quote: How about that through the accomplished works of God through Jesus Christ that mankind has an antedote for sin. That mankind has access to God, to eternal life, to peace, joy and the other fruit of the spirit, SPEAKING of which, that by SIT mankind has absolute proof of Christ's finished works and that he's coming back to reward us and ever be with us. How about THAT? That's something worth teaching.
You were taught SIT in a Methodist church Sunday school? Whoa! SIT never stopped anybody from asking God for help. Not me, anyway. I think VP said the gift of holy spirit (comforter) takes the place of the absent Christ. That's why it was expedient that Jesus go away. Jesus doesn't go away, no gift of holy spirit. I don't see the "blasphemy" and I don't have a problem with the word 'absent'.
No, I wasn't taught about speaking in tongues in the Methodist Church, but thanks for the laugh. I'll allow that "blasphemy" may be too strong a word though it still reflects my personal feelings. You just said it yourself, "the gift of holy spirit (comforter) takes the place of the absent Christ." That is not a Christian view and Christ is not absent. How could he be head of the church and be absent? How could it be Christ in us if Christ is absent?
In PFAL, Wierwille said, "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ." Aside from the obvious absence problem, there is a problem, also, with deciding what exactly constitutes "The Word". For most people in TWI, I would say that decision was based heavily on whatever Wierwille declared it to say..... And then you are back to the concept behind the "Well, Dr. said....." thread.
You just said it yourself, "the gift of holy spirit (comforter) takes the place of the absent Christ." That is not a Christian view and Christ is not absent. How could he be head of the church and be absent? How could it be Christ in us if Christ is absent?
EXACTLY.
Christ is the Head.
Besides, isn't a body without a head.........a corpse?
So far all I have seen in the *ministry* is that this "antedote" is merely an excuse for gawd awful ungodly sycophants to behave badly.
The blood of Jesus is claimed to wash all of the hatred, malevolence and bigotry away..
can't say that's exactly what I observed there..
For some reason talking about the "blood of Jesus" was a big no no in TWI. You could say "God made me pure", but you could not say you were "washed in the blood of Jesus". That was too close to saying Jesus was God, I guess.
If he's not absent then why did he himself say "it is expedient for you that I go away"? Yes, it's Christ in us and he's the head, but he's still a man with a physical body. His 12 disciples had the privilege of being around that physical body. We don't. VP taught that we in the church age can do MORE than Christ's followers could do before this. We can get people born again with our witnessing; fleshly and inconsistent as it is. Jesus couldn't get Judas born again.
But you guys have to deal with "expedient that I go away". Sorry.
We can get people born again with our witnessing; fleshly and inconsistent as it is.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "we" can get people born-again. Not our job. The best you can hope for is that, by expounding on your personal beliefs, you will convince someone to agree with you. May I remind you, as well, that the primary purpose of Witnessing and Undershepherding, according to page 2 of the W&U syllabus, is to get people into the PFAL class. In other words, like it or not, we were, essentially, an unpaid sales force for Wierwille's flawed product line, the PFAL series.
But you guys have to deal with "expedient that I go away". Sorry.
Just a note on this - (and I think it may actually support the fact that I was wrong - there apparently is more to teach the ex Way community at large....)
The entire topic and idea of Jesus Christ being "absent", the "absent Christ" has become a real birds nest of mis matched ideas.
As written in the Bible, "Jesus Christ", the man in the gospels is for practical purposes "gone". Jesus was killed and died. We read that. He is written to have been resurrected, alive again and then to have "ascended" and is now positioned on "the right hand of God". Jesus of the gospels is gone. The resurrected Christ is written to now be very much alive -
Now known not in the same way..God's intentions and purposes being fulfilled thus far the physical Jesus Christ is not known in the same way as He was to those who knew him as written about in the gospels. This is written in straight forward fashion in the N.T. - the "ambassadors for Christ" stuff.
Note the following verses amongst others:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Young's Literal Translation
'But I tell you the truth; it is better for you that I go away, for if I may not go away, the Comforter will not come unto you, and if I go on, I will send Him unto you;
John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
The critical aspect of this to focus on today is not that Jesus Christ is absent - He's not - because Jesus Christ said He'd send a "comforter", a "counselor", the "pneuma hagion"....this allows for the relationship with God....through Christ...to happen. Note that when the HS would come they were told the HS would "teach you all things" and "remind" them of everything Christ had said to them. People refer to this idea of Him being absent as if He's no longer around, not available and a passive silent partner in this current phase of the process Who does nothing without our initiating the process through - I'll state PFAL this way - enabling the pneuma hagion "gift" through "believing action". This completely ignores a fundamental principle in the N.T. - Phil. 2:13 - Christ is central to that occuring, that Christ is "in" us and "among" us, fully formed and functional, the "mind" of Christ that always did and does "the will of" His and now our Father. He can't be absent as if He didn't show up for school today and it's up to us to cover for Him as if our dog didn't eat our homework so we're good to go if we step up. It's a ridiculous idea.
The relationship isn't one of pieces separated, it's of what we might call today a fully integrated set of parts that make the whole and that constitute the means for a process to occur and to continue. Without the personal presence of Christ Christianity loses it's central core.
What did you think it meant johniam in PFAL when you heard "eyes behind your eyes, ears behind your ears".....?
If a person wants a guy in a robe with long blonde love-boy hair and a beard they won't see Him (and IMO imposing our own cultural, political and social filters on the personality of Christ to manufacture a Modern-Friendly-Jesus that comes to life is wrong and does the exact opposite of what learning who and what Christ really is would accomplish - He becomes what we make Him not what He is - how much do any of us like being made to live under the thumb of other's expectations of us, which we often reject or fail to live up or down to?).
Cultivating a lifestyle of "believing" is IMO less a matter of "believing action" based on a set of rules and more learning to accept the indwelling mind and character of Christ that is brought alive, taught and remembered, by the Holy Spirit and it is that that very thing which allows us to fully function as individual parts of "the body of Christ" in the unique ways which God wants us to. (and as a side note to a de rail this is exactly why I believe much of the "good works" efforts of Wayfers derails their true potential before God, the so-called "gift ministries" becoming little more than the result of directed effort rather than gifts of service that work in harmony with the head, Christ - but that's another rant).
The purpose was continuance....not absence....through the transitions of the future the relationship of mankind to God and Jesus Christ would unfold and in fact continue, in a new way, an essential way that would be integral to mankind's relationship to God and vice versa.
We don't have to deal with the "absent Christ" as if that means something disconnected from the overall plan of redemption and "new life".
Christ isn't absent. The expedient part of Christ "going away" was that God's plan would continue and He would live in each of us. .
I think this "absent" topic gets wrangled over as a point of fact so much because it becomes important to some people as to whether VPW was right or wrong. F-k that.
Him, me, you being right or wrong isn't the issue on this and that the doctrine of Christianity gets clouded in the matter is bad. Noting that Jesus Christ was "absent" is taking a part of a sentence and ignoring the rest. No Christian with a relationship with Christ and God would focus on that. It's wrong and doesn't serve God, Jesus Christ or the people of God. It's confusing. Who needs more of that?
quote: What did you think it meant johniam in PFAL when you heard "eyes behind your eyes, ears behind your ears".....?
Gift of holy spirit, which gives us the capacity to do the works of Christ. God doesn't possess us. We, as individuals, have to do SOMETHING right for this to happen. And, BTW, God was definitely "needed" for this to be possible.
quote:
I think this "absent" topic gets wrangled over as a point of fact so much because it becomes important to some people as to whether VPW was right or wrong.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "we" can get people born-again. Not our job. The best you can hope for is that, by expounding on your personal beliefs, you will convince someone to agree with you. May I remind you, as well, that the primary purpose of Witnessing and Undershepherding, according to page 2 of the W&U syllabus, is to get people into the PFAL class. In other words, like it or not, we were, essentially, an unpaid sales force for Wierwille's flawed product line, the PFAL series.
This is just another tired example of "straining at a gnat and swallowing at a camel".
If that's the sum and substance of what you believe, and what the extent of what you think was in PFAL, you're 1. wrong and 2. not alone, the power-pak version of Christ-in-you was emphasized in PFAL to the extent it allowed the hearer to misunderstand the very thing it taught. Sometimes it seems like VPW did it deliberately, but I think he was just grasping to understand, and didn't fully.
In the earlier years, late 60's, early 70's, he discussed this stuff, usually in informal settings. On many of the earlier SNS tapes his language emphasized the relationship of these things differently than he did in later years.
Your logic, how you put these things together connects what I wrote to VPW's notion that "God doesn't possess".........Phil. 2:13 does not imply nor state that God "possesses" a person. You're doing what VPW did - insisting that a single conclusion be supported by new data, when it's clear the other data - like Phil. 2:13 - indicates God's relationship to us and how He works, which in fact doesn't say He "possesses".
This is where the VPster got hung, instead of letting the Word say what it actually says he insisted that if "fit" like hand in glove, etc.
It does - but not by us making it fit.
I'm glad to see you don't have any scriptural or even some other reasonable objections to what I wrote. "God possessing" isn't one, as it doesn't relate to what I wrote. If you really think it does, 'splain if you would and I'll try to show you the difference.
Johniam...I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you but most of what I would have said in response to your post to me has already been stated by other posters. I see no need to just reiterate what's already been said.
I'm glad to see you don't have any scriptural or even some other reasonable objections to what I wrote. "God possessing" isn't one, as it doesn't relate to what I wrote. If you really think it does, 'splain if you would and I'll try to show you the difference.
Come to think of it, I couldn't tell you where in pfal it says "Christ's eyes behind your eyes, etc." if it isn't in session 5. But I believe the comforter Jesus himself spoke of is the gift of holy spirit, a necessary tool for doing the works of Christ. The only reason I said God doesn't possess us is to illustrate that it is necessary for us to act. We have to do something for Christ's eyes to be behind our eyes, etc. It doesn't just happen. God needs our consent. Don't like the word 'believe'?
Remember Philippians is written to the church, the saints in Christ Jesus whom God has begun a good work in and whom, presumably, expect God to continue to perform it. That is the basis for God working in you to will and to do of His good pleasure. Do you have to be a pfal grad for this to happen? No.
I could be mistaken, but I think that is from the Advanced Class, possibly the session where Wierwille expounded on his theory of how Word of Knowledge functions.
So, how does this work? He's absent, but his eyes are still here? Interesting....very interesting.
Hmmm....actually yes, the quote is from the "Advanced Class" part of the series, and as you probably remember VPW stated "everything" was in the PFAL Foundational class itself, the Intermediate and Advanced just expounded on the basics which were all in the Foundational Class. If you have the "old" 65 page syllabus you'll get close enough to what he was talking about with that statement.
The challenge to you johniam would be to simply take all of the doctrinal statements in PFAL and the "basic principles" we'll call them and, using the exact statements he makes throughout, form an integrated whole from the parts so that everything "fits" with everything else, hand in glove style. The question would then be - does it? and if it does, fine. If it doesn't, what falls out, what or where are the gaps?
Doing that you'll move quickly past the "believe" part of PFAL - at this stage of my life I'd say that any idiot knows that to do anything they have to well, do it - and that's what VPW teaches - "believing action" to attain a result stated/promised in the Bible. Basically - treat the Bible and what it says with the same functional approach a person would with anything else in life. Believe it and there will be a result.
This can in no way imply that nothing "happens" until a person "believes". Remember - everything essential and vital to Christianity has happened without any believing, effort, foresight or forethought on man's part at all. Nada. Zip. It's all God and Christ.
VPW cut a fine line on this, if you're interested in fitting all of PFAL together and this is one part where it gets squishy - "not by works" - right there in the Bible. No effort on man's part constructs, achieves or earns his redemption, it's a "gift". A gift requires a giver - man is the recipient. If it's not by works, then believing can't accomplish anything towards it. It can't be defined as taught in PFAL or else it would be disqualified as a "work". First with the new birth (which VPW describes as "regenerate man" - what's that really mean? - and further with the life that comes from it.
Pistis is in the bible, "believe" is - but it's been somewhat warped to imply and ultimately mean that man is doing something to make something happen. He's not.
Acceptance is a much more passive term but describes man's role better. And it gets closer to the true relationship that man has to have with Christ than "pistis" being believing and that being an effort. The Way focuses on a single english word. Trust and confidence in the thing believed in, is the core meaning. There's no push that comes from man's part in that, it's the relinquishing of pushing that forms real faith.
To quote VPW, I didn't write the book - and I'm not rewriting it either.
Wanted to add - obviously there's a human component to this. What is it?
Ever heard the phrase "accept" the Savior? What's that mean? Is it correct?
Way lingo always qualifies everything - yeah, we accept but that doesn't mean laying down and becoming a door mat - heard that more than once. Classic "straw man argument" as they say. Sales technique - "you don't want to be a doormat do you?".........."well, no of course not!"............"well then, sign here and gimme your wallet and learn how to stand up and really believe God for once in your life!"..........."well, yes sir, sure do!".......
Same as "let God work in your life"......................Way Lingo counters "well, sure God works in your life but that don't mean he possesses you - the devil does that - do you want the devil to run your life, if so this isn't the place for YOU, you need God's Word!!".............."well, no, I mean yes, I mean, well no - can I come please?"...........God working of His own pleasure and intents in our lives isn't being "possessed" by God, but given the two alternatives only it's easy to see how one might choose.
The VPster used to describe "revelation" from God like this - we don't demand it from God or tell God to tell us or act as if we're gettin' piped in news from on high all the time, we simply.........."believe"....................and if God has something to tell us, He will.
He will.
Regardless how we view the stuff he taught, if you actually start to think about it you realize pretty quickly that "believing" isn't plug 'n' play - there are variables and when looking at the moving parts there are some that don't -
those that don't are all things "God does"........go back to his teaching on "standing and state" and you realize -
the effort to go from "out" to "in" fellowship is only a thought away, a turning of heart, an attitude adjustment, a way of looking at and relying on - God. doing that you are as tapped into your "standing" as you're going to get, is what PFAL actually teaches.
Who's the "way, truth and life" - our relationship to Jesus can't be one where cuts us loose after He gets us to the altar, so to speak. We continue to be pastored in this life by the Chief Shepherd.
That's enough of that. I need to take up a collection, as we'll likely need to bribe the guards to keep this out of the Doctrinal Cave, rate I'm going.
Pistis is in the bible, "believe" is - but it's been somewhat warped to imply and ultimately mean that man is doing something to make something happen. He's not.
Acceptance is a much more passive term but describes man's role better. And it gets closer to the true relationship that man has to have with Christ than "pistis" being believing and that being an effort. The Way focuses on a single english word. Trust and confidence in the thing believed in, is the core meaning. There's no push that comes from man's part in that, it's the relinquishing of pushing that forms real faith.
I'll go to the cave with you, socks.
Faith was one of the words I never understood growing up in the Lutheran Church. It all seemed so vague and dodgy to me. What was it to have faith, really? I'd imagined it to be some combination of trust, blind allegiance, acceptance of a mysterious inexplicable unknown, with a silent grunt thrown in for good measure. Or something like that. When I learned in TWI about pistis and that it could usually be translated as believing instead of faith, it was a great moment for me. Today, I just translate it as believing in each occurrence, and my life is simpler; I can wrap my mind around the idea that on Pentecost, God gave His sons and daughters the potential ability to believe God just as Jesus Christ believed God, powerfully and perfectly. This makes sense to me, and so I go with it.
Believing is unquestioned acceptance. For example: This morning I went to Lowes. I walked into the store looking for masking tape, and had no idea where it would be. So I asked the greeter at the door. He immediately told me the aisle number and where I would find it, and I said thank you and turned and walked there. There was no doubt in my mind but that he had told me the truth, so I just went where he said to go. I believed him. And I just turned and did what he said to do. I acted upon my believing without a nanosecond of hesitation. That's what believing is.
OB, "confidence" is another good word to use there.
Myself, I shy away from anything like the "believing/faith" type of argument, which isn't an argument really but another way of causing division in the Body by teaching something that ... isn't really there. More of "doctor's" superior knowledge.
What's left to teach? VPW was all about "gimme the money."
Compare and contrast with George Muller, who dismissed people for not having complete confidence that God would meet needs - without money. That same George Muller, whose legacy survives today, whose "children" are still living and thankful for his life.
Muller's bold believing/confidence is something we could really learn from.
He did what the book said - not said what he said the book said.
The VPster used to describe "revelation" from God like this - we don't demand it from God or tell God to tell us or act as if we're gettin' piped in news from on high all the time, we simply.........."believe"....................and if God has something to tell us, He will.
Sounds OK to me. This is consistent with what VP allegedly told CG about the trustees, that..."they think every thought in their head is revelation". For instance, let's pay the WC full time. Oops.
So, another example of someone failing to 'simply........"believe"..........' would be if he/she lets circumstances make them unpeaceful, uptight, angry etc. so that if God has something to tell them, He can't. Is that kinda what you mean?
And, yet, Wierwille claimed that, when he was at the end of his rope,debating an exit from ministerial work, he asked God for a sign and.....voila!, the sky turned black with snow.
So, which is it? You can ask for a sign or you can't ask for a sign?.....silly little details often seem to spoil a good fib.
OB, "confidence" is another good word to use there.
Myself, I shy away from anything like the "believing/faith" type of argument, which isn't an argument really but another way of causing division in the Body by teaching something that ... isn't really there. More of "doctor's" superior knowledge.
What's left to teach? VPW was all about "gimme the money."
Compare and contrast with George Muller, who dismissed people for not having complete confidence that God would meet needs - without money. That same George Muller, whose legacy survives today, whose "children" are still living and thankful for his life.
Muller's bold believing/confidence is something we could really learn from.
He did what the book said - not said what he said the book said.
And Socks wrote: Acceptance is a much more passive term but describes man's role better. And it gets closer to the true relationship that man has to have with Christ than "pistis" being believing and that being an effort. The Way focuses on a single english word. Trust and confidence in the thing believed in, is the core meaning. There's no push that comes from man's part in that, it's the relinquishing of pushing that forms real faith.
These posts and Opera Budff's remind me that every now and again i wonder about that phrase "are you limiting God?" I know what was meant, ie, in your own life not letting him help or telling Him how he should help, but still, it seems like the lingo mentioned about, a little arrogant - have any of you got words of wisdom on this one?
And the Advanced Class was mentioned above - this is off topic, I think, but one thing I remember from the video part of the class was VPW imitating the person who reminded him of a fox, and the spiritual significance. I'm still back in 2007 on the threads and on page 63, and when reading some of these stories re young girls I picture those old coots as a bunch of old billygoats, to mix my animal metaphors.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
11
15
6
Popular Days
Aug 27
8
Aug 28
7
Aug 26
6
Aug 23
6
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 8 posts
johniam 11 posts
waysider 15 posts
Broken Arrow 6 posts
Popular Days
Aug 27 2011
8 posts
Aug 28 2011
7 posts
Aug 26 2011
6 posts
Aug 23 2011
6 posts
Popular Posts
socks
Hmmm....actually yes, the quote is from the "Advanced Class" part of the series, and as you probably remember VPW stated "everything" was in the PFAL Foundational class itself, the Intermediate and Ad
Broken Arrow
No, I wasn't taught about speaking in tongues in the Methodist Church, but thanks for the laugh. I'll allow that "blasphemy" may be too strong a word though it still reflects my personal feelings. You just said it yourself, "the gift of holy spirit (comforter) takes the place of the absent Christ." That is not a Christian view and Christ is not absent. How could he be head of the church and be absent? How could it be Christ in us if Christ is absent?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In PFAL, Wierwille said, "The Word takes the place of the absent Christ." Aside from the obvious absence problem, there is a problem, also, with deciding what exactly constitutes "The Word". For most people in TWI, I would say that decision was based heavily on whatever Wierwille declared it to say..... And then you are back to the concept behind the "Well, Dr. said....." thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
EXACTLY.
Christ is the Head.
Besides, isn't a body without a head.........a corpse?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
And.....why should we be surprised that there are absent-headed twi-ers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
So far all I have seen in the *ministry* is that this "antedote" is merely an excuse for gawd awful ungodly sycophants to behave badly.
The blood of Jesus is claimed to wash all of the hatred, malevolence and bigotry away..
can't say that's exactly what I observed there..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
For some reason talking about the "blood of Jesus" was a big no no in TWI. You could say "God made me pure", but you could not say you were "washed in the blood of Jesus". That was too close to saying Jesus was God, I guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
If he's not absent then why did he himself say "it is expedient for you that I go away"? Yes, it's Christ in us and he's the head, but he's still a man with a physical body. His 12 disciples had the privilege of being around that physical body. We don't. VP taught that we in the church age can do MORE than Christ's followers could do before this. We can get people born again with our witnessing; fleshly and inconsistent as it is. Jesus couldn't get Judas born again.
But you guys have to deal with "expedient that I go away". Sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "we" can get people born-again. Not our job. The best you can hope for is that, by expounding on your personal beliefs, you will convince someone to agree with you. May I remind you, as well, that the primary purpose of Witnessing and Undershepherding, according to page 2 of the W&U syllabus, is to get people into the PFAL class. In other words, like it or not, we were, essentially, an unpaid sales force for Wierwille's flawed product line, the PFAL series.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
But you guys have to deal with "expedient that I go away". Sorry.
Just a note on this - (and I think it may actually support the fact that I was wrong - there apparently is more to teach the ex Way community at large....)
The entire topic and idea of Jesus Christ being "absent", the "absent Christ" has become a real birds nest of mis matched ideas.
As written in the Bible, "Jesus Christ", the man in the gospels is for practical purposes "gone". Jesus was killed and died. We read that. He is written to have been resurrected, alive again and then to have "ascended" and is now positioned on "the right hand of God". Jesus of the gospels is gone. The resurrected Christ is written to now be very much alive -
Now known not in the same way..God's intentions and purposes being fulfilled thus far the physical Jesus Christ is not known in the same way as He was to those who knew him as written about in the gospels. This is written in straight forward fashion in the N.T. - the "ambassadors for Christ" stuff.
Note the following verses amongst others:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Young's Literal Translation
'But I tell you the truth; it is better for you that I go away, for if I may not go away, the Comforter will not come unto you, and if I go on, I will send Him unto you;
John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
The critical aspect of this to focus on today is not that Jesus Christ is absent - He's not - because Jesus Christ said He'd send a "comforter", a "counselor", the "pneuma hagion"....this allows for the relationship with God....through Christ...to happen. Note that when the HS would come they were told the HS would "teach you all things" and "remind" them of everything Christ had said to them. People refer to this idea of Him being absent as if He's no longer around, not available and a passive silent partner in this current phase of the process Who does nothing without our initiating the process through - I'll state PFAL this way - enabling the pneuma hagion "gift" through "believing action". This completely ignores a fundamental principle in the N.T. - Phil. 2:13 - Christ is central to that occuring, that Christ is "in" us and "among" us, fully formed and functional, the "mind" of Christ that always did and does "the will of" His and now our Father. He can't be absent as if He didn't show up for school today and it's up to us to cover for Him as if our dog didn't eat our homework so we're good to go if we step up. It's a ridiculous idea.
The relationship isn't one of pieces separated, it's of what we might call today a fully integrated set of parts that make the whole and that constitute the means for a process to occur and to continue. Without the personal presence of Christ Christianity loses it's central core.
What did you think it meant johniam in PFAL when you heard "eyes behind your eyes, ears behind your ears".....?
If a person wants a guy in a robe with long blonde love-boy hair and a beard they won't see Him (and IMO imposing our own cultural, political and social filters on the personality of Christ to manufacture a Modern-Friendly-Jesus that comes to life is wrong and does the exact opposite of what learning who and what Christ really is would accomplish - He becomes what we make Him not what He is - how much do any of us like being made to live under the thumb of other's expectations of us, which we often reject or fail to live up or down to?).
Cultivating a lifestyle of "believing" is IMO less a matter of "believing action" based on a set of rules and more learning to accept the indwelling mind and character of Christ that is brought alive, taught and remembered, by the Holy Spirit and it is that that very thing which allows us to fully function as individual parts of "the body of Christ" in the unique ways which God wants us to. (and as a side note to a de rail this is exactly why I believe much of the "good works" efforts of Wayfers derails their true potential before God, the so-called "gift ministries" becoming little more than the result of directed effort rather than gifts of service that work in harmony with the head, Christ - but that's another rant).
The purpose was continuance....not absence....through the transitions of the future the relationship of mankind to God and Jesus Christ would unfold and in fact continue, in a new way, an essential way that would be integral to mankind's relationship to God and vice versa.
We don't have to deal with the "absent Christ" as if that means something disconnected from the overall plan of redemption and "new life".
Christ isn't absent. The expedient part of Christ "going away" was that God's plan would continue and He would live in each of us. .
I think this "absent" topic gets wrangled over as a point of fact so much because it becomes important to some people as to whether VPW was right or wrong. F-k that.
Him, me, you being right or wrong isn't the issue on this and that the doctrine of Christianity gets clouded in the matter is bad. Noting that Jesus Christ was "absent" is taking a part of a sentence and ignoring the rest. No Christian with a relationship with Christ and God would focus on that. It's wrong and doesn't serve God, Jesus Christ or the people of God. It's confusing. Who needs more of that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
he was only gone 3 days and nights
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: What did you think it meant johniam in PFAL when you heard "eyes behind your eyes, ears behind your ears".....?
Gift of holy spirit, which gives us the capacity to do the works of Christ. God doesn't possess us. We, as individuals, have to do SOMETHING right for this to happen. And, BTW, God was definitely "needed" for this to be possible.
quote:
I think this "absent" topic gets wrangled over as a point of fact so much because it becomes important to some people as to whether VPW was right or wrong.
It sure does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "we" can get people born-again. Not our job. The best you can hope for is that, by expounding on your personal beliefs, you will convince someone to agree with you. May I remind you, as well, that the primary purpose of Witnessing and Undershepherding, according to page 2 of the W&U syllabus, is to get people into the PFAL class. In other words, like it or not, we were, essentially, an unpaid sales force for Wierwille's flawed product line, the PFAL series.
This is just another tired example of "straining at a gnat and swallowing at a camel".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
hmmm. well johniam....
If that's the sum and substance of what you believe, and what the extent of what you think was in PFAL, you're 1. wrong and 2. not alone, the power-pak version of Christ-in-you was emphasized in PFAL to the extent it allowed the hearer to misunderstand the very thing it taught. Sometimes it seems like VPW did it deliberately, but I think he was just grasping to understand, and didn't fully.
In the earlier years, late 60's, early 70's, he discussed this stuff, usually in informal settings. On many of the earlier SNS tapes his language emphasized the relationship of these things differently than he did in later years.
Your logic, how you put these things together connects what I wrote to VPW's notion that "God doesn't possess".........Phil. 2:13 does not imply nor state that God "possesses" a person. You're doing what VPW did - insisting that a single conclusion be supported by new data, when it's clear the other data - like Phil. 2:13 - indicates God's relationship to us and how He works, which in fact doesn't say He "possesses".
This is where the VPster got hung, instead of letting the Word say what it actually says he insisted that if "fit" like hand in glove, etc.
It does - but not by us making it fit.
I'm glad to see you don't have any scriptural or even some other reasonable objections to what I wrote. "God possessing" isn't one, as it doesn't relate to what I wrote. If you really think it does, 'splain if you would and I'll try to show you the difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Johniam...I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you but most of what I would have said in response to your post to me has already been stated by other posters. I see no need to just reiterate what's already been said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
I'm glad to see you don't have any scriptural or even some other reasonable objections to what I wrote. "God possessing" isn't one, as it doesn't relate to what I wrote. If you really think it does, 'splain if you would and I'll try to show you the difference.
Come to think of it, I couldn't tell you where in pfal it says "Christ's eyes behind your eyes, etc." if it isn't in session 5. But I believe the comforter Jesus himself spoke of is the gift of holy spirit, a necessary tool for doing the works of Christ. The only reason I said God doesn't possess us is to illustrate that it is necessary for us to act. We have to do something for Christ's eyes to be behind our eyes, etc. It doesn't just happen. God needs our consent. Don't like the word 'believe'?
Remember Philippians is written to the church, the saints in Christ Jesus whom God has begun a good work in and whom, presumably, expect God to continue to perform it. That is the basis for God working in you to will and to do of His good pleasure. Do you have to be a pfal grad for this to happen? No.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Christ's eyes behind your eyes."
I could be mistaken, but I think that is from the Advanced Class, possibly the session where Wierwille expounded on his theory of how Word of Knowledge functions.
So, how does this work? He's absent, but his eyes are still here? Interesting....very interesting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hmmm....actually yes, the quote is from the "Advanced Class" part of the series, and as you probably remember VPW stated "everything" was in the PFAL Foundational class itself, the Intermediate and Advanced just expounded on the basics which were all in the Foundational Class. If you have the "old" 65 page syllabus you'll get close enough to what he was talking about with that statement.
The challenge to you johniam would be to simply take all of the doctrinal statements in PFAL and the "basic principles" we'll call them and, using the exact statements he makes throughout, form an integrated whole from the parts so that everything "fits" with everything else, hand in glove style. The question would then be - does it? and if it does, fine. If it doesn't, what falls out, what or where are the gaps?
Doing that you'll move quickly past the "believe" part of PFAL - at this stage of my life I'd say that any idiot knows that to do anything they have to well, do it - and that's what VPW teaches - "believing action" to attain a result stated/promised in the Bible. Basically - treat the Bible and what it says with the same functional approach a person would with anything else in life. Believe it and there will be a result.
This can in no way imply that nothing "happens" until a person "believes". Remember - everything essential and vital to Christianity has happened without any believing, effort, foresight or forethought on man's part at all. Nada. Zip. It's all God and Christ.
VPW cut a fine line on this, if you're interested in fitting all of PFAL together and this is one part where it gets squishy - "not by works" - right there in the Bible. No effort on man's part constructs, achieves or earns his redemption, it's a "gift". A gift requires a giver - man is the recipient. If it's not by works, then believing can't accomplish anything towards it. It can't be defined as taught in PFAL or else it would be disqualified as a "work". First with the new birth (which VPW describes as "regenerate man" - what's that really mean? - and further with the life that comes from it.
Pistis is in the bible, "believe" is - but it's been somewhat warped to imply and ultimately mean that man is doing something to make something happen. He's not.
Acceptance is a much more passive term but describes man's role better. And it gets closer to the true relationship that man has to have with Christ than "pistis" being believing and that being an effort. The Way focuses on a single english word. Trust and confidence in the thing believed in, is the core meaning. There's no push that comes from man's part in that, it's the relinquishing of pushing that forms real faith.
To quote VPW, I didn't write the book - and I'm not rewriting it either.
Romans 8:9 might be an appropriate close to this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Wanted to add - obviously there's a human component to this. What is it?
Ever heard the phrase "accept" the Savior? What's that mean? Is it correct?
Way lingo always qualifies everything - yeah, we accept but that doesn't mean laying down and becoming a door mat - heard that more than once. Classic "straw man argument" as they say. Sales technique - "you don't want to be a doormat do you?".........."well, no of course not!"............"well then, sign here and gimme your wallet and learn how to stand up and really believe God for once in your life!"..........."well, yes sir, sure do!".......
Same as "let God work in your life"......................Way Lingo counters "well, sure God works in your life but that don't mean he possesses you - the devil does that - do you want the devil to run your life, if so this isn't the place for YOU, you need God's Word!!".............."well, no, I mean yes, I mean, well no - can I come please?"...........God working of His own pleasure and intents in our lives isn't being "possessed" by God, but given the two alternatives only it's easy to see how one might choose.
The VPster used to describe "revelation" from God like this - we don't demand it from God or tell God to tell us or act as if we're gettin' piped in news from on high all the time, we simply.........."believe"....................and if God has something to tell us, He will.
He will.
Regardless how we view the stuff he taught, if you actually start to think about it you realize pretty quickly that "believing" isn't plug 'n' play - there are variables and when looking at the moving parts there are some that don't -
those that don't are all things "God does"........go back to his teaching on "standing and state" and you realize -
the effort to go from "out" to "in" fellowship is only a thought away, a turning of heart, an attitude adjustment, a way of looking at and relying on - God. doing that you are as tapped into your "standing" as you're going to get, is what PFAL actually teaches.
Who's the "way, truth and life" - our relationship to Jesus can't be one where cuts us loose after He gets us to the altar, so to speak. We continue to be pastored in this life by the Chief Shepherd.
That's enough of that. I need to take up a collection, as we'll likely need to bribe the guards to keep this out of the Doctrinal Cave, rate I'm going.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Oh, do keep talking, Socks.
(You can believe for an earthquake to get out of the Doctrinal cave, if necessary.
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OperaBuff
I'll go to the cave with you, socks.
Faith was one of the words I never understood growing up in the Lutheran Church. It all seemed so vague and dodgy to me. What was it to have faith, really? I'd imagined it to be some combination of trust, blind allegiance, acceptance of a mysterious inexplicable unknown, with a silent grunt thrown in for good measure. Or something like that. When I learned in TWI about pistis and that it could usually be translated as believing instead of faith, it was a great moment for me. Today, I just translate it as believing in each occurrence, and my life is simpler; I can wrap my mind around the idea that on Pentecost, God gave His sons and daughters the potential ability to believe God just as Jesus Christ believed God, powerfully and perfectly. This makes sense to me, and so I go with it.
Believing is unquestioned acceptance. For example: This morning I went to Lowes. I walked into the store looking for masking tape, and had no idea where it would be. So I asked the greeter at the door. He immediately told me the aisle number and where I would find it, and I said thank you and turned and walked there. There was no doubt in my mind but that he had told me the truth, so I just went where he said to go. I believed him. And I just turned and did what he said to do. I acted upon my believing without a nanosecond of hesitation. That's what believing is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
OB, "confidence" is another good word to use there.
Myself, I shy away from anything like the "believing/faith" type of argument, which isn't an argument really but another way of causing division in the Body by teaching something that ... isn't really there. More of "doctor's" superior knowledge.
What's left to teach? VPW was all about "gimme the money."
Compare and contrast with George Muller, who dismissed people for not having complete confidence that God would meet needs - without money. That same George Muller, whose legacy survives today, whose "children" are still living and thankful for his life.
Muller's bold believing/confidence is something we could really learn from.
He did what the book said - not said what he said the book said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
The VPster used to describe "revelation" from God like this - we don't demand it from God or tell God to tell us or act as if we're gettin' piped in news from on high all the time, we simply.........."believe"....................and if God has something to tell us, He will.
Sounds OK to me. This is consistent with what VP allegedly told CG about the trustees, that..."they think every thought in their head is revelation". For instance, let's pay the WC full time. Oops.
So, another example of someone failing to 'simply........"believe"..........' would be if he/she lets circumstances make them unpeaceful, uptight, angry etc. so that if God has something to tell them, He can't. Is that kinda what you mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And, yet, Wierwille claimed that, when he was at the end of his rope,debating an exit from ministerial work, he asked God for a sign and.....voila!, the sky turned black with snow.
So, which is it? You can ask for a sign or you can't ask for a sign?.....silly little details often seem to spoil a good fib.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cara
And Socks wrote: Acceptance is a much more passive term but describes man's role better. And it gets closer to the true relationship that man has to have with Christ than "pistis" being believing and that being an effort. The Way focuses on a single english word. Trust and confidence in the thing believed in, is the core meaning. There's no push that comes from man's part in that, it's the relinquishing of pushing that forms real faith.
These posts and Opera Budff's remind me that every now and again i wonder about that phrase "are you limiting God?" I know what was meant, ie, in your own life not letting him help or telling Him how he should help, but still, it seems like the lingo mentioned about, a little arrogant - have any of you got words of wisdom on this one?
And the Advanced Class was mentioned above - this is off topic, I think, but one thing I remember from the video part of the class was VPW imitating the person who reminded him of a fox, and the spiritual significance. I'm still back in 2007 on the threads and on page 63, and when reading some of these stories re young girls I picture those old coots as a bunch of old billygoats, to mix my animal metaphors.
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.