ONLY rule of faith and practice - is this necessary?

[Mike]

Part of a post from the other thread; this relates to the One Rule question:

Yes, that's the post I want to get into when I have more time. It's now in my word processor and I'll be back.

[Mark Clarke]

Still waiting....

[potato]

Still waiting....

yeah Mike, where'd you go? you're the proponent of having One Rule for Faith and Practice, so I expected more discussion from you on this topic.

also, since sirguessalot's post, I wonder, isn't the bible (or any other holy book) simply a rule set? and a small one at that, where perhaps we SHOULD seek the ruler overlap that he mentions? rather than narrow our choice so much that we don't have to, and shouldn't, THINK.

do the writings of vpw overlap the bible? how much do they, and why? do they overlap because he took material from other teachers, or did he get revelation? did his revelation supplant revelation in the bible? did the rule set of the bible change because vpw came along?

[Steve Lortz]

Less than a year ago, I was involved with the split (not in a good sense) of an interdenominational school. The school started out as inclusive, serving Roman Catholics and Christians of the Orthodox persuasion as well as protestants. It was very good. Then some members of the Board decided to fire all the teachers who weren't evangelical protestants. The school survived as interdenominational. Instead of faculty leaving, the board members who wanted to take the school exclusivist left and started their own school, unsullied by the presence of Christians who were "doctrinally" unclean. The rift was opened over interpretation of the school's "Statement of Faith". Both the original school and the new school contain statements to the effect that the Bible is their only rule of faith and practice.

The statement "the Bible is our only rule for faith and practice" is simply protestant boilerplate, an attempt that goes back centuries to distinguish protestant doctrine from Roman Catholic, which is said to elevate the traditions of the Fathers of the Church to the same level as Scripture. What the protestants fail to recognize is that they are as heavily dependent on tradition as the Catholics, it's just that the protestants are unconscious of which elements of their doctrine are the result of genuine exegesis, and which are the result of traditional eisegesis. That was also always the case with Wierwille.

This discussion reminds me of something that was happening around 1987, after I and others had found out about the adultery, but while the trustees were still trying to do damage control. I bought a 30 day Greyhound ticket and spent a month travelling around the county visiting old ministry friends, because horizontal communication had been blocked. Time and again during that trip, I heard Corps in different parts of the country say "Multiple centers of reference cause confusion", meaning "don't listen to anybody but your leaders". It must have been something that had come down from HQ.

It occurred to me only later that Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16 and II Corinthians 13:1 all say that in the mouth of two or three witness shall a matter be established. It is NOT Biblical to say that multiple centers of reference cause confusion! According to the Word of God itself, where multiple centers of reference agree, they SETTLE confusion!

Love,

Steve

[Bolshevik]

. . .

The statement "the Bible is our only rule for faith and practice" is simply protestant boilerplate, an attempt that goes back centuries to distinguish protestant doctrine from Roman Catholic, which is said to elevate the traditions of the Fathers of the Church to the same level as Scripture. What the protestants fail to recognize is that they are as heavily dependent on tradition as the Catholics, it's just that the protestants are unconscious of which elements of their doctrine are the result of genuine exegesis, and which are the result of traditional eisegesis. That was also always the case with Wierwille.

. . .

oh, do continue . . .my memory of twi fellowships as a child is listening to all the adults verbally bash those evil catholics . . .

[Tzaia]

oh, do continue . . .my memory of twi fellowships as a child is listening to all the adults verbally bash those evil catholics . . .

It was always interesting to find out what religion people grew up in. One of our corp families grew up Catholic and I commented that it must have been an easy leap going from pope to VPW and the catechism to PFAL.

I don't think she got it.

[Twinky]

Great post, Steve, especially your final paragraph.

There are many witnesses to deviant behavior of the higher-ups at TWI.

Yet some others who post here simply do not accept that witness. They prefer to accept the perpetrator's version of events.

[Bramble]

It was always interesting to find out what religion people grew up in. One of our corp families grew up Catholic and I commented that it must have been an easy leap going from pope to VPW and the catechism to PFAL.

I don't think she got it.

I've considered this concerning my own involvement in TWI. I was raised Catholic, parochial schools, Catholic college. I was primed to believe in an authority structure that came down from One man. It seemed natural to me. Plus Catholics were raised ro be obedient...it was mentally perhaps an easy transition.

[Mark Clarke]

I think with the subject of "only rule for faith and practice." AS IT WAS DEFINED IN PFAL, it has been shown that you did not understand Dr's teaching on that subject. In my delayed responses to your posts I will get into this more. I think there are many more topics you didn't get right. I suggest you try learning the subject before you criticize it.

I believe I did understand his teaching. He taught us keys to how the Bible interprets itself (in the verse, in the context, where it was used before, etc.). By utilizing those keys he said we can get back to the Word as it was given by men of God who wrote by inspiration of the holy spirit. In contrast, you claim that the Scriptures are hopelessly lost, and only the revelation given to VPW restores that loss. I don't believe VP himself ever claimed that, but even if he did, you can't deny that the first five sessions of the class are detailed examples of using these keys. If we can't get back to the "original" Word as God gave it from studying the Bible using those keys, then why did he spend all that time teaching those keys and how to use them?

[rascal]

One would assume that if study of the bible with keys set forth in pfal were good for learning the rules of faith and practice, that the people who utilized these methods and taught others ... that they would have become spiritual rather than cruel and destructive.

Those rules for study as far as I can see were simply exercises in finding ways to make the scripture support whatever agenda one personally wished to propound.

The knowledge that one aquired studying by these means seems to me as well to have bred arrogance, puffed us up so to speak.

I just don`t see how utilizing this one set of rules brought us closer to God....but in many cases led to some of the most cruel treatment of people I have ever seen.

I don`t think that it works. I really don`t think that God is limited to the same way that he was with a particular people at a particular time in history over 2000 years ago as is laid out by the scriptures...shrug.

[Mike]

I believe I did understand his teaching. He taught us keys to how the Bible interprets itself (in the verse, in the context, where it was used before, etc.). By utilizing those keys he said we can get back to the Word as it was given by men of God who wrote by inspiration of the holy spirit. In contrast, you claim that the Scriptures are hopelessly lost, and only the revelation given to VPW restores that loss. I don't believe VP himself ever claimed that, (He did. I posted 22 such claims once here.) but even if he did, you can't deny that the first five sessions of the class are detailed examples of using these keys. If we can't get back to the "original" Word as God gave it from studying the Bible using those keys, then why did he spend all that time teaching those keys and how to use them?

The answer to your question is this: he taught us those keys that he and God used on the ancient scriptures so that we could apply the same keys to PFAL.

I posted this a few weeks ago, along with a few other reasons for him teaching us those keys. Why don't you remember them?

Do you want me to find them and show you what you totally ignored?

Edited January 29, 2009 by Mike

[Mike]

Hi Mark,

I found the place where I answered your question. I really wish you'd pay better attention to what I post instead of your little gotcha game.

In Post #159 on the "snow" thread I posted the following:

Jim,

I can’t overemphasize what a huge HOME RUN you’ve hit with this post.

This perturbed me long ago, way in the back of my mind. One time in the 80’s the twig I was in did a word study together. It was maddening how may of us came to differing conclusions. It brought my deep hunch to the surface, but it wasn’t respolved until the events in 1998 happened that I’ve described here.

Information theory is the elegant mathematical way of proving what you just said: “I know that once information is lost, it's lost. And no amount of fiddling will bring it back.”

No amount of biblical research, using all the methods we were taught, will ever put Humpty Dumpty back together again. It’s the same as making an .mp3 file from a full .wav file. Information is lost and it’s lost forever.

***

I’m convinced that THIS same perturbance is what VPW was so frustrated over when he was ready to throw in the towel in 1942.

There’s something interesting just before the well know phrase from Elena Whiteside’s book: “He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others.”

In addition to that set of words, in the early 70’s there was another set that we often repeated, but that later fell from use and became less and less known. WordWolf documented this on Post #51 of this thread: “I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on.”

The perturbance that brought VPW to the point of being ready to quit the ministry was that he couldn’t get “real genuine answers” and everything he researched he’d later “have to back up on.”

I’m convinced that, like you, Jim, the original understanding of the ancient manuscripts was utterly lost and catastrophically irrecoverable. Then God showed him His solution, revelation. Not just pure revelation, but revelation WHILE HE WORKED THE PRINCIPLES.

This point of senses research working ALONG WITH revelation is emphasized well in the “Light Began to Dawn” we all earlier looked at here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=1871

In that transcript VPW documents often that there was work involved. He had to do the research using the principles and tools, and then God would lend His hand where it was needed. This is something he often taught elsewhere.

I’m convinced that there are 4 reasons VPW taught us those research principles and tools, and it was NOT so that we could “get back” to the originals on our own 5 senses steam. That information, as Jim well put was “lost. And no amount of fiddling will bring it back.” No amount of 5 senses fiddling, that is. The Author could assist, though, and then it’s possible.

Here are the 4 reasons VPW taught us those research principles and tools:

1. To document the way scholars work to arrive at the multiplicity of answers they come up with, and then later have to “back up on.”

2. To document how he and God worked on getting back to the originals, that is, what part VPW had to do in the process. God had to guide him.

3. To give us a way we could REtrace or REsearch his work. Remember how he used to emphasize that Research was not to come up with something new, but to “see again” what god showd him?

4. To give us a method whereby we could work on fully absorbing the PFAL texts, where there wasn’t the catastrophic problem of loss of the originals, just befuddled heads that need clearing.

Using the research principles and tools on PFAL is new and novel, and it’s by this means I have seen more in the writings than I ever saw before, or anyone else has ever seen without using these research principles and tools.

This is what I meant in Post #135 to Twinky when I said: “Like I said, I did study before similar to or more than the Corps, yet I was stunned when I returned to try it again. My credentials are that I have engaged in deeper the study and can hold my own quite well with anyone who posts here, as well as in many e-mails and phone conversations I’ve had with many of the research luminaries of the ministry past. I simply employ advanced techniques others have only used on the ancient scriptures."

***

I’ve said all these things before, multiple times, and in different ways. Last night I really thought we’d finished seeing this thread’s lifetime. I thought I’d be all well (cough, cough) today and back to work and no more reminiscing the Mike Wars.

So how DO we end this? Call a cease fire, or someone put forth the definitive argument?

Edited January 29, 2009 by Mike

[waysider]

Mike said:

So how DO we end this? Call a cease fire, or someone put forth the definitive argument?

Definitive argument

PFAL was riddled with error, both doctrinal and scholastic.

These errors can clearly be demonstrated using conventional rules of logic and reason as well as the methods set forth by Mike, himself.

Therefore, it is not reliable as ANY rule of faith and practice, much less the ONLY rule of faith and practice.

[potato]

anyone here familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

[RumRunner]

Actually yes Potato - and rather intimately as I am a mathematician. Kurt Godel was a vastly underrated mathematician. You might enjoy the book "Godel, Escher and Bach." BTW he actually published two of the incompleteness theorems. You might also like his corollaries on his "relation to the liar paradox"

anyone here familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

Edited January 30, 2009 by RumRunner

[Steve Lortz]

Actually yes Potato - and rather intimately as I am a mathematician. Kurt Godel was a vastly underrated mathematician. You might enjoy the book Godel, Escher and Bach

YES! YES! "Godel, Escher and Bach" was very influential in forming my world-view!

Love,

Steve

[potato]

Actually yes Potato - and rather intimately as I am a mathematician. Kurt Godel was a vastly underrated mathematician. You might enjoy the book "Godel, Escher and Bach." BTW he actually published two of the incompleteness theorems. You might also like his corollaries on his "relation to the liar paradox"

that is on my "to read" list, after I finish metamagical themas! I didn't realize you're a mathematician. that must be why I like you.

I was sort of wondering (and forgive me if you've ever posted this in discussion) if Mike's system as proof of a system resembles what Godel's theorems describe.

[RumRunner]

that is on my "to read" list, after I finish metamagical themas! I didn't realize you're a mathematician. that must be why I like you.

Well then I have a list of interesting reading for you. Try these - "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper", "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers," and "Beyond Calculation."

I was sort of wondering (and forgive me if you've ever posted this in discussion) if Mike's system as proof of a system resembles what Godel's theorems describe.

A) Mike has no system other than irrational behavior justified by a messiah complex

B) Mike has no proof other than additional irrational behavior justified by a Vic P Wierwille worship/wannabe complex

C) Refer to my previous post about Godel's "Relation to the Liar" paradox for completeness of (A) and (B) above

And now I'll put on some Grateful Dead for all of you who appreciate truly fine music

[Mark Clarke]

For those of us who are not familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorem, could one of you summarize it?

[potato]

For those of us who are not familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorem, could one of you summarize it?

basically (if I understand it correctly) that no mathematical system can use its own axioms to prove that its proofs are correct.

thank you, RR, for the laugh :)

I just put some GD on for mood music while I add your book recommendations to my library queue.

[RumRunner]

That's close potato - although Godel was using only the set of natural numbers (itself infinite) - hence all axioms are unprovable - for more detail (Mark you too) just look up Godel on wiki - All I would do is either a) sum it up worse since I am a mathematician and my language skills are limited to formulae - or b) waste your time with esoteric math which would both bore you to death and make me sound more of a geek than I really am.

Potato hon - the best GD song that describes TWI is "Ship of Fools" from "The Mars Hotel"

basically (if I understand it correctly) that no mathematical system can use its own axioms to prove that its proofs are correct.

thank you, RR, for the laugh :)

I just put some GD on for mood music while I add your book recommendations to my library queue.

Edited January 30, 2009 by RumRunner

[Mike]

anyone here familiar with Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

Well slap my self-referential bottom, I too am a Gödel /Hofstadter/ Penrose fan!!!

In fact I'm reading one of Penrose's latest books right now.

The group of brain scientists I hung out with all through the 90's dissected all three authors, being anti-fans of same, at least in regards to Gödel and/or Quantum contributing anything to cognitive science.

It humbled me, having spent several prior decades investing in the Gödel and Quantum connections to the mind, because I now think the brain scientists are right, but I still like the topic.

Another gem is Rudy Rucker's “Infinity and the Mind” for a great Gödel plus treatment.

Small world, isn’t it!

Edited January 30, 2009 by Mike

[Mike]

I was sort of wondering (and forgive me if you've ever posted this in discussion) if Mike's system as proof of a system resembles what Godel's theorems describe.

I'd say not. I've never tried to prove PFAL in a logical way. Remember how we were taught that the Ford can't derive Henry?

I wouldn't want to be guilty of bunk deriving. I think we can all drink to that.

For me, PFAL being of God enters in at the POSTULATE level in my thinking. I assume it, and then I build from there.

In discussions on elements of issues I try to use as much logic as is possible, but the big issue of what to take as a rule for faith and practice has to be of God's grace. It's a gift, not something sought and found, derived, or proved.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Mike

[Mike]

A) Mike has no system other than irrational behavior justified by a messiah complex

At best, all I have is a Paul complex, or from the positive side: a Paul emulation goal, something Paul tells us to do.

B) Mike has no proof other than additional irrational behavior justified by a Vic P Wierwille worship/wannabe complex

And of course, you too are a member of the same club of irrationality.

Can you give me a rational reason for choosing rationality? Of course not!

I will admit, though, that I know everyone is trying to get me to feel paranoid.

C) Refer to my previous post about Godel's "Relation to the Liar" paradox for completeness of (A) and (B) above

Now you know it and I know it, and maybe Steve Lortz and potato know it, but very few others reading this know that you just committed a mathematical sin in applying that Liar's Paradox to me so wrongly. Of course you were joking, but you are too invested to admit it, right?

And now I'll put on some Grateful Dead for all of you who appreciate truly fine music

Edited January 30, 2009 by Mike

[RumRunner]

C) Refer to my previous post about Godel's "Relation to the Liar" paradox for completeness of (A) and (B) above

Now you know it and I know it, and maybe Steve Lortz and potato know it, but very few others reading this know that you just committed a mathematical sin in applying that Liar's Paradox to me so wrongly. Of course you were joking, but you are too invested to admit it, right?

Mike but it was so much fun - and you don't seem like you have the actual intellect to get the joke - go smoke a joint and listen to Robert Hunter