Steve, et al - the whole gang, that scriptlet out of Galatians 4 and all of the "formed in you" hullabaloo that's been proposed by Mike illustrates all too graphically the danger of taking a single line from the bible (could be anything really) and assigning it significance out of context. Other uses (morphoo, etc. etc. ) do give a sense of the meaning, but immediate context in Galatians makes it clear what the point of the letter was - the difficulty in Galatia and Antioch between Jew and Gentile and exactly what the new life and birth in Christ was too them. That's what it addresses, and no mystical brain surgery is required to get that from even the most cursory reading.
What it refers to first and foremost is that they come to an understanding on the role of the "old" covenant in relation to the new one, "in" Christ. A Christ-like church is one joined together, unified by "that selfsame spirit" of God, in each person with no collective or individual accountability to fulfill an expectation of observing the law for the end of a "righteous" life - the new life in Christ achieves and accomplishes that.
The birth of holy spirit is complete, or as VPW himself emphasized, "completely completely complete" in and of itself. The "new life" doesn't get any more or any bigger - Christians simply chooses to align their behavior with it.
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."
Followers of Christ have a brand new way, to coin a phrase :) and that Way is through Him, to a living relationship with God. Being constantly mindful of that simple set of realities is what we can call "living faith" and while difficult at times as life can be, is no more difficult than cultivating a mind of trust and honor to God - a "mind of Christ", the same mind that He had.
While I deeply enjoy studying the bible and all that it offers, the constant jerry-rigging that goes on to torture ever yet new and deeper meaning out of every word in the name of "biblical research" is hmmmm...[adjective of choice goes here]. IMO. Given that opinion the best effort a person can expend on the "Word of God" is to attempt to understand it for what it says. Using the reworded words of someone else as the reference of choice is dicey at best. Given that it's all written in a language that none of us understand as one who would have who wrote it, we have to accept some efforts at translation to get off first base. In that way what PFAL proposed has merit - attempt to make what effort a person can to study it and learn as best they can themselves, and live as simply as possible within that understanding.
Bullinger allowed for that fact in his book "Give and His Gifts" in the study of the words pneuma and hagion, that all of the writings and teachings on it would not replace a simple study and reading of the bible itself and the reader allowing their understanding to be enlightened through that so they could learn themselves.
In this way I would say today - the entire argument of a "challenge" to establish a "single page" of reliable standard for faith and practice denies the value of the bible itself and the working of holy spirit in each person to teach and lead. The fact that there is disagreement amongst people means nothing in relation to the 'truth" of what the bible would or could say and in fact places the emphasis on the wrong thing, completely. And it's been a sorry day to see how easily that's been denied and swept aside by "Christians" in favor of "another gospel".
Thanks, Steve and WordWolf. You confirm what I was beginning to suspect. This has been a great learning experience for me.
Hey, Mike!
He meant it's been a great leaning experience finding out that your ONLY rule of faith and practice is your "advanced Christ formed within" spirit. How come he had to find that out from me? Why aren't YOU telling him about it? I'm sure you can do a much better job of explaining the NEW man, the mind of Christ, than I can.
Steve Lortz
OLG Extraordinaire of the United States by Poopular Acclamation
Mike has switched tactics again, repeating his stale old question to show that his tantrum wasn't really meant to kill the thread, yet he continues to studiously ignore all discussion of his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit, as if the subject had never been brought up.
Do you mean you FINALLY realize that there IS no page #1 from your "only rule" to post?
I know there's no page 1 from my ONLY RULE because it's severely limiting to personal growth and dangerous to the self to cut yourself off from all ideas but those of a single man. my personal growth has been a bit like what sirguessalot described, comparing ideas and concepts from different sources and seeing where they overlap. therefore, posting a page 1 would be impossible, unless I sit down to write down what I've gleaned from the many sources, gone through the exercise of distilling and organizing, so I can discover which is page 1. I suppose you'd want citations, too, even though you don't require them of vpw, which would take solid weeks to track down, and I'm a bit busy doing volunteer work at the moment even if I wanted to bother with writing an ethics treatise for my personal use.
Steve, that makes sense.
Do you think that we are talking to a spirit?
Mike is one of the people on here who I wonder if he's channeling, and simply won't admit that's what he's doing because he's ashamed.
Steve, et al - the whole gang, that scriptlet out of Galatians 4 and all of the "formed in you" hullabaloo that's been proposed by Mike illustrates all too graphically the danger of taking a single line from the bible (could be anything really) and assigning it significance out of context.
Hold it right there.
I think the idea of "the mind of Christ" comes up too, and more than once. Let's not leave that out.
Remember how we were taught body, then soul, and finalyspirit?
Corresponding with future new body,mind of Christ, pneuma hagion
The body situation still needs some work. We didn't see completeness there in that category with pneuma hagion.
The soul situation also was not made complete with receiving the gift pneuma hagion.
Remember how we were taught that the gift of holy spirit does not affect the mind?
Well, the mind is in the soul category.
These categories do not mix.
Our completeness in spirit did not give us completeness in body nor in mind.
God first gave us completeness in spirit. We’re complete IN HIM. That total completeness was in the spirit category. BUT, as Ephesians says, it’s still only a token of what was to come.
Now we have the opportunity to see the mind of Christ, to fully put on the mind of Christ, in the soul category completeness is now available.
In the first century no one had a complete set of the epistles. They were still being written. There were vast distances separating believers. There were no Xerox machines, no printing presses. The revelation was being lost as fast as it was being written, and soon all would forsake the man whom God had chosen to co-ordinate the mystery revelation. Now, this revelation has been mass printed and distributed around the world in the most common of languages.
We still look forward to completeness in body category. It’s coming.
Praise God for His gift of holy spirit.
Let's now look into the idea of Christ formed in us, not a spirit category item, but a new spiritual mind that replaces the old man natures dead mind. Let's put on the mind of Christ.
Now let's resume:
Other uses (morphoo, etc. etc. ) do give a sense of the meaning, but immediate context in Galatians makes it clear what the point of the letter was - the difficulty in Galatia and Antioch between Jew and Gentile and exactly what the new life and birth in Christ was too them. That's what it addresses, and no mystical brain surgery is required to get that from even the most cursory reading.
What it refers to first and foremost is that they come to an understanding on the role of the "old" covenant in relation to the new one, "in" Christ. A Christ-like church is one joined together, unified by "that selfsame spirit" of God, in each person with no collective or individual accountability to fulfill an expectation of observing the law for the end of a "righteous" life - the new life in Christ achieves and accomplishes that.
The birth of holy spirit is complete, or as VPW himself emphasized, "completely completely complete" in and of itself. The "new life" doesn't get any more or any bigger - Christians simply chooses to align their behavior with it.
Yes, like putting on the mind of Christ in all the fullness that God makes available.
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."
Well socks, that's a good start, but there is a lot more available from God. This short rule may do well, but I think in your application of it you need (and do) refer to many other items not contained in said rule. In other words, I think you have far more that guides you than this one tiny rule that you have not printed out. For example : the idea of the word "faith" needs more definition since it only appears once in your rule. Where do you go to define what your rule means by "faith"? Do you go to your dictionary? If so then that would be an addition to your rule. Do you go to your KJV to add on to your rule? You see what you printed here is only they beginning of a rule. It sounds nice, but there are many issues it doesn't resolve. It's a rule in the making at best.
Followers of Christ have a brand new way, to coin a phrase :) and that Way is through Him, to a living relationship with God. Being constantly mindful of that simple set of realities is what we can call "living faith" and while difficult at times as life can be, is no more difficult than cultivating a mind of trust and honor to God - a "mind of Christ", the same mind that He had.
While I deeply enjoy studying the bible and all that it offers, the constant jerry-rigging that goes on to torture ever yet new and deeper meaning out of every word in the name of "biblical research" is hmmmm...[adjective of choice goes here]. IMO. Given that opinion the best effort a person can expend on the "Word of God" is to attempt to understand it for what it says. Using the reworded words of someone else as the reference of choice is dicey at best. Given that it's all written in a language that none of us understand as one who would have who wrote it, we have to accept some efforts at translation to get off first base. In that way what PFAL proposed has merit - attempt to make what effort a person can to study it and learn as best they can themselves, and live as simply as possible within that understanding.
Bullinger allowed for that fact in his book "Give and His Gifts" in the study of the words pneuma and hagion, that all of the writings and teachings on it would not replace a simple study and reading of the bible itself and the reader allowing their understanding to be enlightened through that so they could learn themselves.
See, here's where you're adding to your rule for faith and practice.
In this way I would say today - the entire argument of a "challenge" to establish a "single page" of reliable standard for faith and practice denies the value of the bible itself
No. I just asked Mark to post Page #1 from his presumably much larger rule. I was trying to get him to be specific. I was trying to show him that his stated rule could not be posted. The bible as it was originally given to holy men who spake by the holy spirit cannot be posted, not even Page #1 of it because it was lost. That was my point in asking for page #1.
and the working of holy spirit in each person to teach and lead. The fact that there is disagreement amongst people means nothing in relation to the 'truth" of what the bible would or could say and in fact places the emphasis on the wrong thing, completely. And it's been a sorry day to see how easily that's been denied and swept aside by "Christians" in favor of "another gospel".
He meant it's been a great leaning experience finding out that your ONLY rule of faith and practice is your "advanced Christ formed within" spirit. How come he had to find that out from me? Why aren't YOU telling him about it? I'm sure you can do a much better job of explaining the NEW man, the mind of Christ, than I can.
Steve Lortz
OLG Extraordinaire of the United States by Poopular Acclamation
My only rule is not as you suppose.
You get most of what I say dead wrong.
I only have time to correct you so much, and the rest I have to let slide.
I take PFAL in written form, book and magazine form, as my only rule for faith and practice.
Any surprise here? It has a Page #1 and it has enough volume to cover every aspect of life. It's available to me to refer to and to build into my life to measure all else by.
I know there's no page 1 from my ONLY RULE because it's severely limiting to personal growth and dangerous to the self to cut yourself off from all ideas but those of a single man.
Ok, what this means is that you do not yet have a rule. That's fine, and I'm glad you admit it. If you are looking to establish something rock solid in your life then more power to you. If your rule is one in the making, I suggest you look around for examples of others who have established something that is finished.
A premature rule would be limiting to growth. A poorly formed rule might prevent the finding of a better one.
Searching for a solid rule for faith and practiced was what VPW was doing prior to the 1942 incident. He was discouraged in his quest, especially knowing that as a minister his job was to help others get rooted and grounded in a solid point of view.
God helped VPW find a sole rule for faith and practice and He wants to help us. He has made if very easy for us. What God provided is in book and magazine form.
In some ways the US Constitution serves as an “only rule” for us politically. All other laws have to line up with it or they are thrown out. Some people say that the Constitution is too limiting, but look how power packed it has turned out to be. It’s pretty darn small, yet for over 200 years it’s served amazingly well.
***
There is (or was) a group called something like the "Which Bible? Society.” I found a book of theirs when I lived in Ohio. Then years later I noticed the same book in the library of one of my customers here in San Diego who was a member. I had some very interesting conversations with her. This group uses the KJV as their only rule for faith and practice.
***
Imagine what it would have been like in the first century if you were lucky enough to be a close friend of Timothy.
At the end of Paul’s life there was a meeting at Timothy’s place that included Paul, Mark, and Luke. Timothy was instructed to get ready as many books and parchments as he had been collecting.
Just think of the advantage it would be living near Timothy and being able to go to his house to read and digest and assimilate THAT rule for faith and practice: the collection of epistles and gospels Timothy had. There would be no language or culture barriers, and they wouldn’t be copies, but the ORIGINALS!
Think how privileged Timothy's friends were!
I guess the only difficulty they might have had was recognizing the value of what they had, not having the hindsight we posses regarding those writings.
Wouldn’t it be great if God were to bless us with an "only rule" like that? I think He did.
deleted, as this was getting pretty far off track for the topic and space. :)
My own focus isn't at all the same as yours Mike. I started to think how a lot of this starts to deal with topics like "logos" and what that is, and a host of other topics, ideas and what-not.
Ok, what this means is that you do not yet have a rule. That's fine, and I'm glad you admit it. If you are looking to establish something rock solid in your life then more power to you. If your rule is one in the making, I suggest you look around for examples of others who have established something that is finished.
A premature rule would be limiting to growth. A poorly formed rule might prevent the finding of a better one.
Searching for a solid rule for faith and practiced was what VPW was doing prior to the 1942 incident. He was discouraged in his quest, especially knowing that as a minister his job was to help others get rooted and grounded in a solid point of view.
God helped VPW find a sole rule for faith and practice and He wants to help us. He has made if very easy for us. What God provided is in book and magazine form.
I find your advice laughable, considering how many revisions occurred in vpw's "only rule", plus the idea of a "premature rule"... what the hell would that be, anyway? is it like a premature baby that has to be hospitalized, or is it what happens to guys if they don't think about baseball? I suggest anyone who thinks they have all the answers is pretty arrogant, which is why it doesn't bother me at all to be a "work in progress" and spend my entire life considering differing points of view. my rule-set will adjust over time, as I learn more. thinking I've got all the answers would be limiting to growth. so, at this point, I think my original question, "is having ONE RULE for faith and practice necessary?" has been abundantly answered and the answer is NO, one is under no obligation to limit oneself to a single viewpoint or source of information, and in fact I'd go further and state that the more you limit yourself, the more likely you are to lose your ability to think critically.
or insert some other name there if Martin Luther doesn't do it for ya... VPW! I think I remember Mike saying that even VPW himself didn`t agree with what Mike was saying when the theory was presented.
We both agree that the "Word of God" is our only rule of faith and practice. We just disagree on what that means.
The Scriptures do not refer to themselves as "The Word," they call themselves "The Scriptures." In the Bible, the term "the Word" refers to the whole message, the communication of God's mind and plan, and ultimately the embodiment of God's Word, His Son Jesus Christ. All of that is included when I say that my rule for faith and practice is God's Word. That is the only standard that is perfect. I gave my reasons for saying that one single printed book cannot be our only rule for faith and practice, but you never dealt with that reply.
As for your claim that the written Word was "lost," you still demonstrate a lack of knowledge about Church history. You claim that "the revelation was being lost as fast as it was being written, and soon all would forsake the man whom God had chosen to co-ordinate the mystery revelation." While II Tim. 1:15 says, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me," it doesn't say that everybody everywhere turned away from him. In fact it may not even mean "all without exception" in Asia. If everyone had turned away there would have been nobody to copy the NT documents, and no early church writings which quote virtually all of the NT so that we have further corroboration besides the MSS.
I referred to the reliability of the Scriptures way back on the Snowstorm thread (here and here among other places), but you never dealt with that either. I said at the time that the NT documents are preserved better than any other ancient documents, with MS evidence that enables us to reconstruct the originals with astonishing accuracy. You simply blow that off and call the scholars "pointy-headed intellectuals" without really knowing what they do or how the reconstruction works.
Your claims that "all we had (in 1967) were 4th century fragmentary mis-copies of mis-copies of copies" and that they were at "extreme variance with each other" are simply false. The amazing abundance of MSS, combined with early church writers' quotations of the Scriptures enable scholars to compare and contrast, and with many other principles in the science of textual criticism, we can arrive at something very close to the original readings. The relatively few passages that are still in question do not affect any major doctrine. The majority of doctrinal differences among various Christian groups stems not from mistranslation or text corruption, but from misinterpretation. Not only that, but even VP said that 85-90% of the Bible interprets itself right where it's written, without having to dig.
You said above that you were trying to get me to "be specific." Thank you. I needed a good laugh. I have been asking specific questions of you and trying to get you to be specific since I engaged in this discussion. You have yet to do so. Since you claim that PFAL is your only rule of faith and practice because you made the choice to accept it as God breathed, then you must have dealt with the apparent contradictions in order to make that choice and determine that there are no real errors in it. Several of us have challenged you to demonstrate how you dealt with the apparent contradictions according to your methods, and all you have done is talk about how you won't use our methods or "play our game."
When Steve put forth what you had said was your methodology, i.e. listening to the "advanced Christ formed within," you seemed to imply that he was misrepresenting you. Yet you have not come out and said what your methodology is for determining that PFAL is perfect and God-breathed. You side-stepped the issue by going on about the mind of Christ in Galatians, but that is not the same thing as what Steve said you described in post #101, above. Let's get specific: is what he wrote an accurate representation of what you told him?
If your methodology consists of gaining wisdom from a spiritual source, we are commanded to not believe every spirit, but try them and see if they are of God. Did you do this, and if so, how? What criteria did you use in deciding that PFAL was God-breathed? And what criteria did you then use to deal with those stubborn apparent contradictions? I know you are aware that the devil can counterfeit revelation. What have you done to assure that what you are getting is genuine?
If you choose not to answer these questions, that's your choice. But don't keep claiming we don't know what you're talking about just because we disagree with you. And read up on Church history and textual criticism. At least then you will be able to discuss them knowledgeably.
No, I don't (just my thinking, I haven't received any "discerning of spirits").
I no longer have any confidence in the things we were taught in the Advanced Class. Demons have vastly less power than popular imagination makes them out to have. For the most part, they are con-"men" whose only real power is persuasion, pulling bluffs and scams. And Wierwille was certainly conned by his "devil spirits". It has been demonstrated in a book called "The Spiritual Mafia" (or maybe it was "The Psychic Mafia" I'll have to retrace it) that Arthur Ford was a fake. Ford's familiar was the "Fletcher" of PFAL. And ANYBODY can do "psychic surgery" once they know the trick. I remember all the hours I spent picking up litter and cigarette butts around ministry property because "devil spirits like to hang out in messy places." The motor coach was spick and span, but that certainly didn't stop the devilish work going on in it.
The Bible doesn't talk in the Greek about people being "possessed". That's King James theology creeping into the text. The Greek word is literally "demonized", and I think it can be correctly understood in modern parlance as "influenced by demons".
I think Mike is a man who is heavily influenced by a demon masquerading as "the mind of Christ". Mike is influenced by this spirit because he willfully surrendered his judgment to it. Mike can also take his judgment back if he decides to, by the mercy and grace and power of God through the Lord Jesus Christ. In I Corinthians 2:6 Paul tells us that the princes of this age... which Paul also calls "this present evil age" in Galatians 1:4, NEVER "the Church Age", NEVER "the Age of Grace", NEVER "the Age of the Mystery"... the princes of this age come to nought. The princes of this age come to nothing, rendered useless. They have no power but deception.
Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit keeps Mike dancing on its string through a mix of flattery and whopping big promises about what Mike will be able to do once his "Christ within" is fully formed (always somewhere down the line, never now). He will be like a giant, striding across the landscape, brushing away unbelievers like so many flies. Mike believes what his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit tells him more than he believes what he can see with his own eyes. That's why he can put such bizarre, nonsensical interpretations on Wierwille's straight forward words. That's why he thinks he has so much prowess as a debater. He finishes one of his rants, which leaves the rest of us nonplussed, and his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit tells him, "Way to go, Mike! You the man! You packed 'em all off, runnin' like whipped dogs with their tails between their legs!"
but Steve L, regardless of how outlandish Mike's claims and methods may seem
your so-called spiritual diagnosis of him seems juvenile, supersitious, presumptuous, ineffective, personal...
...and quite soakingly contrary to the rules of this forum
what's next...a hypertextual exorcism?
:blink:
Todd -- You're welcome to your opinion, and God bless you for it. Mike has (and will continue to) evade/ dodge/ and flat out deny any and all legitimate questions asked of him. I guess you haven't dealt much with him in the past, because if you have/ had done so, you would quickly realize that anything you said (in all honesty) would be relegated to his *Table Of Challenge* where you would would have NO chance of rebuttal at all.
Mike isn't interested in hearing anything remotely resembling *truth*. He's fixated on docvic, and the *written word* of pfal. Steve Lortz has given an honest assessment of the mental state of Mike. You may not agree with that, but that's up to you. IMO, Mike has mental problems, but I'm guessing he might say the same about me. :)
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
WordWolf
I remember this.
It was when I was trying to keep track of the Mikean system's claims that I concluded
Steve might be on to something in his line of questioning, and paid more
attention.
Mike's ACSFW spirit, obviously, is the thing that showed him JC descending from
the clouds with the Orange Book in his hand "MANY TIMES".
It's also how Mike was told "Jesus is very interested in pfal.
He told me so himself."
The lonely and the desperate- facing decades of wasted youth and the prime of their life-
can be so desperate to make wasted time valued, can be so desperate for simple
answers- that they can be victims in a spiritual "confidence game" and never realize
it, thus wasting the REST of their lives worse than the early parts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
*question's Mike's very existence*
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Thanks, Steve and WordWolf. You confirm what I was beginning to suspect. This has been a great learning experience for me.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Still no page #1 from your "only rule" Mark?
Do you mean you FINALLY realize that there IS no page #1 from your "only rule" to post?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
nevermind
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Steve, et al - the whole gang, that scriptlet out of Galatians 4 and all of the "formed in you" hullabaloo that's been proposed by Mike illustrates all too graphically the danger of taking a single line from the bible (could be anything really) and assigning it significance out of context. Other uses (morphoo, etc. etc. ) do give a sense of the meaning, but immediate context in Galatians makes it clear what the point of the letter was - the difficulty in Galatia and Antioch between Jew and Gentile and exactly what the new life and birth in Christ was too them. That's what it addresses, and no mystical brain surgery is required to get that from even the most cursory reading.
What it refers to first and foremost is that they come to an understanding on the role of the "old" covenant in relation to the new one, "in" Christ. A Christ-like church is one joined together, unified by "that selfsame spirit" of God, in each person with no collective or individual accountability to fulfill an expectation of observing the law for the end of a "righteous" life - the new life in Christ achieves and accomplishes that.
The birth of holy spirit is complete, or as VPW himself emphasized, "completely completely complete" in and of itself. The "new life" doesn't get any more or any bigger - Christians simply chooses to align their behavior with it.
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."
Followers of Christ have a brand new way, to coin a phrase :) and that Way is through Him, to a living relationship with God. Being constantly mindful of that simple set of realities is what we can call "living faith" and while difficult at times as life can be, is no more difficult than cultivating a mind of trust and honor to God - a "mind of Christ", the same mind that He had.
While I deeply enjoy studying the bible and all that it offers, the constant jerry-rigging that goes on to torture ever yet new and deeper meaning out of every word in the name of "biblical research" is hmmmm...[adjective of choice goes here]. IMO. Given that opinion the best effort a person can expend on the "Word of God" is to attempt to understand it for what it says. Using the reworded words of someone else as the reference of choice is dicey at best. Given that it's all written in a language that none of us understand as one who would have who wrote it, we have to accept some efforts at translation to get off first base. In that way what PFAL proposed has merit - attempt to make what effort a person can to study it and learn as best they can themselves, and live as simply as possible within that understanding.
Bullinger allowed for that fact in his book "Give and His Gifts" in the study of the words pneuma and hagion, that all of the writings and teachings on it would not replace a simple study and reading of the bible itself and the reader allowing their understanding to be enlightened through that so they could learn themselves.
In this way I would say today - the entire argument of a "challenge" to establish a "single page" of reliable standard for faith and practice denies the value of the bible itself and the working of holy spirit in each person to teach and lead. The fact that there is disagreement amongst people means nothing in relation to the 'truth" of what the bible would or could say and in fact places the emphasis on the wrong thing, completely. And it's been a sorry day to see how easily that's been denied and swept aside by "Christians" in favor of "another gospel".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I answered your question, even though you disagreed with it. You still haven't answered mine.
I'm not holding my breath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Hey, Mike!
He meant it's been a great leaning experience finding out that your ONLY rule of faith and practice is your "advanced Christ formed within" spirit. How come he had to find that out from me? Why aren't YOU telling him about it? I'm sure you can do a much better job of explaining the NEW man, the mind of Christ, than I can.
Steve Lortz
OLG Extraordinaire of the United States by Poopular Acclamation
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike has switched tactics again, repeating his stale old question to show that his tantrum wasn't really meant to kill the thread, yet he continues to studiously ignore all discussion of his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit, as if the subject had never been brought up.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Steve, that makes sense.
Do you think that we are talking to a spirit?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I know there's no page 1 from my ONLY RULE because it's severely limiting to personal growth and dangerous to the self to cut yourself off from all ideas but those of a single man. my personal growth has been a bit like what sirguessalot described, comparing ideas and concepts from different sources and seeing where they overlap. therefore, posting a page 1 would be impossible, unless I sit down to write down what I've gleaned from the many sources, gone through the exercise of distilling and organizing, so I can discover which is page 1. I suppose you'd want citations, too, even though you don't require them of vpw, which would take solid weeks to track down, and I'm a bit busy doing volunteer work at the moment even if I wanted to bother with writing an ethics treatise for my personal use.
Mike is one of the people on here who I wonder if he's channeling, and simply won't admit that's what he's doing because he's ashamed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hold it right there.
I think the idea of "the mind of Christ" comes up too, and more than once. Let's not leave that out.
Remember how we were taught body, then soul, and finalyspirit?
Corresponding with future new body, mind of Christ, pneuma hagion
The body situation still needs some work. We didn't see completeness there in that category with pneuma hagion.
The soul situation also was not made complete with receiving the gift pneuma hagion.
Remember how we were taught that the gift of holy spirit does not affect the mind?
Well, the mind is in the soul category.
These categories do not mix.
Our completeness in spirit did not give us completeness in body nor in mind.
God first gave us completeness in spirit. We’re complete IN HIM. That total completeness was in the spirit category. BUT, as Ephesians says, it’s still only a token of what was to come.
Now we have the opportunity to see the mind of Christ, to fully put on the mind of Christ, in the soul category completeness is now available.
In the first century no one had a complete set of the epistles. They were still being written. There were vast distances separating believers. There were no Xerox machines, no printing presses. The revelation was being lost as fast as it was being written, and soon all would forsake the man whom God had chosen to co-ordinate the mystery revelation. Now, this revelation has been mass printed and distributed around the world in the most common of languages.
We still look forward to completeness in body category. It’s coming.
Praise God for His gift of holy spirit.
Let's now look into the idea of Christ formed in us, not a spirit category item, but a new spiritual mind that replaces the old man natures dead mind. Let's put on the mind of Christ.
Now let's resume:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
My only rule is not as you suppose.
You get most of what I say dead wrong.
I only have time to correct you so much, and the rest I have to let slide.
I take PFAL in written form, book and magazine form, as my only rule for faith and practice.
Any surprise here? It has a Page #1 and it has enough volume to cover every aspect of life. It's available to me to refer to and to build into my life to measure all else by.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
******
Ok, what this means is that you do not yet have a rule. That's fine, and I'm glad you admit it. If you are looking to establish something rock solid in your life then more power to you. If your rule is one in the making, I suggest you look around for examples of others who have established something that is finished.
A premature rule would be limiting to growth. A poorly formed rule might prevent the finding of a better one.
Searching for a solid rule for faith and practiced was what VPW was doing prior to the 1942 incident. He was discouraged in his quest, especially knowing that as a minister his job was to help others get rooted and grounded in a solid point of view.
God helped VPW find a sole rule for faith and practice and He wants to help us. He has made if very easy for us. What God provided is in book and magazine form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Some thoughts on “only rule”
In some ways the US Constitution serves as an “only rule” for us politically. All other laws have to line up with it or they are thrown out. Some people say that the Constitution is too limiting, but look how power packed it has turned out to be. It’s pretty darn small, yet for over 200 years it’s served amazingly well.
***
There is (or was) a group called something like the "Which Bible? Society.” I found a book of theirs when I lived in Ohio. Then years later I noticed the same book in the library of one of my customers here in San Diego who was a member. I had some very interesting conversations with her. This group uses the KJV as their only rule for faith and practice.
***
Imagine what it would have been like in the first century if you were lucky enough to be a close friend of Timothy.
At the end of Paul’s life there was a meeting at Timothy’s place that included Paul, Mark, and Luke. Timothy was instructed to get ready as many books and parchments as he had been collecting.
Just think of the advantage it would be living near Timothy and being able to go to his house to read and digest and assimilate THAT rule for faith and practice: the collection of epistles and gospels Timothy had. There would be no language or culture barriers, and they wouldn’t be copies, but the ORIGINALS!
Think how privileged Timothy's friends were!
I guess the only difficulty they might have had was recognizing the value of what they had, not having the hindsight we posses regarding those writings.
Wouldn’t it be great if God were to bless us with an "only rule" like that? I think He did.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
deleted, as this was getting pretty far off track for the topic and space. :)
My own focus isn't at all the same as yours Mike. I started to think how a lot of this starts to deal with topics like "logos" and what that is, and a host of other topics, ideas and what-not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I find your advice laughable, considering how many revisions occurred in vpw's "only rule", plus the idea of a "premature rule"... what the hell would that be, anyway? is it like a premature baby that has to be hospitalized, or is it what happens to guys if they don't think about baseball? I suggest anyone who thinks they have all the answers is pretty arrogant, which is why it doesn't bother me at all to be a "work in progress" and spend my entire life considering differing points of view. my rule-set will adjust over time, as I learn more. thinking I've got all the answers would be limiting to growth. so, at this point, I think my original question, "is having ONE RULE for faith and practice necessary?" has been abundantly answered and the answer is NO, one is under no obligation to limit oneself to a single viewpoint or source of information, and in fact I'd go further and state that the more you limit yourself, the more likely you are to lose your ability to think critically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
WOW, wtf, this is like a time-warp or time loop
OR -- SS, DD.....
Mike, you have failed the application of Occam's razor...as in, your SHI--IITE is so convoluted, IT HAS to be suspect....
no everyday, average, non-TWI person could ever hear your spiel and not conclude you were off your rocker....
can you imagine Martin Luther buying this swill......... or insert some other name there if Martin Luther doesn't do it for ya...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
or insert some other name there if Martin Luther doesn't do it for ya... VPW! I think I remember Mike saying that even VPW himself didn`t agree with what Mike was saying when the theory was presented.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Mike,
We both agree that the "Word of God" is our only rule of faith and practice. We just disagree on what that means.
The Scriptures do not refer to themselves as "The Word," they call themselves "The Scriptures." In the Bible, the term "the Word" refers to the whole message, the communication of God's mind and plan, and ultimately the embodiment of God's Word, His Son Jesus Christ. All of that is included when I say that my rule for faith and practice is God's Word. That is the only standard that is perfect. I gave my reasons for saying that one single printed book cannot be our only rule for faith and practice, but you never dealt with that reply.
As for your claim that the written Word was "lost," you still demonstrate a lack of knowledge about Church history. You claim that "the revelation was being lost as fast as it was being written, and soon all would forsake the man whom God had chosen to co-ordinate the mystery revelation." While II Tim. 1:15 says, "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me," it doesn't say that everybody everywhere turned away from him. In fact it may not even mean "all without exception" in Asia. If everyone had turned away there would have been nobody to copy the NT documents, and no early church writings which quote virtually all of the NT so that we have further corroboration besides the MSS.
I referred to the reliability of the Scriptures way back on the Snowstorm thread (here and here among other places), but you never dealt with that either. I said at the time that the NT documents are preserved better than any other ancient documents, with MS evidence that enables us to reconstruct the originals with astonishing accuracy. You simply blow that off and call the scholars "pointy-headed intellectuals" without really knowing what they do or how the reconstruction works.
Your claims that "all we had (in 1967) were 4th century fragmentary mis-copies of mis-copies of copies" and that they were at "extreme variance with each other" are simply false. The amazing abundance of MSS, combined with early church writers' quotations of the Scriptures enable scholars to compare and contrast, and with many other principles in the science of textual criticism, we can arrive at something very close to the original readings. The relatively few passages that are still in question do not affect any major doctrine. The majority of doctrinal differences among various Christian groups stems not from mistranslation or text corruption, but from misinterpretation. Not only that, but even VP said that 85-90% of the Bible interprets itself right where it's written, without having to dig.
You said above that you were trying to get me to "be specific." Thank you. I needed a good laugh.
I have been asking specific questions of you and trying to get you to be specific since I engaged in this discussion. You have yet to do so. Since you claim that PFAL is your only rule of faith and practice because you made the choice to accept it as God breathed, then you must have dealt with the apparent contradictions in order to make that choice and determine that there are no real errors in it. Several of us have challenged you to demonstrate how you dealt with the apparent contradictions according to your methods, and all you have done is talk about how you won't use our methods or "play our game."
When Steve put forth what you had said was your methodology, i.e. listening to the "advanced Christ formed within," you seemed to imply that he was misrepresenting you. Yet you have not come out and said what your methodology is for determining that PFAL is perfect and God-breathed. You side-stepped the issue by going on about the mind of Christ in Galatians, but that is not the same thing as what Steve said you described in post #101, above. Let's get specific: is what he wrote an accurate representation of what you told him?
If your methodology consists of gaining wisdom from a spiritual source, we are commanded to not believe every spirit, but try them and see if they are of God. Did you do this, and if so, how? What criteria did you use in deciding that PFAL was God-breathed? And what criteria did you then use to deal with those stubborn apparent contradictions? I know you are aware that the devil can counterfeit revelation. What have you done to assure that what you are getting is genuine?
If you choose not to answer these questions, that's your choice. But don't keep claiming we don't know what you're talking about just because we disagree with you. And read up on Church history and textual criticism. At least then you will be able to discuss them knowledgeably.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
No, I don't (just my thinking, I haven't received any "discerning of spirits").
I no longer have any confidence in the things we were taught in the Advanced Class. Demons have vastly less power than popular imagination makes them out to have. For the most part, they are con-"men" whose only real power is persuasion, pulling bluffs and scams. And Wierwille was certainly conned by his "devil spirits". It has been demonstrated in a book called "The Spiritual Mafia" (or maybe it was "The Psychic Mafia" I'll have to retrace it) that Arthur Ford was a fake. Ford's familiar was the "Fletcher" of PFAL. And ANYBODY can do "psychic surgery" once they know the trick. I remember all the hours I spent picking up litter and cigarette butts around ministry property because "devil spirits like to hang out in messy places." The motor coach was spick and span, but that certainly didn't stop the devilish work going on in it.
The Bible doesn't talk in the Greek about people being "possessed". That's King James theology creeping into the text. The Greek word is literally "demonized", and I think it can be correctly understood in modern parlance as "influenced by demons".
I think Mike is a man who is heavily influenced by a demon masquerading as "the mind of Christ". Mike is influenced by this spirit because he willfully surrendered his judgment to it. Mike can also take his judgment back if he decides to, by the mercy and grace and power of God through the Lord Jesus Christ. In I Corinthians 2:6 Paul tells us that the princes of this age... which Paul also calls "this present evil age" in Galatians 1:4, NEVER "the Church Age", NEVER "the Age of Grace", NEVER "the Age of the Mystery"... the princes of this age come to nought. The princes of this age come to nothing, rendered useless. They have no power but deception.
Mike's "advanced Christ formed within" spirit keeps Mike dancing on its string through a mix of flattery and whopping big promises about what Mike will be able to do once his "Christ within" is fully formed (always somewhere down the line, never now). He will be like a giant, striding across the landscape, brushing away unbelievers like so many flies. Mike believes what his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit tells him more than he believes what he can see with his own eyes. That's why he can put such bizarre, nonsensical interpretations on Wierwille's straight forward words. That's why he thinks he has so much prowess as a debater. He finishes one of his rants, which leaves the rest of us nonplussed, and his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit tells him, "Way to go, Mike! You the man! You packed 'em all off, runnin' like whipped dogs with their tails between their legs!"
And Mike believes it.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
i may regret posting this...
but Steve L, regardless of how outlandish Mike's claims and methods may seem
your so-called spiritual diagnosis of him seems juvenile, supersitious, presumptuous, ineffective, personal...
...and quite soakingly contrary to the rules of this forum
what's next...a hypertextual exorcism?
:blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Todd -- You're welcome to your opinion, and God bless you for it. Mike has (and will continue to) evade/ dodge/ and flat out deny any and all legitimate questions asked of him. I guess you haven't dealt much with him in the past, because if you have/ had done so, you would quickly realize that anything you said (in all honesty) would be relegated to his *Table Of Challenge* where you would would have NO chance of rebuttal at all.
Mike isn't interested in hearing anything remotely resembling *truth*. He's fixated on docvic, and the *written word* of pfal. Steve Lortz has given an honest assessment of the mental state of Mike. You may not agree with that, but that's up to you. IMO, Mike has mental problems, but I'm guessing he might say the same about me. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
dmiller...ive spent some time with mike
on the phone..in person...on the forums...i even posted on his first thread
Steve is not giving an "honest assessment" of his mental state.
as you are, he is claiming to know mike's intent
and trying to convince others that he is being influenced by demons
...on an ex-cult forum!
huge difference
besides...if i was posting rants about you (in 3rd person, no less) and your mental condition demonic influences to others
it would be against the rules
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.