Mike, herein lies the big issue. most of us moved beyond PFAL defining our every thought. there is no need to bring it back to the class,
The big issue that I am trying to get to (and even finish) is that none of you moved beyond PFAL defining your everyday thought, because you never HAD it in there to begin with...
...you had SOME of it in there...
... but it was partial and it was distorted.
What you moved beyond was your own ill formed partial impressions of it.
And you CERTAINLY haven’t moved beyond the things that went wrong at TWI!
No, those things many of you want to remember, exaggerate, and never let the pain go. You seem to revel in the negatives.
I have moved beyond the negatives. They bore me, unless I’m dealing with one person in private about some pain they have from those days and they want to move beyond it. Otherwise I ignore that stuff.
***
Now getting back to what we missed on “only rule” I again ask WHAT WAS WRONG with those three offerings of “only rule” in Post #241?
Why are those blue fonted offerings NOT what Dr was talking about in the class when he talked about an “only rule for faith and practice” and the other synonymous phrases for same?
Now getting back to what we missed on “only rule” I again ask WHAT WAS WRONG with those three offerings of “only rule” in Post #241?
Why are those blue fonted offerings NOT what Dr was talking about in the class when he talked about an “only rule for faith and practice” and the other synonymous phrases for same?
In the interest of condensing things a bit, I am pasting the items referred to from post # 241.
****************************
In a few cases grads presented their “only rule for faith and practice” confusing it with things like the idea of “the most important” rule for conduct, or confusing it with the “greatest commandment,” or confusing it with an abbreviated thumbnail summary of a system of rules.
On January 15, on the “snow” thread, in Post # 401 Twinky wrote:
“One rule for faith and practice: well, here's mine. God is love and in him is no darkness at all. Because he loves us, God will never leave us nor forsake us.”
On January 31, on this thread, in Post # 107 socks wrote:
“I do have a single rule of faith and practice, actually, to the original topic - and again in Galatians as it's written in these words, a perfect way to view it for every Christian - ‘I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.’”
On February 1, on this thread, in Post # 140 waysider wrote:
“If I had to declare ONE rule of faith and practice, it would be The Golden Rule.
It transcends religious boundaries and theological inclinations.”
***************************
Suppose we just cut to the chase and you state what you think is "wrong" with those statements.
Is it because they don't precisely reflect what "Doctor" insisted must be our only rule?
If these were anyone’s “only rule for faith and practice” then they could not entertain the notion of The Hope. There’s nothing in these thumbnails to build the idea of Christ’s return. Even his first coming is left out, except for socks' tiny line that says "who loved me and gave Himself for me." The idea of "gave Himself" is not at all spelled out.
What about physical healing. If I am sick and any of those thumbnails were my “only rule” then I would have no believing for healing. I’d have to add to those thumbnails for hope and healing, as well as dozens of other root issues of life.
Think of the chaos if the U.S. Constitution were a thumbnail like these. Nothing could get done in the legal field. The brilliance of the Constitution is that is still is relatively small, yet it covers a lot. Of course it leaves a lot to the states and their constitutions, so the analogy is not perfect.
An “only rule” needs to be big enough to cover all instances of life. Otherwise, a person who literally has a thumbnail “only rule” has to stand aside most issues that involve any details their rule does not touch or cover.
To say that we should love is fine, but what exactly does love mean. If the only rule doesn’t define it, then either it stays undefined or definition must be added to that rule.
What about the 900 promises of God? A thumbnail “only rule” can hardly get to any of them.
If these were anyone’s “only rule for faith and practice” then they could not entertain the notion of The Hope. There’s nothing in these thumbnails to build the idea of Christ’s return. Even his first coming is left out, except for socks' tiny line that says "who loved me and gave Himself for me." The idea of "gave Himself" is not at all spelled out.
What about physical healing. If I am sick and any of those thumbnails were my “only rule” then I would have no believing for healing. I’d have to add to those thumbnails for hope and healing, as well as dozens of other root issues of life.
Think of the chaos if the U.S. Constitution were a thumbnail like these. Nothing could get done in the legal field. The brilliance of the Constitution is that is still is relatively small, yet it covers a lot. Of course it leaves a lot to the states and their constitutions, so the analogy is not perfect.
An “only rule” needs to be big enough to cover all instances of life. Otherwise, a person who literally has a thumbnail “only rule” has to stand aside most issues that involve any details their rule does not touch or cover.
To say that we should love is fine, but what exactly does love mean. If the only rule doesn’t define it, then either it stays undefined or definition must be added to that rule.
What about the 900 promises of God? A thumbnail “only rule” can hardly get to any of them.
Yes, I can see if one were still obsessed with defending the tenets of PFAL, some of these points might seem to have merit.
Personally, I see PFAL for the error filled piece of crap that it really was, especially the bogus "law of believing" nonsense.
Your "only rule" requires that one, of necessity, subscribe to contaminated doctrine in order to access non-contaminated doctrine.
If those mere thumbnail "only rule" offerings were actually used in someone's life then sure problems result. No thoughts regarding the Return can be judged by them, so all such thoughts would have to be rejected as nonsense. Same with healing. Same with MANY things.
Those odd people I mentioned the other day who use the KJV as their "only rule" do not have such problems. They have other problems with that "only rule" but at least it's big enough to include the topics of healing and the Return. They might misjudge certain thoughts within those two topics with their KJV, but they can do MUCH more with it than anyone can do with the thumbnails.
and so as long as you arent stopping people from digging their own well or wells
and are at peace where you are digging...
...Godspeed
I wonder why that comment only reminds me of this passage of scripture:
"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed tem out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water". Jeremiah 2:13
I wonder why that comment only reminds me of this passage of scripture:
"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed tem out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water". Jeremiah 2:13
I wonder why that comment only reminds me of this passage of scripture:
"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed tem out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water". Jeremiah 2:13
hmm
i am also kinda wondering why my post only reminds you of that passage of scripture, WTH
...that is, if you are telling the truth, and not just being sarcastic and trying to imply something else entirely
if not, and you are being genuine...
...that fact that you have even noticed your self wondering why my post only reminds you of that passage of scripture
is probably good for you ... and i hope it helps somehow
It was from Post #224 in this thread, and I see you found it and started another thread. Here it is:
I have answered this in years past, but maybe I'm due to answer it again.
When WE select pastors and ministers there are certain common sense and scriptural guidelines that we should follow. We do not have infinite wisdom, nor foreknowledge, nor the ability to read a person's heart, only their outward actions. We are often not so good at getting revelation accurate either. FOR THESE reasons the guidelines we are given when WE select leaders tell us to do it in such a way that we protect the flock, kind of erring on the safe side if any error is to take place.
Now when GOD selects a man to get a specific job done for Him, and it's a job that hadn't been done by anyone in thousands of years, and God is not hampered like we are. He has infinite wisdom, foreknowledge, and the ability to read a man's heart IN SPITE of his outward actions.
With all this in mind, do you think the guidelines for God are going to be the same for us? I don't. I think God is wise enough to not need the guidelines.
You see we did not select VPW to "put it all together" and distribute it around the world. God selected Dr to get the job done and it got done. Anyone hurt in the process would have probably gotten hurt some other way, and either way God is there to help them get healed if they want it.
I know hardly anyone has thought this through very far. This should be pondered for a while before a knee jerk rejection takes place.
Now I wonder how many older posters remember me answering this question years ago.
Note also Mike's tendency to say, "I answered this already." He hopes that we forgot. WordWolf didn't forget, nor did I. Sorry Mike.
If these were anyone’s “only rule for faith and practice” then they could not entertain the notion of The Hope. There’s nothing in these thumbnails to build the idea of Christ’s return. Even his first coming is left out, except for socks' tiny line that says "who loved me and gave Himself for me." The idea of "gave Himself" is not at all spelled out.
What about the 900 promises of God? A thumbnail “only rule” can hardly get to any of them.
Whereas, Mike-of-God-for-our-Day-and-Time (MOGFODAT), your only rule for faith and practice is "PFAL is perfect with no errors whatsoever."
I don't see mention of "the Hope" in that succinct definition either; nor of healing; nor of any promises. ANY promises.
You've chosen to pick on me. Well, let me tell you that knowing God is light and in him there is no darkness also encompasses his willingness to heal, to deliver, his compassion, his kindness, that he never leaves nor forsakes us, and a whole lot more.
Just like for you PFAL isn't just the PFAL book but all the other VPW books.
Don't presume to tell me what I believe. You simply don't want to listen, you want to put words in my mouth - and in the mouths of other posters here.
I know that since I have stopped being bogged down in the miry clay of PFAL, my life has been a whole lot better. I embrace God and see his tender mercies to me daily. I learned some principles from PFAL; I am learning a lot of other stuff from tender-hearted Christians who have also seen his tender mercies to them daily.
Now get off your soap box, pulpit, or whatever you want to call it, before it sinks in the miry clay forever.
Whereas, Mike-of-God-for-our-Day-and-Time (MOGFODAT), your only rule for faith and practice is "PFAL is perfect with no errors whatsoever."
I don't see mention of "the Hope" in that succinct definition either; nor of healing; nor of any promises. ANY promises.
You've chosen to pick on me. Well, let me tell you that knowing God is light and in him there is no darkness also encompasses his willingness to heal, to deliver, his compassion, his kindness, that he never leaves nor forsakes us, and a whole lot more.
Just like for you PFAL isn't just the PFAL book but all the other VPW books.
Don't presume to tell me what I believe. You simply don't want to listen, you want to put words in my mouth - and in the mouths of other posters here.
I know that since I have stopped being bogged down in the miry clay of PFAL, my life has been a whole lot better. I embrace God and see his tender mercies to me daily. I learned some principles from PFAL; I am learning a lot of other stuff from tender-hearted Christians who have also seen his tender mercies to them daily.
Now get off your soap box, pulpit, or whatever you want to call it, before it sinks in the miry clay forever.
Well said Twinky! What I am getting so far, and remember I am blonde, is that our only rule of faith and practice. . . should be the KJVersion of the bible as revealed correctly through PFAL? Maybe accompanying collateral damage.
Am I even close? Cause I don't think that greatest secret in the world today, as been disclosed yet. We are all on pins and needles BTW.
If our whole "Rule" is based on our knowledge and understanding of PFAL. . . we are in deep trouble.
I thought, and call me nutty, that Christianity was based on our worship of God and the Lordship of Jesus in our lives. Doesn't it take a life time to know that. . . . the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
So, shouldn't love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves suffice and keep us occupied? If revelation of God, comes from God, won't He reveal enough of Himself through scripture and our lives to keep us going on this?
Tell me again why we need more than God. . .(I could stop there) a good bible, a heart to serve and each other to help keep us straight. . .
I just don't need some dead ex-cult leader from Ohio to define my "rule" for me.
Whereas, Mike-of-God-for-our-Day-and-Time (MOGFODAT), your only rule for faith and practice is "PFAL is perfect with no errors whatsoever."
I don't see mention of "the Hope" in that succinct definition either; nor of healing; nor of any promises. ANY promises.
You've chosen to pick on me. Well, let me tell you that knowing God is light and in him there is no darkness also encompasses his willingness to heal, to deliver, his compassion, his kindness, that he never leaves nor forsakes us, and a whole lot more.
Just like for you PFAL isn't just the PFAL book but all the other VPW books.
Don't presume to tell me what I believe. You simply don't want to listen, you want to put words in my mouth - and in the mouths of other posters here.
I know that since I have stopped being bogged down in the miry clay of PFAL, my life has been a whole lot better. I embrace God and see his tender mercies to me daily. I learned some principles from PFAL; I am learning a lot of other stuff from tender-hearted Christians who have also seen his tender mercies to them daily.
Now get off your soap box, pulpit, or whatever you want to call it, before it sinks in the miry clay forever.
Be careful you don't fall into the mistake he thinks we all make. He'll tell you his "only rule" is not the statement that PFAL is perfect with no errors, it is the written PFAL material itself, in which there are mentions of the hope, healing, and the promises of God.
Knowing God is light, and all that that encompasses, is not the kind of standard he's talking about. I did understand his point, as he said in post #241:
In a few cases grads presented their “only rule for faith and practice” confusing it with things like the idea of “the most important” rule for conduct, or confusing it with the “greatest commandment,” or confusing it with an abbreviated thumbnail summary of a system of rules.
We do need a written standard for truth, a sure source from which we get our knowledge of God, to be our "only rule of faith and practice." I just disagree with him about what that only rule is. I don't believe it needs to be, or even can be, embodied in one book that you can state the Library of Congress number for.
The overall message that is communicated in the Scriptures is still able to be found (it's not just a pie in the sky goal). Various versions of the Bible communicate this message with varying degrees of accuracy. We determine the degree of accuracy by comparing them with the standard: the overall message. How do we know the overall message? By reading and studying the various versions and seeing what they have in common. And when you read them without reading preconceived ideas into them, one unified message becomes clear. That's why you have to work it and study it, the way Mike works and studies the PFAL books.
Also, Jesus taught about being guided by the holy spirit rather than the letter of the written Law. The Scriptures are the written rule for faith and practice and the understanding of them is enhanced by God's spirit, because the Word of God includes the written Scriptures, the person of Jesus Christ, and the guidance of the holy spirit. Mike, in contrast, has chosen to make the writings of VPW his standard, and that's his choice.
Well said Twinky! What I am getting so far, and remember I am blonde, is that our only rule of faith and practice. . . should be the KJVersion of the bible as revealed correctly through PFAL? Maybe accompanying collateral damage.
No, he doesn't believe it's the KJV Bible, he thinks the Word of God is revealed in PFAL and the related books by VPW.
If our whole "Rule" is based on our knowledge and understanding of PFAL. . . we are in deep trouble.
Agreed.
Tell me again why we need more than God. . .(I could stop there) a good bible, a heart to serve and each other to help keep us straight. . .
We do need a Bible to know God. And praise God that He has preserved the Scriptures from being lost as Mike claims. I can't believe God would go to all the trouble of having His message written down and then be powerless against the devil to keep it from being lost.
I cannot figure out why Mike continues to debate the accolades of PFAL with posters on this thread. This is a pretty tough crowd for him to proclaim the greatness of PFAL and VPW to. We have all had first hand experience and most have made the choice to no longer follow or seek the guidance of PFAL and the way in our lives. Mike is free to believe what he will, however if he wants to win converts to his 100% pure and accurate knowledge of the truth, it seems to me he would have more success with people who have not been tainted by their way experience. Perhaps God spoke audibly to him and told him to deliver this message to all former wayfers and give them one more chance to return to the undefiled truth of PFAL. Did it snow in San Diego? I live two hours away and haven’t heard about it.
We do need a written standard for truth, a sure source from which we get our knowledge of God, to be our "only rule of faith and practice." I just disagree with him about what that only rule is. I don't believe it needs to be, or even can be, embodied in one book that you can state the Library of Congress number for.
</snip>
does this just apply to christians? what about people who don't believe in god? the flaw I see in this line of reasoning is that who's to judge what the "sure source" is, especially for all humanity? and won't the standard evolve as your understanding of it does?
I know that truth does not change for god, but none of us are as smart as god, or can be as sure as god, so out of necessity our concepts of god must evolve as we consider the sources, learn from the sources, and adjust our rule-sets according to what we've learned, hopefully always for the better.
That was my assumption. I probably shouldn't have said "we."
what about people who don't believe in god? the flaw I see in this line of reasoning is that who's to judge what the "sure source" is, especially for all humanity?
This gets into a whole different category of debate. As far as I understand it, the whole discussion was in the context of what a Christian makes his "only rule of faith and practice."
and won't the standard evolve as your understanding of it does?
I know that truth does not change for god, but none of us are as smart as god, or can be as sure as god, so out of necessity our concepts of god must evolve as we consider the sources, learn from the sources, and adjust our rule-sets according to what we've learned, hopefully always for the better.
If we're talking about the Word of God, the standard doesn't evolve, but our understanding of it grows. And as it does, we grow as well.
We do need a written standard for truth, a sure source from which we get our knowledge of God, to be our "only rule of faith and practice."
"Written" presents some unique problems, issues and opportunities. If you mean written on paper. Paul speaks to another kind of "epistle" of communication and reassurance, and we know where that's "written".
Even figuratively speaking, if that statement in the epistles is extrapolated out and given some process consideration, I think we can end up with a very reliable standard.
PFAL, the book is nothing of the sort. Good Lord - if this is what it takes to get some semblance of an inkling of what it means and what it says, it doesn't pass any tests to be declared a "standard" Mike makes it sound like it's impossible to understand or take at face value. Geez - we studied 40 years ago and had a better understanding of what it "meant", and had no problem communicating it so others could understand it. Dare I say it - this whole boondoggle discussion is one hair shy of being rediculous.
The idea of CHOOSING it to be a standard is what Mike's talking about, and the rest is b-s. Sorry, I meant bull-shiste.
But the Bible is clearly the closest thing a Christian has to a written source and record, and standard.
That was my assumption. I probably shouldn't have said "we."
thank you :)
This gets into a whole different category of debate. As far as I understand it, the whole discussion was in the context of what a Christian makes his "only rule of faith and practice."
nah, I really asked thinking about it for everyone in general. things get knocked around on the board sometimes as if everyone involved in the discussion is christian, but I was actually interested in insight from anyone, from any pov. Mike's long informercials kept it centered on what pfal grads and christians should believe, which IMO kinda muddied the waters of what could be a nice open discussion.
If we're talking about the Word of God, the standard doesn't evolve, but our understanding of it grows. And as it does, we grow as well.
I think this would apply to any set of standards. if you live by any rule set, if you think at all, understanding should grow.
As one rule of faith and practice.. how about "do no harm"? This more universal truth is documented in almost every religion and belief system, even among atheists.
love does not work ILL to it's neighbor.. therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
It does not even IMAGINE of drugging and raping a sister in one's belief system..
It does not STEAL other's works to further it's own ambitions..
I think Wiccans and others merely expand the scope and importance of this "commandment"..
but the concept itself is as "Christian" as Jesus..
in some places, the old testament outlined in painful detail EXACTLY what it was to love one's neighbor..
thought this would provide some insight into an interesting paradoxical rule of faith and practice...
from wikipedia article on tibetan buddhism...my bolds...
Of all aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, none more than skepticism and guru devotion have led it into conflict with Chinese socialism and so invited the genocide of the Tibetan intelligentsia under Mao. An attitude of critical skepticism is encouraged to promote abilities in analytic meditation. However, as in other Buddhist traditions, an attitude of reverence for the teacher is also highly prized.
In favour of skepticism towards Buddhist doctrines in general, Tibetans are fond of quoting sutra to the effect that one should test the Buddha's words as one would the quality of gold. On the other hand, at the beginning of a public teaching, a lama will do prostrations to the throne on which he will teach due to its symbolism, or to an image of the Buddha behind that throne, then students will do prostrations to the lama after he is seated. Merit accrues when one's interactions with the teacher are imbued with such reverence in the form of guru devotion, a code of practices governing them that derives from Indian sources. By such things as avoiding disturbance to the peace of mind of one's teacher and wholeheartedly following his prescriptions, much merit accrues and promotes one's practice.
There is a general sense in which any Tibetan Buddhist teacher is called a lama. A student may have taken teachings from many authorities and revere them all as lamas in this general sense. However, he will typically have one held in special esteem as his own root guru and is encouraged to view the other teachers who are less dear to him, however more exhalted their status, as embodied in and subsumed by the root guru. Often the teacher the student sees as root guru is simply the one who first introduced him to Buddhism, but a student may also change his personal view of which particular teacher is his root guru any number of times.
The opposing principles of skepticism and guru devotion are reconciled with the Tibetan injunction to scrutinise a prospective guru thoroughly before finally adopting him as such without reservation. A Buddhist may study with a lama for decades before finally accepting him as his own guru.
if only this kind of rule of faith and practice were applied in twi
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
74
42
33
32
Popular Days
Feb 2
66
Jan 30
53
Feb 1
50
Feb 3
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 74 posts
waysider 42 posts
potato 33 posts
Bolshevik 32 posts
Popular Days
Feb 2 2009
66 posts
Jan 30 2009
53 posts
Feb 1 2009
50 posts
Feb 3 2009
23 posts
Popular Posts
potato
the snowstorm thread branches yet again... my question is: is it necessary in life to have one sole source for your rule of faith and practice? Mike seems to contend that everyone needs to have on
waysider
Would that include VP Wierwille? Would that include VP Wierwille?
geisha779
Wordwolf, So glad that is what you took away rom my heart felt and honest post. Because I reject this doctrine and do not have any interest in reading the theology. . . I am hiding and possibly afra
Posted Images
Mike
The big issue that I am trying to get to (and even finish) is that none of you moved beyond PFAL defining your everyday thought, because you never HAD it in there to begin with...
...you had SOME of it in there...
... but it was partial and it was distorted.
What you moved beyond was your own ill formed partial impressions of it.
And you CERTAINLY haven’t moved beyond the things that went wrong at TWI!
No, those things many of you want to remember, exaggerate, and never let the pain go. You seem to revel in the negatives.
I have moved beyond the negatives. They bore me, unless I’m dealing with one person in private about some pain they have from those days and they want to move beyond it. Otherwise I ignore that stuff.
***
Now getting back to what we missed on “only rule” I again ask WHAT WAS WRONG with those three offerings of “only rule” in Post #241?
Why are those blue fonted offerings NOT what Dr was talking about in the class when he talked about an “only rule for faith and practice” and the other synonymous phrases for same?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In the interest of condensing things a bit, I am pasting the items referred to from post # 241.
****************************
In a few cases grads presented their “only rule for faith and practice” confusing it with things like the idea of “the most important” rule for conduct, or confusing it with the “greatest commandment,” or confusing it with an abbreviated thumbnail summary of a system of rules.
On January 15, on the “snow” thread, in Post # 401 Twinky wrote:
“One rule for faith and practice: well, here's mine. God is love and in him is no darkness at all. Because he loves us, God will never leave us nor forsake us.”
On January 31, on this thread, in Post # 107 socks wrote:
“I do have a single rule of faith and practice, actually, to the original topic - and again in Galatians as it's written in these words, a perfect way to view it for every Christian - ‘I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.’”
On February 1, on this thread, in Post # 140 waysider wrote:
“If I had to declare ONE rule of faith and practice, it would be The Golden Rule.
It transcends religious boundaries and theological inclinations.”
***************************
Suppose we just cut to the chase and you state what you think is "wrong" with those statements.
Is it because they don't precisely reflect what "Doctor" insisted must be our only rule?
I don't need a lengthy chastising explanation.
Just get to the point and state your case.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
maximum brevity: TOO SHORT!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
My, aren't we clever?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ok, now let me eblaborate. ;)
If these were anyone’s “only rule for faith and practice” then they could not entertain the notion of The Hope. There’s nothing in these thumbnails to build the idea of Christ’s return. Even his first coming is left out, except for socks' tiny line that says "who loved me and gave Himself for me." The idea of "gave Himself" is not at all spelled out.
What about physical healing. If I am sick and any of those thumbnails were my “only rule” then I would have no believing for healing. I’d have to add to those thumbnails for hope and healing, as well as dozens of other root issues of life.
Think of the chaos if the U.S. Constitution were a thumbnail like these. Nothing could get done in the legal field. The brilliance of the Constitution is that is still is relatively small, yet it covers a lot. Of course it leaves a lot to the states and their constitutions, so the analogy is not perfect.
An “only rule” needs to be big enough to cover all instances of life. Otherwise, a person who literally has a thumbnail “only rule” has to stand aside most issues that involve any details their rule does not touch or cover.
To say that we should love is fine, but what exactly does love mean. If the only rule doesn’t define it, then either it stays undefined or definition must be added to that rule.
What about the 900 promises of God? A thumbnail “only rule” can hardly get to any of them.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes, I can see if one were still obsessed with defending the tenets of PFAL, some of these points might seem to have merit.
Personally, I see PFAL for the error filled piece of crap that it really was, especially the bogus "law of believing" nonsense.
Your "only rule" requires that one, of necessity, subscribe to contaminated doctrine in order to access non-contaminated doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Here ya go WS - a nice hit of Osley pink - it'll make all of the other one's posts make sense (well in dreamland anyway) - sorta
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
If those mere thumbnail "only rule" offerings were actually used in someone's life then sure problems result. No thoughts regarding the Return can be judged by them, so all such thoughts would have to be rejected as nonsense. Same with healing. Same with MANY things.
Those odd people I mentioned the other day who use the KJV as their "only rule" do not have such problems. They have other problems with that "only rule" but at least it's big enough to include the topics of healing and the Return. They might misjudge certain thoughts within those two topics with their KJV, but they can do MUCH more with it than anyone can do with the thumbnails.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
I wonder why that comment only reminds me of this passage of scripture:
"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed tem out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water". Jeremiah 2:13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm not sure.
A well replenishes itself.
A cistern doesn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
hmm
i am also kinda wondering why my post only reminds you of that passage of scripture, WTH
...that is, if you are telling the truth, and not just being sarcastic and trying to imply something else entirely
if not, and you are being genuine...
...that fact that you have even noticed your self wondering why my post only reminds you of that passage of scripture
is probably good for you ... and i hope it helps somehow
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
It was from Post #224 in this thread, and I see you found it and started another thread. Here it is:
Note also Mike's tendency to say, "I answered this already." He hopes that we forgot. WordWolf didn't forget, nor did I. Sorry Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Whereas, Mike-of-God-for-our-Day-and-Time (MOGFODAT), your only rule for faith and practice is "PFAL is perfect with no errors whatsoever."
I don't see mention of "the Hope" in that succinct definition either; nor of healing; nor of any promises. ANY promises.
You've chosen to pick on me. Well, let me tell you that knowing God is light and in him there is no darkness also encompasses his willingness to heal, to deliver, his compassion, his kindness, that he never leaves nor forsakes us, and a whole lot more.
Just like for you PFAL isn't just the PFAL book but all the other VPW books.
Don't presume to tell me what I believe. You simply don't want to listen, you want to put words in my mouth - and in the mouths of other posters here.
I know that since I have stopped being bogged down in the miry clay of PFAL, my life has been a whole lot better. I embrace God and see his tender mercies to me daily. I learned some principles from PFAL; I am learning a lot of other stuff from tender-hearted Christians who have also seen his tender mercies to them daily.
Now get off your soap box, pulpit, or whatever you want to call it, before it sinks in the miry clay forever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well said Twinky! What I am getting so far, and remember I am blonde, is that our only rule of faith and practice. . . should be the KJVersion of the bible as revealed correctly through PFAL? Maybe accompanying collateral damage.
Am I even close? Cause I don't think that greatest secret in the world today, as been disclosed yet. We are all on pins and needles BTW.
If our whole "Rule" is based on our knowledge and understanding of PFAL. . . we are in deep trouble.
I thought, and call me nutty, that Christianity was based on our worship of God and the Lordship of Jesus in our lives. Doesn't it take a life time to know that. . . . the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
So, shouldn't love the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves suffice and keep us occupied? If revelation of God, comes from God, won't He reveal enough of Himself through scripture and our lives to keep us going on this?
Tell me again why we need more than God. . .(I could stop there) a good bible, a heart to serve and each other to help keep us straight. . .
I just don't need some dead ex-cult leader from Ohio to define my "rule" for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Be careful you don't fall into the mistake he thinks we all make. He'll tell you his "only rule" is not the statement that PFAL is perfect with no errors, it is the written PFAL material itself, in which there are mentions of the hope, healing, and the promises of God.
Knowing God is light, and all that that encompasses, is not the kind of standard he's talking about. I did understand his point, as he said in post #241:
We do need a written standard for truth, a sure source from which we get our knowledge of God, to be our "only rule of faith and practice." I just disagree with him about what that only rule is. I don't believe it needs to be, or even can be, embodied in one book that you can state the Library of Congress number for.
The overall message that is communicated in the Scriptures is still able to be found (it's not just a pie in the sky goal). Various versions of the Bible communicate this message with varying degrees of accuracy. We determine the degree of accuracy by comparing them with the standard: the overall message. How do we know the overall message? By reading and studying the various versions and seeing what they have in common. And when you read them without reading preconceived ideas into them, one unified message becomes clear. That's why you have to work it and study it, the way Mike works and studies the PFAL books.
Also, Jesus taught about being guided by the holy spirit rather than the letter of the written Law. The Scriptures are the written rule for faith and practice and the understanding of them is enhanced by God's spirit, because the Word of God includes the written Scriptures, the person of Jesus Christ, and the guidance of the holy spirit. Mike, in contrast, has chosen to make the writings of VPW his standard, and that's his choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
No, he doesn't believe it's the KJV Bible, he thinks the Word of God is revealed in PFAL and the related books by VPW.
Agreed.
We do need a Bible to know God. And praise God that He has preserved the Scriptures from being lost as Mike claims. I can't believe God would go to all the trouble of having His message written down and then be powerless against the devil to keep it from being lost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Calflor
I cannot figure out why Mike continues to debate the accolades of PFAL with posters on this thread. This is a pretty tough crowd for him to proclaim the greatness of PFAL and VPW to. We have all had first hand experience and most have made the choice to no longer follow or seek the guidance of PFAL and the way in our lives. Mike is free to believe what he will, however if he wants to win converts to his 100% pure and accurate knowledge of the truth, it seems to me he would have more success with people who have not been tainted by their way experience. Perhaps God spoke audibly to him and told him to deliver this message to all former wayfers and give them one more chance to return to the undefiled truth of PFAL. Did it snow in San Diego? I live two hours away and haven’t heard about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
does this just apply to christians? what about people who don't believe in god? the flaw I see in this line of reasoning is that who's to judge what the "sure source" is, especially for all humanity? and won't the standard evolve as your understanding of it does?
I know that truth does not change for god, but none of us are as smart as god, or can be as sure as god, so out of necessity our concepts of god must evolve as we consider the sources, learn from the sources, and adjust our rule-sets according to what we've learned, hopefully always for the better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
That was my assumption. I probably shouldn't have said "we."
This gets into a whole different category of debate. As far as I understand it, the whole discussion was in the context of what a Christian makes his "only rule of faith and practice."
If we're talking about the Word of God, the standard doesn't evolve, but our understanding of it grows. And as it does, we grow as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
"Written" presents some unique problems, issues and opportunities. If you mean written on paper. Paul speaks to another kind of "epistle" of communication and reassurance, and we know where that's "written".
Even figuratively speaking, if that statement in the epistles is extrapolated out and given some process consideration, I think we can end up with a very reliable standard.
PFAL, the book is nothing of the sort. Good Lord - if this is what it takes to get some semblance of an inkling of what it means and what it says, it doesn't pass any tests to be declared a "standard" Mike makes it sound like it's impossible to understand or take at face value. Geez - we studied 40 years ago and had a better understanding of what it "meant", and had no problem communicating it so others could understand it. Dare I say it - this whole boondoggle discussion is one hair shy of being rediculous.
The idea of CHOOSING it to be a standard is what Mike's talking about, and the rest is b-s. Sorry, I meant bull-shiste.
But the Bible is clearly the closest thing a Christian has to a written source and record, and standard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
thank you :)
nah, I really asked thinking about it for everyone in general. things get knocked around on the board sometimes as if everyone involved in the discussion is christian, but I was actually interested in insight from anyone, from any pov. Mike's long informercials kept it centered on what pfal grads and christians should believe, which IMO kinda muddied the waters of what could be a nice open discussion.
I think this would apply to any set of standards. if you live by any rule set, if you think at all, understanding should grow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
As one rule of faith and practice.. how about "do no harm"? This more universal truth is documented in almost every religion and belief system, even among atheists.
love does not work ILL to it's neighbor.. therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
It does not even IMAGINE of drugging and raping a sister in one's belief system..
It does not STEAL other's works to further it's own ambitions..
I think Wiccans and others merely expand the scope and importance of this "commandment"..
but the concept itself is as "Christian" as Jesus..
in some places, the old testament outlined in painful detail EXACTLY what it was to love one's neighbor..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Eat, or be eaten.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
thought this would provide some insight into an interesting paradoxical rule of faith and practice...
from wikipedia article on tibetan buddhism...my bolds...
if only this kind of rule of faith and practice were applied in twi
or in other bodies of Christian CULTure
Edited by sirguessalotLink 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.