE until we?ve finished mastering everything.
Just to enrich your appreciation of these Emporia words, let's look again at these near-quotes of Dr:
1. Kids, the Word is not going to go over the world unless
you and I take the collaterals and master them to the
point you can teach them at the drop of a hat to someone
you happen to run into.
2. Its not in how many classes you run, its in how much of
The Word of God you know and are able to teach on the
spur of the moment.
3. You've got to master it. And what I mean by mastering it
is you don't turn to the next page until you completely
understand and have committed to memory the first.
In the first paragraph (1) he instructs us to master the collaterals
...................to the degree of total impromptu teaching adeptness.
In the second paragraph (2) he instructs us to know "The Word of God"
...................to the degree of total impromptu teaching adeptness.
Does this seem to imply something? Did Dr say by implication that the collaterals are or reveal or give us The Word of God here?
It would seem that if he was talking in paragraph (2) about Bible mastery, then paragraph (3), if it too refers to Bible mastery, would be an impossible task.
But if he was talking about the collaterals in all three paragraphs, then it's a totally do-able mastery task for us all, and everything fits consistently here, as well as with the other hard evidence we have.
The collaterals CAN mastered. That's not an impossible task at all. Mastering the KJV/etc is not humanly possible. Just "Figures of Speech" can fully occupy a full-time scholar's entire life span.
If at Emporia Dr meant collaterals in paragraphs (3) and (2) then this last Emporia address would then be in complete harmony with "The Joy of Serving" where collateral mastery is explicitly mentioned.
From that 1979 Advanced Class quote I posted, until his death in 1985, Dr explicitly hammered away at our need to master the collaterals. I understand now why he did this, after having attempted this mastery for over 5 years now. There's lots of surprises hidden in them. Lots of confirmation that it's the right track back to what we used to have, and more. Lots of AEs get cleared up as we go.
And now, just for review, let's compare these Emporia paragraphs with the "Masters of the Word" that I mentionjed above and posted elsewhere and discussed in detail. There are several sentences in "Masters of the Word" that I'd like to point out.
These sentences of Dr?s are:
1. We can only recondition ourselves to this as we
ourselves become masters of the Word.
2. And if you want to know about the head of the Body,
you've got to go to God's Word and read it.
3. This is why we have to be masters of the Word, we have
to gain a knowledge of God, and we have to get our
minds at peace with the Word so that our minds are no
longer warring against it.
4. You've got to get to that point that you quit disputing
with God's Word; just start believing it and then master it.
5. We just have to master the Word and let the Word have
mastery in our lives.
6. Mastery of God's Word is not just my pleasure and
responsibility because I am a preacher or a teacher.
It is as much yours as it is mine...
7. Let's become masters of God's Word and let it reign
supreme in our lives.
We see that in all of these sentences from that article, whenever Dr refers to God's Word he doesn't mean the KJV, he means the collaterals. The KJV is for beginners, but not for mastery. We have something much better in them and straight from God.
.
.
.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 11, 2003 at 12:40.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JesseJoe
Page 366 of PFAL
We know VP?s definition of the Word of God.
Mike, show me were in the Word of God it says to master PFAL. According to VP?s own words we shouldn?t listen to him if the Word doesn?t say it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jesse Joe,
You WIN! You got the special word "necessarily" correct.
In all the posting flurry I missed that post of yours when you did it.
Since you won, you get first crack at why that word is in there and what's the difference if it weren't there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jesse Joe,
You're showing many places where the Bible and the Word of God are very similar. They SHOULD be similar. But they do differ? How? Spelling! When the different spellings are employed, then different aspects are being emphasized.
The Word of God is bigger than the Bible.
Plus we lost the original Bible.
In Session Three of the class (segment 16, page 127 in the book) Dr. says:
"No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen
very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's
all we have today at best are translations. No translation
may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!"
Then a minute later he repeats:
"Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone
a version, no translation may properly be called The Word
Of God..."
Then several minutes later he hits it again:
"And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I
refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version
or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not
mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was
originally given when holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JesseJoe
"The KJV is for beginners, but not for mastery. We have something much better in them and straight from God."
Mike, you are one sick puppy, you know that? I don't know whether to thank you or really get ....ed off at you. You have almost convinced me that VP believed the same as you about PFAL. I wasn?t one who believed he was evil from that beginning. I thought he started out good and through his arrogance and self-righteous pride gave into the ways of the world. I can understand being human.
But you have succeeded in destroying what little respect I had left for him. At this moment I can honestly say I hate the man. And I really don?t like the way it feels.
Later,
Jesse
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jesse Joe,
It appears that you hold a higher regard for the traditions of men and the ways they handed down the Bible over the centuries, than you have for the pure revelations God gave to Dr and Dr gave to us.
I see tradition as contrary to God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jesse Joe,
Should I count that as your first crack at PFAL page 83?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Here's my demanded explanation of that page.
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. The word ?necessarily? seems out of place. The second sentence 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, a next step is identifying WHICH of his writings ARE God-breathed. I?ve mentioned that this next step is a lower priority, but is still on the list.
I?ve mentioned how Dr?s Last/Lost Teaching contains the MOST IMPORTANT thing he could want to tell us as he said so in Living Victoriously session #1 and in the Blue Book page 139. In that last teaching he twice tells us to master the PFAL written materials. As we obey this directive from our teacher, the boundaries on what?s worth mastering will become clear. As we come back to PFAL LOTS of things will become more clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charlie
somehow, i no longer care if "the word goes over the world"
what now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike,
one of these years, in all the posting about
"mastering" stuff, will you ever get around to
a plain English definition of "mastering" that
does not contain the word "master" or
"mastering" in it? I'd like a clear under-
standing of what "mastering" is, since it's
supposedly something I'm supposed to be doing.
I keep asking, you keep ignoring.
-------------------------------------
JesseJoe,
at one point, you asked about whether Mike
thought the Advanced Class was canonical or
not. Mike's reply said he didn't say either
way, but that he hadn't determined what parts
were God-breathed and what parts weren't.
For those of us following along in English, that
means he has yet to determine which parts are
canonical. That means that it's NOT canonical-
it's under canonical review.
In case you are wondering, that will remain
in canonical review by Mike in perpetuity.
Mike will never commit to it, since there's FAR
too much material easily disproven in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Touché, WordWolf. And of course, if any of the work is not canonical, then the whole work should be thrown out of the canon. That would follow the precepts of every group that ever looked at the authenticity of the scripture canon. Even VP said that if one word was out of place, the whole Bible would fall to pieces.
I think it follows that if one doctrine in the Advanced Class is incorrect, then the whole thing is necessarily not canon -- Mr. Wierwille may have spoken truth once in awhile, but that doesn't mean he was speaking from revelation. (When I say, "the sky is blue today," I speak the truth, but it isn't God-breathed.) The same holds true for everything he ever said or wrote. He may have spoken the truth at times in each book or class, but if there is only ONE error, then it MUST be thrown out in its entirety AS CANON, because God does not err. Can we learn or be inspired by the writings of VPW? Possibly. But treat them as canon, inerrant? Absolutely not.
The other point of canonicity that Mike refuses to face is the integrity of the author. The Bible itself says that scripture was given to "holy men." Not perfect men, but holy ones. I think a great enough cloud of witnesses has come forward to prove that Mr. Wierwille was not a holy man when he wrote any of his books or made any of his classes. He had altruistic moments, perhaps, but he could not be described as a holy man. Therefore, the writings of Victor Paul Wierwille must be thrown out as noncanonical.
Regards,
shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Shazdancer,
From 1972 to 1983 I studied the Canon of Scripture. It was my favorite subject, and in those 11 years I accumulated a file that is almost 3 inches thick. I don?t see the need to delve into the subject of a canon at this point in time. I see the need to come back to the books Dr pointed out in his Last/Lost Teaching.
How the first century canon did develop and was finally recognized is a fascinating subject. I suggest some here could do well to think through some of the details as to how Paul?s epistles were first received, how Paul and the epistles were then rejected, and then MUCH later finally recognized as of God.
As to holy men, can you please tell me how Kings Saul, David, Solomon, and the ?prophet? Baalam fit into your official definition of ?holy? and who made you the paragon of virtue that you can call me evil? I?d also like to know how you, in this powerfully lofty position, avoid the corruption of power that the people under your scrutiny have succumbed to. Did you get this power while at TWI?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Saul never wrote anything: therefore irrelevant.
Did Baalam write anything? Not that I know of. Scratch the relevance of that question.
The difference between David and VPW has been discussed ad nauseum (highlight: David's sin was horrible, he repented and paid dearly for it; Wierwille's sin was habitual and rather than repent of it, he excused it by denying the clear Biblical doctrine forbidding adultery in every administration).
Solomon's an interesting case. You'll note that in the Bible, after Solomon rejects a godly course for his life, the Bible pretty much rejects anything else he has to say or do. So the question of whether he was a holy man or not is irrelevant because he certainly was at the time he wrote anything in question. When he was NOT holy, he never wrote anything that's accepted canon. If anything, he proves the case against Wierwille's works being God-breathed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm thinking of the phrase "...holy men of God SPAKE..."
Baalam spoke one of the most beautiful prophesies of the coming Savior, while he was being paid by the enemy to prophesy AGAINST God's people.
Later it was put into written form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
My mistake: I misspelled his name. It?s Balaam.
Here?s his prophesy in Numbers 22:7-10
And he took up his parable, and said,
Balak the king of Moab hath brought me from Aram,
out of the mountains of the east,
saying, Come, curse me Jacob, and come, defy Israel.
How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed?
or how shall I defy, whom the LORD hath not defied?
For from the top of the rocks I see him,
and from the hills I behold him:
lo, the people shall dwell alone,
and shall not be reckoned among the nations.
Who can count the dust of Jacob,
and the number of the fourth part of Israel?
Let me die the death of the righteous,
and let my last end be like his!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
As for Saul, he IS relevant in that he was chosen to be a leader by God, and then he did poorly. God still inspired David to respect him, AFTER Saul?s great sins and not kill him when he had the chance.
The relevancy is that the esteemed panel of self appointed GS Character Judges here seem to have not educated themselves in the character judgements and precedents that God set in His Word, and then they accuse me of the evil of setting my heart against the same God and His righteous written judgements, which they are willingly ignorant of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
We have some God-breathed records of what happened to David?s heart. We don?t have the WHOLE story of David?s heart in God-breathed form, though. We know nothing of how many times David had relapses in his sex and power trips.
We do know that in normal human psychology, once a weakness exists in a man?s life, the devil will always try again to exploit that weakness, sooner or later. These cycles are utterly normal.
David didn?t suddenly flip out with Bathsheba, and then flip farther with Uriah. He had to jade his conscience for YEARS to get that far gone! It became habit, and he must have gone through many cycles of approach/avoidance in the early stages to achieve that jaded conscience.
We have NO God-breathed record of any of Dr?s flesh trip cycles, only anecdotal accounts that are already 20 years old. We also have no idea how many cycles God can tolerate. He does seem to suggest 770 for OUR tolerance level, out of the lips of the lord who died for all our sins, but I expect God can tolerate MUCH more than we.
I just wanted to remind and document the VASTLY differing surety levels here, in ?deciding? whether VPW repented to our satisfaction or not, like David did to God?s satisfaction. God is the final Judge here.
Rafael, if you or Shaz or any other Judges of hearts have any other GS members in you sights after me, I think it?s only fair to warn them.
Also, for any readers out there who are contemplating signing up and posting, it would be nice to them if you posted the modus operundi that goes into your Judgements. I?m thinking of what the rules are for collecting evidence and testimony (sworn or not) and so forth. That way they can better line up with the true doctrine(s) here and not run afoul of the law people can run into her like me and VP.
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.