I was wondering if you saw my answer in Posts #36 and #37 to this question in THIS thread? It seems you missed my answer weeks ago on the “snow” thread Post #159, even though you chimed in with your Post #160. I don’t think you are understanding or reading my posts.
What’s the problem?
I have other examples of things that I post just zinging right by you. I still maintain you have no idea what an ONLY rule for faith and practice is, having offered a multiple non-rule in place of one.
Can you at least get this one down so we can move on to the others? I gave you four answers to your question, now what’s your response?
Yes I saw your post. In my response to the original post in the snowstorm thread, I was addressing a different point, about how textual criticism shows that the overall message is not "irretrievably lost."
Besides the points I made there, I think you are still contradicting yourself. If "the original understanding of the ancient manuscripts was utterly lost and catastrophically irrecoverable" then there would be nothing VP or anyone could do to recover it. That's what irrecoverable means. If, on the other hand, God could guide him in how to recover the understanding of the Scriptures using keys from the Scriptures themselves, then the understanding was not "utterly lost and catastrophically irrecoverable." You can't have it both ways.
Now since you insist that it was God's guiding VPW that was the only way to recover the "lost" understanding of the Scriptures, then do you maintain that no one before him had any understanding? I know you don't, since you have stated that it was how VP put it together that was unique. So he got understanding from various Biblical scholars of the past. Logically, then, the understanding was not "utterly lost." At the most it was muddled, which I will grant you. But throughout history, any time anyone wanted real answers from the Scriptures without the spin of any denomination, they were there to see with only a little digging.
As for the reasons he taught the keys, you stated that one of them was, "To give us a way we could REtrace or REsearch his work." Then logically, we should be able to follow the same steps and get the same results. In some cases we do, but in many others, when we retrace his steps we find gaping holes in his logic and conclusions. This would not be a problem if we were talking about someone who was not considered anything more than a Bible teacher. But if you make the claim that his writings are God-breathed Word and replace the Bible, then they must be held to a higher standard.
Granted, we were told that research was not to come up with something new, but to “see again what God showed him." I believe that was why it took so many of us so long to see through the errors. But when we used the very keys he taught, and let the Bible speak for itself rather than reading into it the preconceived ideas we learned in TWI, we started to see the errors. I maintain that VP taught some reasonable principles in how to let the Bible interpret itself, but in many instances failed to use them or used them incorrectly.
You keep insisting that I don't understand "only rule for faith and practice AS IT WAS DEFINED IN PFAL." I said way back in one of my earliest posts on the Snowstorm thread:
Mike,
You keep saying, "which version?" every time I mention the Bible. VP himself said his standard is "not the King James Version, but THE Word of God which was given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit." I consider that to be my standard as well.
What part of this do you consider a "multiple non-rule"? The "rule" is the God-breathed Word as it was originally written by inspiration of God. The overall message that was communicated through those writings is still able to be found. Many have done so, without the errors in demonstrable fact that VPW had throughout his writings. God's Word does in fact fit "like a hand in a glove" but sadly, PFAL does not.
You said in the doctrinal thread, "On the threads here I am most interested in proving to grads that they do not know the material, hence most of their complaints against it should be held off and and a new look warranted." My response still holds: "To prove that I don't know the material, would you not have to respond to my questions and demonstrate the errors of my logic? If you can do that, be my guest. Weigh your truth against my error."
The way I interpreted Godel's incompleteness theorem was this:
Every logical system is a set of rules.
The purpose of a logical system is to define "proof".
Every logical system is built on a set of assumptions which are taken as self evident.
If you try to use a logical system to prove one of the assumptions upon which it is based, you inevitably get into a circular argument, sometimes known as a "tautology" or a "recursive loop".
Circular arguments are not valid.
Therefore a logical system can never be used to prove one of its basic assumptions.
Since Mike takes as one of his assumptions that PFAL contains no errors, then either he cannot use his system to prove PFAL contains no errors, or his system is not logically valid.
Therefore a logical system can never be used to prove one of its basic assumptions.
Since Mike takes as one of his assumptions that PFAL contains no errors, then either he cannot use his system to prove PFAL contains no errors, or his system is not logically valid.
I agree with this. I said so above, as well as many times in past weeks and years.
As I said before, I do not try to prove PFAL correct, I assume it. I then work with PFAL to enlighten my life.
The only thing I try to prove here is that many crucial portions of PFAL were not understood or were forgotten
by most people posting here as well as by all grads.
***
I said this most recently in Post #48 above responding to potato, who had written "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.
Logical systems can be used to derive further truths from known truths, but simply because a system is logical doesn't mean its results are true.
An argument is considered "valid" if its reasoning complies with the rules of its logical system. In order to be regarded as true, though, an argument must be both valid and "sound", that is, the premises upon which the argument is based must all be true.
How do we determine whether or not a premise is true? The truth or falsity of a premise has to rest on how closely the premise accords with objective reality.
Mike has taken as his assumption that PFAL is God-breathed, therefore PFAL can contain no errors, since God's words are perfect.
Others of us say the objective reality is that PFAL contains many errors, therefore PFAL cannot be God-breathed, since God's words are perfect.
Fundamentally, Mike is not here to argue the merits of PFAL, he is here to sucker those whom he can into accepting his false premise.
Mike has elevated the "revelations" of his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit above the objective evidence of his senses, and he wants us to do the same.
Logical systems can be used to derive further truths from known truths, but simply because a system is logical doesn't mean its results are true.
An argument is considered "valid" if its reasoning complies with the rules of its logical system. In order to be regarded as true, though, an argument must be both valid and "sound", that is, the premises upon which the argument is based must all be true.
How do we determine whether or not a premise is true? The truth or falsity of a premise has to rest on how closely the premise accords with objective reality.
Mike has taken as his assumption that PFAL is God-breathed, therefore PFAL can contain no errors, since God's words are perfect.
Others of us say the objective reality is that PFAL contains many errors, therefore PFAL cannot be God-breathed, since God's words are perfect.
Fundamentally, Mike is not here to argue the merits of PFAL, he is here to sucker those whom he can into accepting his false premise.
Mike has elevated the "revelations" of his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit above the objective evidence of his senses, and he wants us to do the same.
Love,
Steve
Sounds like a good description of an info-mmercial.
Mike has elevated the "revelations" of his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit above the objective evidence of his senses, and he wants us to do the same.
It's not my idea. Paul talks about Christ formed within in Gal. 4:19
Dr talked about this a bit in RHST.
Whenever you hear the phrase "the mind of Christ" that's the same thing as Christ formed within.
The natural man mind cannot know nor please God. The things of God are foolishness to the natural man mind. It can believe the Word in a natural selfish capacity only, but the deep spiritual things are not understood and are even rejected, even though pneuma hagion is present. Pneuma hagion does not affect the mind.
So, getting Christ formed within, or getting the mind of Christ, means a successful casting off of the old natural man's mind, and acquiring via God's grace and His Word, a NEW man. This is the purpose of PFAL, to build within the mind of Christ.
Christ formed within is Christ in you THE GLORY, whereas pneuma hagion is only the token, the hope of glory to come. It came.
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.
actually, you have quite often used logic to try to prove PFAL is god-breathed by referring to the teachings of vpw himself.
now, vpw said this:
The purpose of these teachings is to give you the keys to live the more abundant life that God wants for His children. In the Old Testament, when God's people adhered to His Word and did His commandments they lived abundantly. We live in a new day and a new age yet the principal remains. When we live according to the Word that is written to us we will live a life that is more than abundant; we will live a life that is not just abundant but more than abundant. Let us not limit God in our lives. I want the keys and principle that you learn here to be a safe anchorage in a sea of doubt. When storms arise you can go to God and His Word for solace and deliverance. We need to return to the keys and principles in God's Word to eliminate the confusion and doubt that surrounds us. These keys work with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision and are set so that we may know, without a shadow of a doubt, the Word that God has so graciously given us.
The very first lesson we must learn is this:
The greatest secret in the world today is that
The Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God.
he claimed himself that the keys he's reveal would work with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision, so the rules of math and science must apply. your position "PFAL is god-breathed" is exactly the problem posed by the liar paradox.
The way I interpreted Godel's incompleteness theorem was this:
Every logical system is a set of rules.
The purpose of a logical system is to define "proof".
Every logical system is built on a set of assumptions which are taken as self evident.
If you try to use a logical system to prove one of the assumptions upon which it is based, you inevitably get into a circular argument, sometimes known as a "tautology" or a "recursive loop".
Circular arguments are not valid.
Therefore a logical system can never be used to prove one of its basic assumptions.
Since Mike takes as one of his assumptions that PFAL contains no errors, then either he cannot use his system to prove PFAL contains no errors, or his system is not logically valid.
Love,
Steve
thank you for explaining that much more clearly and beautifully than I ever could :)
Yes I saw your post. In my response to the original post in the snowstorm thread, I was addressing a different point, about how textual criticism shows that the overall message is not "irretrievably lost."
Mark, you don't get my complaint. You saw my post but you didn't digest it. You didn't assimilate it. Then weeks later you posted this question to me:
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?
If you had properly read my post weeks earlier you wouldn’t have asked me that question.
My complaint is that with my posts AND with PFAL you don’t read to understand, digest, and assimilate. You simply read with the intent to tear down. You don’t even understand what you are trying to tear down because you haven’t invested the time to understand it. I see you doing this over and over with me.
How many times have I brought up the issue of looking at ALL the instances of a topic in PFAL before any analysis can be performed? How many times have you ignored this caveat? The answer is ALL of them. Should I re-post them?
Should I show you EVEN MORE instances of this lack of reading my posts to the end of understanding them? There’s a fresh one, just posted last night ready for exposure.
My complaint is that you are not taking the time to read my posts and understand them. I suggest you go back and read the last month’s worth of my posting. Only then can you discuss things with me in a thoughtful manner. I want you to quit this shallow pot-shot taking at whatever paragraphs of mine look tempting to you, while you ignore crucial passages that undercut your criticisms.
You need to go back and read the “only rule” passages from the film class I have posed in the “snow” thread to understand why it is you have, AT BEST, multiple rules for faith and practice. Read all my recent posts on this topic and you stand a chance in understanding what an single RULE is and why you do not have one. Right now you obviously don’t.
*******
actually, you have quite often used logic to try to prove PFAL is god-breathed by referring to the teachings of vpw himself.
No, I have quoted in his teachings where he CLAIMED that PFAL is God-breathed.
I did not offer these quoted claims as proof that PFAL is true.
I DID offer these quoted claims as proof that grads had forgotten the he made such claims.
How many times have I brought up the issue of looking at ALL the instances of a topic in PFAL before any analysis can be performed? How many times have you ignored this caveat? The answer is ALL of them. Should I re-post them?
Based on the above stated method, let's consider all the instances in PFAL of the genealogy conundrum and see if we can perform an analysis.
If, indeed, PFAL is our only rule of faith and practice, this should be fairly simple.
During the Gospel Period, people had no spirit so the body-and-soul believers could only observe life from a senses point of view. Men in the gospels asked Jesus as recorded in John 6:30, “What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee?” Time and time again inquirers asked for tangible proof. Thomas insisted, “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails...I will not believe.” In the gospels, people had to see in order to believe. But the Church epistles establish the order that a person first believes and then he sees. Thus you and I do not first see and then believe; we first believe God’s Word and then we see the truth of it bear fruit in our lives as we walk on it. GMWD pg141 & 142
God’s Strength in Us
Victor Paul Wierwille
Steve, I was just wondering if you could show us the error in the objective reality cited above?
During the Gospel Period, people had no spirit so the body-and-soul believers could only observe life from a senses point of view. Men in the gospels asked Jesus as recorded in John 6:30, “What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee?” Time and time again inquirers asked for tangible proof. Thomas insisted, “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails...I will not believe.” In the gospels, people had to see in order to believe. But the Church epistles establish the order that a person first believes and then he sees. Thus you and I do not first see and then believe; we first believe God’s Word and then we see the truth of it bear fruit in our lives as we walk on it. GMWD pg141 & 142
God’s Strength in Us
Victor Paul Wierwille
Steve, I was just wondering if you could show us error in the objective reality cited above?
Love,
Jim
Jim, could you explain your objective in posting the question? how will it support or undermine the PFAL dogma that we have "one source for faith and practice", without falling into the same trap that Mike's circular reasoning already leads to?
During the Gospel Period, people had no spirit so the body-and-soul believers could only observe life from a senses point of view. Men in the gospels asked Jesus as recorded in John 6:30, “What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee?” Time and time again inquirers asked for tangible proof. Thomas insisted, “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails...I will not believe.” In the gospels, people had to see in order to believe. But the Church epistles establish the order that a person first believes and then he sees. Thus you and I do not first see and then believe; we first believe God’s Word and then we see the truth of it bear fruit in our lives as we walk on it. GMWD pg141 & 142
God’s Strength in Us
Victor Paul Wierwille
Steve, I was just wondering if you could show us error in the objective reality cited above?
Love,
Jim
Well, I'm not Steve, but I would submit that that the only way any human has ever observed ANYTHING is by way of the senses.
"Believing first and then seeing" is simply a textbook method of being taken in.
And I would also posit that in the Bible quotation noted, that Thomas is the most virtuous one of the lot. Demanding proof is not an evil practice. It's a disciplined approach to figuring out REAL answers in life instead of accepting fairytales as guidance.
"Believing first" never discovered any cures to disease or launched any satellites. Nor did inquisitive skeptics ever ride off on a Crusade or fly an airliner into a skyscraper...
"How many times have I brought up the issue of looking at ALL the instances of a topic in PFAL before any analysis can be performed? How many times have you ignored this caveat? The answer is ALL of them. Should I re-post them?
Then waysider responded with:
Based on the above stated method, let's consider all the instances in PFAL of the genealogy conundrum and see if we can perform an analysis.
If, indeed, PFAL is our only rule of faith and practice, this should be fairly simple.
waysider,
Let's test your understanding of this. I'll give you an "open book" test.
1. What did I leave out of that recent paragraph to Mark (for purposes of brevity), that I did include in similar earlier assertions?
2. How would you check all the "book and magazine form" of that TOPIC of genealogy?
3. Notice I said topic of genealogy and NOT simply the "word" genealogy. Sometimes the same topic appears in a section under a slightly or radically different wording. How would you find all the TOPICAL instances?
You just said that it "should be fairly simple," so give me the method and timetable by which you would do all this after you answer questions 1, 2, and 3.
Hint: Question #3 is a trick question. I'll tell you why later, after you fail this test.
Should I show you EVEN MORE instances of this lack of reading my posts to the end of understanding them? There’s a fresh one, just posted last night ready for exposure.
During the Gospel Period, people had no spirit so the body-and-soul believers could only observe life from a senses point of view.
Well, that's what VPW taught in PFAL but, as we have seen, the expressions "spirit in" and "spirit on" are used in both the NT and the OT. To assume that no one during the Gospel period could observe anything outside a senses point of view seems a bit too restrictive in my opinion. I propose that If God had wanted to reveal something to people during the Gospel period, it would certainly have been within his power, as defined in the OT.
"How many times have I brought up the issue of looking at ALL the instances of a topic in PFAL before any analysis can be performed? How many times have you ignored this caveat? The answer is ALL of them. Should I re-post them?
Then waysider responded with:
QUOTE (waysider @ Jan 30 2009, 09:34 AM) *
Based on the above stated method, let's consider all the instances in PFAL of the genealogy conundrum and see if we can perform an analysis.
If, indeed, PFAL is our only rule of faith and practice, this should be fairly simple.
*********************
Mike's reply:
waysider,
Let's test your understanding of this. I'll give you an "open book" test.
1. What did I leave out of that recent paragraph to Mark (for purposes of brevity), that I did include in similar earlier assertions?
2. How would you check all the "book and magazine form" of that TOPIC of genealogy?
3. Notice I said topic of genealogy and NOT simply the "word" genealogy. Sometimes the same topic appears in a section under a slightly or radically different wording. How would you find all the TOPICAL instances?
You just said that it "should be fairly simple," so give me the method and timetable by which you would do all this after you answer questions 1, 2, and 3.
Hint: Question #3 is a trick question. I'll tell you why later, after you fail this test.
For starters, I am not the one here who has claimed that PFAL is the only rule of faith and practice.
Since it was you who made that claim, the burden is on you to prove it.
Using your methodology, feel free to demonstrate why Wierwille was not in error when he stated on page 77 of Volume III, Studies In Abundant Living:
"When Israel disobeyed and married Cain's progeny, they brought disaster to themselves."
As Ham has pointed out,Cain's progeny was wiped out in the flood.
Wierwille also stated, "And Ahab, Jeroboam's' son..."
Again, as Ham has pointed out, Ahab was the son of Omri, not Jeroboam.
I really doubt there are many places in the entire PFAL series that these names are even mentioned.
There is no trick.
Simply use your methodology to demonstrate why this is not erroneous.
If it is erroneous, it certainly can't be considered a reliable source as our only rule of faith and practice.
Mark, you don't get my complaint. You saw my post but you didn't digest it. You didn't assimilate it. Then weeks later you posted this question to me:
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?
If you had properly read my post weeks earlier you wouldn’t have asked me that question.
My complaint is that with my posts AND with PFAL you don’t read to understand, digest, and assimilate. You simply read with the intent to tear down. You don’t even understand what you are trying to tear down because you haven’t invested the time to understand it. I see you doing this over and over with me.
How many times have I brought up the issue of looking at ALL the instances of a topic in PFAL before any analysis can be performed? How many times have you ignored this caveat? The answer is ALL of them. Should I re-post them?
Should I show you EVEN MORE instances of this lack of reading my posts to the end of understanding them? There’s a fresh one, just posted last night ready for exposure.
My complaint is that you are not taking the time to read my posts and understand them. I suggest you go back and read the last month’s worth of my posting. Only then can you discuss things with me in a thoughtful manner. I want you to quit this shallow pot-shot taking at whatever paragraphs of mine look tempting to you, while you ignore crucial passages that undercut your criticisms.
You need to go back and read the “only rule” passages from the film class I have posed in the “snow” thread to understand why it is you have, AT BEST, multiple rules for faith and practice. Read all my recent posts on this topic and you stand a chance in understanding what an single RULE is and why you do not have one. Right now you obviously don’t.
The thing you accuse me of doing, you are yourself doing in this very post. I told you that when I responded to your post I was discussing a different point, one which you still have not addressed. I know you keep saying you want to get back to it when you have the time. But then you completely ignore the rest of my post (#52) in which I did respond to your original answer to why VP taught the keys he did. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand you.
I said in my post with the question that bothers you, "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." My question was not so much "why did VP teach us the keys" as "why would he teach us keys to the Scriptures themselves if the knowledge of the Scriptures was irretrievably lost." I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, but I did clarify it in my last post, most of which you ignored, as I said.
You say you want me to quit this "shallow pot-shot taking." My points are neither shallow nor pot-shots. They are valid questions that you continue to ignore. I want YOU to quit your false accusations. I have said repeatedly that I did not set out to tear down PFAL, and that I did spend years trying to make PFAL material fit. Yet you continue to repeat your claim that I don't know the material and that I'm only approaching it with a preconceived attitude of unbelief. And yet you offer no proof of it. If my logic is faulty show me where. Get specific. That's why I started those threads in the Doctrinal Forum, so they wouldn't detract from these threads in the General section.
I told you, again, in the last post what I consider to be my only rule of faith and practice, since you specifically asked for my response. I even quoted my earlier post, in which I quoted from your reference to VP's "only rule." You never addressed it then, and still haven't now. I also responded to your desire for a single published book to be my only rule, which you have also not responded to.
If you believe I don't understand what you're talking about, then show me where. It doesn't accomplish anything to just say, "All my previous posts give you the answers." I have addressed several of the points in your posts, and asked you specific questions about them, which you have not answered. Your accusing me of only trying to tear it down serves no purpose but to deflect and avoid the questions. Besides, even if I were trying to tear it down, if it's truly the God-breathed Word it would stand up to such "attacks."
The thing you accuse me of doing, you are yourself doing in this very post. I told you that when I responded to your post I was discussing a different point, one which you still have not addressed. I know you keep saying you want to get back to it when you have the time. But then you completely ignore the rest of my post (#52) in which I did respond to your original answer to why VP taught the keys he did. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand you.
No, it’s not the very same thing I’m doing; it’s merely similar in some few regards.
I will explain.
WHAT YOU DID: You read my old post of 3 weeks ago, and responded to a portion of it. The other portion you did not read with understanding or retention. Then 3 weeks later you asked me a question that was answered 4 ways in the unread or non-understood portion of the old post. It’s this non-reading and non-understanding that I am complaining about, not the non-responding.
WHAT I DID: I read your entire post with understanding and responded to only a portion of it. The rest is waiting on my getting around to a reasons.
There's a difference between not understanding and not responding. I don't have time to respond to all of your most recent post, but I did understand it all.
One reason I was waiting was to give you a chance to repent or the question you asked me. I think it was a VERY LAME question that AGAIN shows me you have not been reading my posts (or PFAL) with any understanding other than what you can take pot shots at and impress your friends.
Now as to that IMO lame question I’ll repeat my question regarding it that you ALSO seemed to ignore, though I don’t (yet) have evidence that you ALSO did not understand:
Should I show you EVEN MORE instances of this lack of reading my posts to the end of understanding them? There’s a fresh one, just posted last night ready for exposure.
Now you have more clues (if you read and understand THIS post) as to what portion of your post last night I was talking about. It’s the lame question. Can you search the board for where I answered that many days ago? I know you can’t search your memory, because it obviously did not get deposited there, otherwise you wouldn’t have asked such a telling quesion.
I told you, again, in the last post what I consider to be my only rule of faith and practice (You gave me a multiplicity of existing published references: the Bible. Then you also gave me one pie-in-the-sky ideal non-existent reference: God's Word as it was first given in the first century and which you are presently trying to extract or get back to through various means but are still not totally finished with. ) , since you specifically asked for my response. I even quoted my earlier post, in which I quoted from your reference to VP's "only rule." You never addressed it then, and still haven't now. I also responded to your desire for a single published book to be my only rule, which you have also not responded to.
If you have a single unbreakable (that's what rule means) book, please give me it's Library of congress Number.
If you believe I don't understand what you're talking about, then show me where. It doesn't accomplish anything to just say, "All my previous posts give you the answers." I have addressed several of the points in your posts, and asked you specific questions about them, which you have not answered. Your accusing me of only trying to tear it down serves no purpose but to deflect and avoid the questions. Besides, even if I were trying to tear it down, if it's truly the God-breathed Word it would stand up to such "attacks."
This is precisely why I don't bother to try and defend PFAL against attackers. It's standing quite well in spite of attacks here. You're only succeeding to tear it down in your own mind and in the minds of readers who sympathize with you.
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
Mark Clarke
Yes I saw your post. In my response to the original post in the snowstorm thread, I was addressing a different point, about how textual criticism shows that the overall message is not "irretrievably lost."
Besides the points I made there, I think you are still contradicting yourself. If "the original understanding of the ancient manuscripts was utterly lost and catastrophically irrecoverable" then there would be nothing VP or anyone could do to recover it. That's what irrecoverable means. If, on the other hand, God could guide him in how to recover the understanding of the Scriptures using keys from the Scriptures themselves, then the understanding was not "utterly lost and catastrophically irrecoverable." You can't have it both ways.
Now since you insist that it was God's guiding VPW that was the only way to recover the "lost" understanding of the Scriptures, then do you maintain that no one before him had any understanding? I know you don't, since you have stated that it was how VP put it together that was unique. So he got understanding from various Biblical scholars of the past. Logically, then, the understanding was not "utterly lost." At the most it was muddled, which I will grant you. But throughout history, any time anyone wanted real answers from the Scriptures without the spin of any denomination, they were there to see with only a little digging.
As for the reasons he taught the keys, you stated that one of them was, "To give us a way we could REtrace or REsearch his work." Then logically, we should be able to follow the same steps and get the same results. In some cases we do, but in many others, when we retrace his steps we find gaping holes in his logic and conclusions. This would not be a problem if we were talking about someone who was not considered anything more than a Bible teacher. But if you make the claim that his writings are God-breathed Word and replace the Bible, then they must be held to a higher standard.
Granted, we were told that research was not to come up with something new, but to “see again what God showed him." I believe that was why it took so many of us so long to see through the errors. But when we used the very keys he taught, and let the Bible speak for itself rather than reading into it the preconceived ideas we learned in TWI, we started to see the errors. I maintain that VP taught some reasonable principles in how to let the Bible interpret itself, but in many instances failed to use them or used them incorrectly.
You keep insisting that I don't understand "only rule for faith and practice AS IT WAS DEFINED IN PFAL." I said way back in one of my earliest posts on the Snowstorm thread:
What part of this do you consider a "multiple non-rule"? The "rule" is the God-breathed Word as it was originally written by inspiration of God. The overall message that was communicated through those writings is still able to be found. Many have done so, without the errors in demonstrable fact that VPW had throughout his writings. God's Word does in fact fit "like a hand in a glove" but sadly, PFAL does not.
You said in the doctrinal thread, "On the threads here I am most interested in proving to grads that they do not know the material, hence most of their complaints against it should be held off and and a new look warranted." My response still holds: "To prove that I don't know the material, would you not have to respond to my questions and demonstrate the errors of my logic? If you can do that, be my guest. Weigh your truth against my error."
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The way I interpreted Godel's incompleteness theorem was this:
Every logical system is a set of rules.
The purpose of a logical system is to define "proof".
Every logical system is built on a set of assumptions which are taken as self evident.
If you try to use a logical system to prove one of the assumptions upon which it is based, you inevitably get into a circular argument, sometimes known as a "tautology" or a "recursive loop".
Circular arguments are not valid.
Therefore a logical system can never be used to prove one of its basic assumptions.
Since Mike takes as one of his assumptions that PFAL contains no errors, then either he cannot use his system to prove PFAL contains no errors, or his system is not logically valid.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree with this. I said so above, as well as many times in past weeks and years.
As I said before, I do not try to prove PFAL correct, I assume it. I then work with PFAL to enlighten my life.
The only thing I try to prove here is that many crucial portions of PFAL were not understood or were forgotten
by most people posting here as well as by all grads.
***
I said this most recently in Post #48 above responding to potato, who had written "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."
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Isn't this a bit like using Psalm 14: 1 to prove or disprove the existence of God?
Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
All men are liars--------- and that's the truth!----Nick Lowe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's circular reasoning.
Q. How do you know God exists?
A. He said so.
And on and on-----
All men are liars----and that's the truth!------Nick Lowe (who happens to be a man.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Logical systems can be used to derive further truths from known truths, but simply because a system is logical doesn't mean its results are true.
An argument is considered "valid" if its reasoning complies with the rules of its logical system. In order to be regarded as true, though, an argument must be both valid and "sound", that is, the premises upon which the argument is based must all be true.
How do we determine whether or not a premise is true? The truth or falsity of a premise has to rest on how closely the premise accords with objective reality.
Mike has taken as his assumption that PFAL is God-breathed, therefore PFAL can contain no errors, since God's words are perfect.
Others of us say the objective reality is that PFAL contains many errors, therefore PFAL cannot be God-breathed, since God's words are perfect.
Fundamentally, Mike is not here to argue the merits of PFAL, he is here to sucker those whom he can into accepting his false premise.
Mike has elevated the "revelations" of his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit above the objective evidence of his senses, and he wants us to do the same.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sounds like a good description of an info-mmercial.
"Operators are standing by!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Here's a better appraoch:
Q. How do you know God exists?
A. He walks with me and He talks with me. We work together in life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It's not my idea. Paul talks about Christ formed within in Gal. 4:19
Dr talked about this a bit in RHST.
Whenever you hear the phrase "the mind of Christ" that's the same thing as Christ formed within.
The natural man mind cannot know nor please God. The things of God are foolishness to the natural man mind. It can believe the Word in a natural selfish capacity only, but the deep spiritual things are not understood and are even rejected, even though pneuma hagion is present. Pneuma hagion does not affect the mind.
So, getting Christ formed within, or getting the mind of Christ, means a successful casting off of the old natural man's mind, and acquiring via God's grace and His Word, a NEW man. This is the purpose of PFAL, to build within the mind of Christ.
Christ formed within is Christ in you THE GLORY, whereas pneuma hagion is only the token, the hope of glory to come. It came.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Reference?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
actually, you have quite often used logic to try to prove PFAL is god-breathed by referring to the teachings of vpw himself.
now, vpw said this:
he claimed himself that the keys he's reveal would work with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision, so the rules of math and science must apply. your position "PFAL is god-breathed" is exactly the problem posed by the liar paradox.
thank you for explaining that much more clearly and beautifully than I ever could :)
Edited by potatoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mark, you don't get my complaint. You saw my post but you didn't digest it. You didn't assimilate it. Then weeks later you posted this question to me:
If you had properly read my post weeks earlier you wouldn’t have asked me that question.
My complaint is that with my posts AND with PFAL you don’t read to understand, digest, and assimilate. You simply read with the intent to tear down. You don’t even understand what you are trying to tear down because you haven’t invested the time to understand it. I see you doing this over and over with me.
How many times have I brought up the issue of looking at ALL the instances of a topic in PFAL before any analysis can be performed? How many times have you ignored this caveat? The answer is ALL of them. Should I re-post them?
Should I show you EVEN MORE instances of this lack of reading my posts to the end of understanding them? There’s a fresh one, just posted last night ready for exposure.
My complaint is that you are not taking the time to read my posts and understand them. I suggest you go back and read the last month’s worth of my posting. Only then can you discuss things with me in a thoughtful manner. I want you to quit this shallow pot-shot taking at whatever paragraphs of mine look tempting to you, while you ignore crucial passages that undercut your criticisms.
You need to go back and read the “only rule” passages from the film class I have posed in the “snow” thread to understand why it is you have, AT BEST, multiple rules for faith and practice. Read all my recent posts on this topic and you stand a chance in understanding what an single RULE is and why you do not have one. Right now you obviously don’t.
*******
No, I have quoted in his teachings where he CLAIMED that PFAL is God-breathed.
I did not offer these quoted claims as proof that PFAL is true.
I DID offer these quoted claims as proof that grads had forgotten the he made such claims.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Based on the above stated method, let's consider all the instances in PFAL of the genealogy conundrum and see if we can perform an analysis.
If, indeed, PFAL is our only rule of faith and practice, this should be fairly simple.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
seaspray
During the Gospel Period, people had no spirit so the body-and-soul believers could only observe life from a senses point of view. Men in the gospels asked Jesus as recorded in John 6:30, “What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee?” Time and time again inquirers asked for tangible proof. Thomas insisted, “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails...I will not believe.” In the gospels, people had to see in order to believe. But the Church epistles establish the order that a person first believes and then he sees. Thus you and I do not first see and then believe; we first believe God’s Word and then we see the truth of it bear fruit in our lives as we walk on it. GMWD pg141 & 142
God’s Strength in Us
Victor Paul Wierwille
Steve, I was just wondering if you could show us the error in the objective reality cited above?
Love,
Jim
Edited by seasprayLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
Jim, could you explain your objective in posting the question? how will it support or undermine the PFAL dogma that we have "one source for faith and practice", without falling into the same trap that Mike's circular reasoning already leads to?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Well, I'm not Steve, but I would submit that that the only way any human has ever observed ANYTHING is by way of the senses.
"Believing first and then seeing" is simply a textbook method of being taken in.
And I would also posit that in the Bible quotation noted, that Thomas is the most virtuous one of the lot. Demanding proof is not an evil practice. It's a disciplined approach to figuring out REAL answers in life instead of accepting fairytales as guidance.
"Believing first" never discovered any cures to disease or launched any satellites. Nor did inquisitive skeptics ever ride off on a Crusade or fly an airliner into a skyscraper...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I had written to Mark Clarke:
"How many times have I brought up the issue of looking at ALL the instances of a topic in PFAL before any analysis can be performed? How many times have you ignored this caveat? The answer is ALL of them. Should I re-post them?
Then waysider responded with:
waysider,
Let's test your understanding of this. I'll give you an "open book" test.
1. What did I leave out of that recent paragraph to Mark (for purposes of brevity), that I did include in similar earlier assertions?
2. How would you check all the "book and magazine form" of that TOPIC of genealogy?
3. Notice I said topic of genealogy and NOT simply the "word" genealogy. Sometimes the same topic appears in a section under a slightly or radically different wording. How would you find all the TOPICAL instances?
You just said that it "should be fairly simple," so give me the method and timetable by which you would do all this after you answer questions 1, 2, and 3.
Hint: Question #3 is a trick question. I'll tell you why later, after you fail this test.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mark,
I want to repeat a challenge I made to you above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, that's what VPW taught in PFAL but, as we have seen, the expressions "spirit in" and "spirit on" are used in both the NT and the OT. To assume that no one during the Gospel period could observe anything outside a senses point of view seems a bit too restrictive in my opinion. I propose that If God had wanted to reveal something to people during the Gospel period, it would certainly have been within his power, as defined in the OT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
For starters, I am not the one here who has claimed that PFAL is the only rule of faith and practice.
Since it was you who made that claim, the burden is on you to prove it.
Using your methodology, feel free to demonstrate why Wierwille was not in error when he stated on page 77 of Volume III, Studies In Abundant Living:
"When Israel disobeyed and married Cain's progeny, they brought disaster to themselves."
As Ham has pointed out,Cain's progeny was wiped out in the flood.
Wierwille also stated, "And Ahab, Jeroboam's' son..."
Again, as Ham has pointed out, Ahab was the son of Omri, not Jeroboam.
I really doubt there are many places in the entire PFAL series that these names are even mentioned.
There is no trick.
Simply use your methodology to demonstrate why this is not erroneous.
If it is erroneous, it certainly can't be considered a reliable source as our only rule of faith and practice.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
The thing you accuse me of doing, you are yourself doing in this very post. I told you that when I responded to your post I was discussing a different point, one which you still have not addressed. I know you keep saying you want to get back to it when you have the time. But then you completely ignore the rest of my post (#52) in which I did respond to your original answer to why VP taught the keys he did. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand you.
I said in my post with the question that bothers you, "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." My question was not so much "why did VP teach us the keys" as "why would he teach us keys to the Scriptures themselves if the knowledge of the Scriptures was irretrievably lost." I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, but I did clarify it in my last post, most of which you ignored, as I said.
You say you want me to quit this "shallow pot-shot taking." My points are neither shallow nor pot-shots. They are valid questions that you continue to ignore. I want YOU to quit your false accusations. I have said repeatedly that I did not set out to tear down PFAL, and that I did spend years trying to make PFAL material fit. Yet you continue to repeat your claim that I don't know the material and that I'm only approaching it with a preconceived attitude of unbelief. And yet you offer no proof of it. If my logic is faulty show me where. Get specific. That's why I started those threads in the Doctrinal Forum, so they wouldn't detract from these threads in the General section.
I told you, again, in the last post what I consider to be my only rule of faith and practice, since you specifically asked for my response. I even quoted my earlier post, in which I quoted from your reference to VP's "only rule." You never addressed it then, and still haven't now. I also responded to your desire for a single published book to be my only rule, which you have also not responded to.
If you believe I don't understand what you're talking about, then show me where. It doesn't accomplish anything to just say, "All my previous posts give you the answers." I have addressed several of the points in your posts, and asked you specific questions about them, which you have not answered. Your accusing me of only trying to tear it down serves no purpose but to deflect and avoid the questions. Besides, even if I were trying to tear it down, if it's truly the God-breathed Word it would stand up to such "attacks."
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, it’s not the very same thing I’m doing; it’s merely similar in some few regards.
I will explain.
WHAT YOU DID: You read my old post of 3 weeks ago, and responded to a portion of it. The other portion you did not read with understanding or retention. Then 3 weeks later you asked me a question that was answered 4 ways in the unread or non-understood portion of the old post. It’s this non-reading and non-understanding that I am complaining about, not the non-responding.
WHAT I DID: I read your entire post with understanding and responded to only a portion of it. The rest is waiting on my getting around to a reasons.
There's a difference between not understanding and not responding. I don't have time to respond to all of your most recent post, but I did understand it all.
One reason I was waiting was to give you a chance to repent or the question you asked me. I think it was a VERY LAME question that AGAIN shows me you have not been reading my posts (or PFAL) with any understanding other than what you can take pot shots at and impress your friends.
Now as to that IMO lame question I’ll repeat my question regarding it that you ALSO seemed to ignore, though I don’t (yet) have evidence that you ALSO did not understand:
Now you have more clues (if you read and understand THIS post) as to what portion of your post last night I was talking about. It’s the lame question. Can you search the board for where I answered that many days ago? I know you can’t search your memory, because it obviously did not get deposited there, otherwise you wouldn’t have asked such a telling quesion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
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.