I’ve only read some articles you’ve posted. I don’t know anything about him. Is he a self proclaimed reformed narcissist?
No, he's an ...., and proud of it. He has hundreds of videos online. He apparently teaches at various universities and does conferences. Endless supply of info.
I do believe the followers of the way, especially long term ones, are escaping reality deliberately. That is how TWI serves them. That is based on my personal experience.
I do believe the followers of the way, especially long term ones, are escaping reality deliberately. That is how TWI serves them. That is based on my personal experience.
That’s fair. Denial of reality as a form of escape from it. I can see that.
If I were invested in this emotionally, I would respectfully suggest we'd moved the goalposts, from disallowing any reference to an absent Christ to saying "oh of course he's absent physically! But not this way or that way," completely ignoring the fact that TWI taught the presence of Christ in those precise ways.
Christ in you! Christ in you! Christ in you!
What did that mean? Wierwille taught that. But he ignored that Christ is present through the spirit! No, he did not. I'd love to find fault with VPW, believe me. But I can't
If I were invested in this emotionally, I would respectfully suggest we'd moved the goalposts, from disallowing any reference to an absent Christ to saying "oh of course he's absent physically! But not this way or that way," completely ignoring the fact that TWI taught the presence of Christ in those precise ways.
Christ in you! Christ in you! Christ in you!
What did that mean? Wierwille taught that. But he ignored that Christ is present through the spirit! No, he did not. I'd love to find fault with VPW, believe me. But I can't
As Yahweh was part of a pantheon where he was a son of El, and the two merged into one god, along with possibly others . .
. . . So with Christ and others
Personally I view the Trinity as a Process . . where long term stability and change and updates meet . . among other things . . . Why can't he be present and not present at the same time?
VPW was likely a Malignant Narcissist. I don't know those who vehemently disagree on that. Inside of the narcissist is a religion which in turn is projected outward. Of course he dressed in obscurity's clothing.
So the doctrinal reasons for a paradox are one thing.
Sorting apparent contradictions are a work of showmanship, and something else.
First off, Biblically speaking, Christ has never been absent...that doctrine does not come close to occuring anywhere in the Bible. Yet the way international teaches the word of God takes the place of the absent Christ. Damnable heresy all the way here. It would be worded better if they just told the truth: The way ministry takes the place of the real Jesus Christ. That holds true across the board for people in the way international. The directors act as the head of the body. The way ministry is considered by the way ministry "the functioning body of Christ"...the way corps stand in the gap....the only gap I have ever known about was the one that was put between God and his people by the sin nature. The real Jesus Christ stands in that gap as the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus Christ died for our sins...not the way international. I could keep going....does anyone have any idea whatsoever where this awful doctrine originated? I have never heard it outside the way ministry. Was this VPW's brainchild?
To me this is a very anti-Christ doctrine. Nowhere is Christ ever called absent and nowhere is he replaced by anything. He has all the preeminance. Period. Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone and no other foundation can no man lay. I
58 minutes ago, modcat5 said:
If I were invested in this emotionally, I would respectfully suggest we'd moved the goalposts, from disallowing any reference to an absent Christ to saying "oh of course he's absent physically! But not this way or that way," completely ignoring the fact that TWI taught the presence of Christ in those precise ways.
Christ in you! Christ in you! Christ in you!
What did that mean? Wierwille taught that. But he ignored that Christ is present through the spirit! No, he did not. I'd love to find fault with VPW, believe me. But I can't
Yes, the goal posts have shifted. My original post is the only point I was trying to make.
Christ is never replaced.
Christ's function has changed and in that function he isn't absent.
If he's absent to people individually then to that person that doesn't have a relationship with him then he is absent.
I do not believe we have been properly introduced. Quick primer:
Modcat5 and I are the same person. Which account I use depends on which device I'm using at a particular time.
I have a decades old reputation for refusing to accept or discard doctrines merely because of their source. As such, Wierwille apologists appreciate it when I've got his back, and his critics tend to (at the least) consider an alternative point of view when I defend him. I was the lead source of two major threads way back one, one of which reviewed The Bible Tells Me So [the Blue Book] chapter by chapter, ferreting out what I believed was right and wrong with what was taught, and Actual Errors in PFAL, a thread that demonstrated conclusively that PFAL and the other writings of Wierwille did not live up to Wierwille's own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. Mike has been in denial of it ever since.
Some time ago I came to the realization that I am no longer a believer in God or Christ or any of those people. But that doesn't stop me from being able to see what the Bible actually says. So when I weigh in, by all means, have a grain of salt.
Yes, the goal posts have shifted. My original post is the only point I was trying to make.
Christ is never replaced.
Christ's function has changed and in that function he isn't absent.
If he's absent to people individually then to that person that doesn't have a relationship with him then he is absent.
To be clear I post concepts on GSC/doctrinal to hash out my understanding of the doctrine not to convince anyone else to shift to my beliefs or point of view. There are doctrinal points we will likely always disagree on and that's fine. I can love and respect others if they disagree or believe differently.
I expect you guys to take to the concept as if it was a pinata ... Poke as many holes in it as can be poked. I'm here for that reason.
If I were invested in this emotionally, I would respectfully suggest we'd moved the goalposts, from disallowing any reference to an absent Christ to saying "oh of course he's absent physically! But not this way or that way," completely ignoring the fact that TWI taught the presence of Christ in those precise ways.
Christ in you! Christ in you! Christ in you!
What did that mean? Wierwille taught that. But he ignored that Christ is present through the spirit! No, he did not. I'd love to find fault with VPW, believe me. But I can't
I don’t mean to belabor this - but maybe to point out some distinctions:
wierwille taught about the Christ in you and the gift of holy spirit (lower case “h” and “s”) but in my opinion there might have been a twofold purpose : he was blowing smoke up ‘believers’ a$$es - to inflate their egos and have them draw a correlation with the power behind wierwille’s ministry - in other words, he probably wanted followers to assume he exemplified living by the power of Christ in you.
The idea of wierwille subliminally substituting himself in place of Christ’s authority has been touched on a few times on this thread. I think that is the nuance that needs to be highlighted.
Sure, he taught it was Christ in you. But I think here is another one of those wierwille switcheroos - like a Stepford Wives ‘syndrome’. What I think wierwille taught as the real you - the Christ in you - was his ideal of the perfect TWI-follower - compliant…obedient to the man of God…’not my will but thine (the cult-leader’s will ) be done’.
The real…actual…immanent Christ may very well be present - but if His authority and directives are not acknowledged - for all practical purposes one could consider Him absent.
Religion deals in a lot of abstracts. For those who believe in a God - I bet no two people think of him or her in exactly the same way.
At the center of Christianity is Jesus Christ - I know I’m stating the obvious here - but the message of the gospel gives us a bunch of reference points to think somewhat more objectively of Jesus Christ and by extension the Father. To reinterpret John 14:9 - he who is observes Jesus’ words and deeds is also seeing the Father.
The fact that wierwille focused primarily on Pauline letters may also be a factor in why his theology was unmoored from traditional Christianity. While it is true, we don’t know Christ after the flesh as II Corinthians 5:16 says - I don’t think that means we ignore His words and deeds recorded in the gospels.
It’s about our perspective being changed. A natural view of Christ led to His crucifixion and Paul persecuting followers of Christ. After Paul’s conversion he had a divine perspective of Christ. And so do we when we read of His words and deeds. The gospels provide us with the touchstone for living Christ-like.
On the other hand, reflecting on some of the things I’ve witnessed wierwille say and do - it’s obvious to me now his reference point was not Jesus Christ - but himself. So he came up with ‘great’ redefinitions like “anything done in the love of God is okay.” Where does it say that in Paul’s letters - or for that matter in the gospels?
A TWI-follower thinking about the ‘Christ in you’ could mean something totally different from a member of a local church feeling compelled to help a homeless person.
I do not believe we have been properly introduced. Quick primer:
Modcat5 and I are the same person. Which account I use depends on which device I'm using at a particular time.
I have a decades old reputation for refusing to accept or discard doctrines merely because of their source. As such, Wierwille apologists appreciate it when I've got his back, and his critics tend to (at the least) consider an alternative point of view when I defend him. I was the lead source of two major threads way back one, one of which reviewed The Bible Tells Me So [the Blue Book] chapter by chapter, ferreting out what I believed was right and wrong with what was taught, and Actual Errors in PFAL, a thread that demonstrated conclusively that PFAL and the other writings of Wierwille did not live up to Wierwille's own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. Mike has been in denial of it ever since.
Some time ago I came to the realization that I am no longer a believer in God or Christ or any of those people. But that doesn't stop me from being able to see what the Bible actually says. So when I weigh in, by all means, have a grain of salt.
Hi Raf, thanks for the intro - it's a pleasure to write to you. I have seen your posts on a few older threads. Within the past two days, I discovered two of them where you and others were often quite entertaining while discussing the topics. They are
What did that mean? Wierwille taught that. But he ignored that Christ is present through the spirit! No, he did not. I'd love to find fault with VPW, believe me. But I can't
Hi there,
I remember vp talking about "Christ in you" in the class, but I don't remember much about how he taught it. Regardless, the problem is if he taught it one way at a certain place and time doesn't mean he didn't screw it up when teaching it at a different place and time.
You say that vp did not ignore that Christ is present through the spirit but don't you think that his work on the holy spirit field is filled with errors? I'm pretty sure I know how you feel about the issue of "speaking in tongues" that comes up at the end of session 12.
The "Christ in you" doctrine is great when you're thinking, "Yeah! We have his righteousness!, his holiness!, his boldness!" or "Heh, we can do all things because it's Christ in us!," but imo it falls flat on its face if you don't understand how Christ's spirit works in you. According to vp's "great principle," we operate (work) the spirit which I and others on GSC believe is flat out wrong. (You can check it out on the "Great Principle Whitewashed?" thread if you haven't already.)
Like you've done with the blue book, have you reviewed vp's writings about the spirit (which is the Christ in us) to work out what you believed was right or wrong with what he taught? If you've written about it, I'd be very interested in reading it.
The fact that wierwille focused primarily on Pauline letters may also be a factor in why his theology was unmoored from traditional Christianity. While it is true, we don’t know Christ after the flesh as II Corinthians 5:16 says - I don’t think that means we ignore His words and deeds recorded in the gospels.
Thats an interesting point. I feel the gospels are absolutely vital in understanding Jesus Christ and his walk during his ministry to Israel, leading up to his sacrifice of himself as the passover, etc.
We are told to walk even as he walked...I cant seem to find that in Ephesians though....the gospels show how he walked and I feel they show us a pattern. Not only a pattern of the letter where we should emulate physically what he did, necessarily, but a pattern to emulate the spirit or intent behind what he did. By that I mean you have the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The letter of the law is keeping every little detail as stated. Obviously, there is Christ saying every jot and tittle shall be fulfilled, so its not that the letter of the law is unimportant. The spirit of the law is more concerned with the intent behind the law. So perhaps at times we live the letter of how Christ walked or we live the spirit of how Christ walked or both...the point is we have an example.
I feel the Pauline epistles reveal the mystery that was kept secret since the world began. Inside that mystery is the new creation of Christ in you. The epistles show the inner man, they are where we see our true selves mirrored in scripture. Christ in you was never meant to be a lever of power to get stuff, or to replace Christ (obviously Im open to actual debate on all of this) although it's pretty clear in scripture that those in the first century walked as Christ walked: with great power! Also, Christ in you is the new nature, a new creation, a down payment that we will be fully realized in the future. The new nature gives us power over the old man as the sin nature is contrasted in Romans 7 vs Romans 8 (oversimplified illustration because it's contrasted elsewhere too). The spirit also gives us a connection to God/Christ as well, though I still refute the idea that God needed to give holy spirit so he can communicate with flesh and blood. Just a few thoughts...more later.
Oh....the epistles also show us how to walk in the new nature and many other things. Peace!
Thats an interesting point. I feel the gospels are absolutely vital in understanding Jesus Christ and his walk during his ministry to Israel, leading up to his sacrifice of himself as the passover, etc.
We are told to walk even as he walked...I cant seem to find that in Ephesians though....the gospels show how he walked and I feel they show us a pattern. Not only a pattern of the letter where we should emulate physically what he did, necessarily, but a pattern to emulate the spirit or intent behind what he did. By that I mean you have the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The letter of the law is keeping every little detail as stated. Obviously, there is Christ saying every jot and tittle shall be fulfilled, so its not that the letter of the law is unimportant. The spirit of the law is more concerned with the intent behind the law. So perhaps at times we live the letter of how Christ walked or we live the spirit of how Christ walked or both...the point is we have an example.
I feel the Pauline epistles reveal the mystery that was kept secret since the world began. Inside that mystery is the new creation of Christ in you. The epistles show the inner man, they are where we see our true selves mirrored in scripture. Christ in you was never meant to be a lever of power to get stuff, or to replace Christ (obviously Im open to actual debate on all of this) although it's pretty clear in scripture that those in the first century walked as Christ walked: with great power! Also, Christ in you is the new nature, a new creation, a down payment that we will be fully realized in the future. The new nature gives us power over the old man as the sin nature is contrasted in Romans 7 vs Romans 8 (oversimplified illustration because it's contrasted elsewhere too). The spirit also gives us a connection to God/Christ as well, though I still refute the idea that God needed to give holy spirit so he can communicate with flesh and blood. Just a few thoughts...more later.
Oh....the epistles also show us how to walk in the new nature and many other things. Peace!
Well put. I could endorse almost all of that.
At the end with the GP, I think the need is on our side. We can hear richer, more detailed things, and not have any fear. Without spirit, the communication is not so clear or detailed, might involve fear, and dreams may be necessary, murky as they are. When we get spirit that need on our part is met and God is not limited to our limitations so much.
Hi Raf, thanks for the intro - it's a pleasure to write to you. I have seen your posts on a few older threads. Within the past two days, I discovered two of them where you and others were often quite entertaining while discussing the topics. They are
There was also "The Blue Book- The Baby and the Bathwater." I need to check that thread, since it links to a website no longer there. However, if I can find the content elsewhere, I'll link it on the thread.
There was also "The Blue Book- The Baby and the Bathwater." I need to check that thread, since it links to a website no longer there. However, if I can find the content elsewhere, I'll link it on the thread.
In that thread, I also posted both the working links and pasted the contents of the pages in question. Since their author is a Mod here, I don't think there's any problem with reposting the entire content- if he doesn't like it, he can just delete the post with the paste job and leave the link post.
If I were invested in this emotionally, I would respectfully suggest we'd moved the goalposts, from disallowing any reference to an absent Christ to saying "oh of course he's absent physically! But not this way or that way," completely ignoring the fact that TWI taught the presence of Christ in those precise ways.
Christ in you! Christ in you! Christ in you!
What did that mean? Wierwille taught that. But he ignored that Christ is present through the spirit! No, he did not. I'd love to find fault with VPW, believe me. But I can't
Welllll the Christ in you hope of glory wasn’t the presence of Christ in any sense. It was the iron man suit lower case hs in the great principle. They didn’t teach hs was literally Jesus just the power.
I do note your point especially since you have no vested interest.
Personally my goalposts have moved a good deal in my faith and Christology or whatever the theological official term is.
The clearest example I can think of regarding the absence of Christ in TWI is that they can dedicate two full classes to the study of I Cor 12-14 yet never collaborate with other Christians their entire life - the eye saying no need for hand. Blind to a big verse smack in the middle of their wheelhouse.
There are other fundamental issues with VPW Christ in you mental models of Jesus appendages being “behind” yours that I have also.
I feel a lot more connected with other Christians with dumping fundamentalist views. And with community in general with those of other faiths. I am much more free to interact without the burden of an underlying sales quota to fulfill. Exchanges are much more easy and light as a result. Philosophy or religion. Occasionally most don’t speak of those things regularly.
Well put. I could endorse almost all of that.
At the end with the GP, I think the need is on our side. We can hear richer, more detailed things, and not have any fear. Without spirit, the communication is not so clear or detailed, might involve fear, and dreams may be necessary, murky as they are. When we get spirit that need on our part is met and God is not limited to our limitations so much.
The GP is nonsense - the musings of a cult leader. It’s a chart. With repetition.
No you don’t hear richer more detailed things. Read Ezekiel.
Yes people have plenty of fear in this day and time.
God seemed to appear in dreams in the OT. And some say in a sense the book of revelation is a dream.
“God is never limited” - direct quote from Baalaams @$$.
Well put. I could endorse almost all of that.
At the end with the GP, I think the need is on our side. We can hear richer, more detailed things, and not have any fear. Without spirit, the communication is not so clear or detailed, might involve fear, and dreams may be necessary, murky as they are. When we get spirit that need on our part is met and God is not limited to our limitations so much.
What a belittling thing to say about God: “When we get spirit that need on our part is met and God is not limited to our limitations so much” …sounds like wierwille’s stuff right out of the Blue Book, law of believing nonsense – we limit God Almighty?!?!
Hogwash!
~ ~ ~ ~
Another issue is repeating the same erroneous speculation wierwille promoted – “When we get spirit”. What do you mean “when”? Everyone has it! We were created in the image and likeness of God. wierwille’s fundamentalism dictated spirit literally died in Genesis 3.
BUT
Words and concepts of the Bible should be understood in their cultural context. To the Hebrewsdeath meant separation. Physical death – separation of the life-force from the body. Spiritual death – separation of the person from God. I’ve posted on several threads about the biblical writers’ using spirit and soul synonymously – in other words spirit and soul are used interchangeably. If you find the time - you might want to check it out or do your own study with a concordance.
I’d go into it more but I’ve got to clean windows dishes ...
...But I’ll leave you with this:
Romans 6, 7, and 8 makes a lot more sense when it’s understood that it’s talking figuratively about being dead to sin and crucified with Christ…it’s not talking about an alternate reality or magical thinking…but rather Paul is talking metaphoricallyabout the inner struggle we are faced with:
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
427
271
423
257
Popular Days
Feb 14
142
Oct 13
105
Jan 18
101
Oct 8
88
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 427 posts
T-Bone 271 posts
OldSkool 423 posts
Nathan_Jr 257 posts
Popular Days
Feb 14 2023
142 posts
Oct 13 2022
105 posts
Jan 18 2023
101 posts
Oct 8 2022
88 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
First off, Biblically speaking, Christ has never been absent...that doctrine does not come close to occuring anywhere in the Bible. Yet the way international teaches the word of God takes the place of
Bolshevik
Mike's apparent anger toward Christ and emphasis on obedience . . . that's Wayworld . . . that's the annihilation of the individual
waysider
Soooo...He used ONE verse from the Amplified Bible, HALF a chapter from the New English Bible and required PFAL '77 students to get some version from the 1800's that has a name so unremarkable you can
Posted Images
Bolshevik
He's a narcissist . . . He wouldn't lie about that. . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I’ve only read some articles you’ve posted. I don’t know anything about him. Is he a self proclaimed reformed narcissist?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
No, he's an ...., and proud of it. He has hundreds of videos online. He apparently teaches at various universities and does conferences. Endless supply of info.
I do believe the followers of the way, especially long term ones, are escaping reality deliberately. That is how TWI serves them. That is based on my personal experience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
That’s fair. Denial of reality as a form of escape from it. I can see that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
If I were invested in this emotionally, I would respectfully suggest we'd moved the goalposts, from disallowing any reference to an absent Christ to saying "oh of course he's absent physically! But not this way or that way," completely ignoring the fact that TWI taught the presence of Christ in those precise ways.
Christ in you! Christ in you! Christ in you!
What did that mean? Wierwille taught that. But he ignored that Christ is present through the spirit! No, he did not. I'd love to find fault with VPW, believe me. But I can't
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
As Yahweh was part of a pantheon where he was a son of El, and the two merged into one god, along with possibly others . .
. . . So with Christ and others
Personally I view the Trinity as a Process . . where long term stability and change and updates meet . . among other things . . . Why can't he be present and not present at the same time?
VPW was likely a Malignant Narcissist. I don't know those who vehemently disagree on that. Inside of the narcissist is a religion which in turn is projected outward. Of course he dressed in obscurity's clothing.
So the doctrinal reasons for a paradox are one thing.
Sorting apparent contradictions are a work of showmanship, and something else.
At least I thought you pointed that out before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yes, the goal posts have shifted. My original post is the only point I was trying to make.
Christ is never replaced.
Christ's function has changed and in that function he isn't absent.
If he's absent to people individually then to that person that doesn't have a relationship with him then he is absent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Charity,
I do not believe we have been properly introduced. Quick primer:
Modcat5 and I are the same person. Which account I use depends on which device I'm using at a particular time.
I have a decades old reputation for refusing to accept or discard doctrines merely because of their source. As such, Wierwille apologists appreciate it when I've got his back, and his critics tend to (at the least) consider an alternative point of view when I defend him. I was the lead source of two major threads way back one, one of which reviewed The Bible Tells Me So [the Blue Book] chapter by chapter, ferreting out what I believed was right and wrong with what was taught, and Actual Errors in PFAL, a thread that demonstrated conclusively that PFAL and the other writings of Wierwille did not live up to Wierwille's own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. Mike has been in denial of it ever since.
Some time ago I came to the realization that I am no longer a believer in God or Christ or any of those people. But that doesn't stop me from being able to see what the Bible actually says. So when I weigh in, by all means, have a grain of salt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
To be clear I post concepts on GSC/doctrinal to hash out my understanding of the doctrine not to convince anyone else to shift to my beliefs or point of view. There are doctrinal points we will likely always disagree on and that's fine. I can love and respect others if they disagree or believe differently.
I expect you guys to take to the concept as if it was a pinata ... Poke as many holes in it as can be poked. I'm here for that reason.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I don’t mean to belabor this - but maybe to point out some distinctions:
wierwille taught about the Christ in you and the gift of holy spirit (lower case “h” and “s”) but in my opinion there might have been a twofold purpose : he was blowing smoke up ‘believers’ a$$es - to inflate their egos and have them draw a correlation with the power behind wierwille’s ministry - in other words, he probably wanted followers to assume he exemplified living by the power of Christ in you.
The idea of wierwille subliminally substituting himself in place of Christ’s authority has been touched on a few times on this thread. I think that is the nuance that needs to be highlighted.
Sure, he taught it was Christ in you. But I think here is another one of those wierwille switcheroos - like a Stepford Wives ‘syndrome’. What I think wierwille taught as the real you - the Christ in you - was his ideal of the perfect TWI-follower - compliant…obedient to the man of God…’not my will but thine (the cult-leader’s will ) be done’.
The real…actual…immanent Christ may very well be present - but if His authority and directives are not acknowledged - for all practical purposes one could consider Him absent.
Religion deals in a lot of abstracts. For those who believe in a God - I bet no two people think of him or her
in exactly the same way.
At the center of Christianity is Jesus Christ - I know I’m stating the obvious here - but the message of the gospel gives us a bunch of reference points to think somewhat more objectively of Jesus Christ and by extension the Father. To reinterpret John 14:9 - he who is observes Jesus’ words and deeds is also seeing the Father.
The fact that wierwille focused primarily on Pauline letters may also be a factor in why his theology was unmoored from traditional Christianity. While it is true, we don’t know Christ after the flesh as II Corinthians 5:16 says - I don’t think that means we ignore His words and deeds recorded in the gospels.
It’s about our perspective being changed. A natural view of Christ led to His crucifixion and Paul persecuting followers of Christ. After Paul’s conversion he had a divine perspective of Christ. And so do we when we read of His words and deeds. The gospels provide us with the touchstone for living Christ-like.
On the other hand, reflecting on some of the things I’ve witnessed wierwille say and do - it’s obvious to me now his reference point was not Jesus Christ - but himself. So he came up with ‘great’ redefinitions like “anything done in the love of God is okay.” Where does it say that in Paul’s letters - or for that matter in the gospels?
A TWI-follower thinking about the ‘Christ in you’ could mean something totally different from a member of a local church feeling compelled to help a homeless person.
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Hi Raf, thanks for the intro - it's a pleasure to write to you. I have seen your posts on a few older threads. Within the past two days, I discovered two of them where you and others were often quite entertaining
while discussing the topics. They are
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/2486-if-raf-were-the-devil/
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4305-are-grease-spotters-possessed/
I'd really like to read the two threads you mentioned above. Are you able to post where they are to make it easier to access them? If you can, great!
Now I'm off to reply to one of your other posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Hi there,
I remember vp talking about "Christ in you" in the class, but I don't remember much about how he taught it. Regardless, the problem is if he taught it one way at a certain place and time doesn't mean he didn't screw it up when teaching it at a different place and time.
You say that vp did not ignore that Christ is present through the spirit but don't you think that his work on the holy spirit field is filled with errors? I'm pretty sure I know how you feel about the issue of "speaking in tongues" that comes up at the end of session 12.
The "Christ in you" doctrine is great when you're thinking, "Yeah! We have his righteousness!, his holiness!, his boldness!" or "Heh, we can do all things because it's Christ in us!," but imo it falls flat on its face if you don't understand how Christ's spirit works in you. According to vp's "great principle," we operate (work) the spirit which I and others on GSC believe is flat out wrong. (You can check it out on the "Great Principle Whitewashed?" thread if you haven't already.)
Like you've done with the blue book, have you reviewed vp's writings about the spirit (which is the Christ in us) to work out what you believed was right or wrong with what he taught? If you've written about it, I'd be very interested in reading it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thats an interesting point. I feel the gospels are absolutely vital in understanding Jesus Christ and his walk during his ministry to Israel, leading up to his sacrifice of himself as the passover, etc.
We are told to walk even as he walked...I cant seem to find that in Ephesians though....the gospels show how he walked and I feel they show us a pattern. Not only a pattern of the letter where we should emulate physically what he did, necessarily, but a pattern to emulate the spirit or intent behind what he did. By that I mean you have the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The letter of the law is keeping every little detail as stated. Obviously, there is Christ saying every jot and tittle shall be fulfilled, so its not that the letter of the law is unimportant. The spirit of the law is more concerned with the intent behind the law. So perhaps at times we live the letter of how Christ walked or we live the spirit of how Christ walked or both...the point is we have an example.
I feel the Pauline epistles reveal the mystery that was kept secret since the world began. Inside that mystery is the new creation of Christ in you. The epistles show the inner man, they are where we see our true selves mirrored in scripture. Christ in you was never meant to be a lever of power to get stuff, or to replace Christ (obviously Im open to actual debate on all of this) although it's pretty clear in scripture that those in the first century walked as Christ walked: with great power! Also, Christ in you is the new nature, a new creation, a down payment that we will be fully realized in the future. The new nature gives us power over the old man as the sin nature is contrasted in Romans 7 vs Romans 8 (oversimplified illustration because it's contrasted elsewhere too). The spirit also gives us a connection to God/Christ as well, though I still refute the idea that God needed to give holy spirit so he can communicate with flesh and blood. Just a few thoughts...more later.
Oh....the epistles also show us how to walk in the new nature and many other things. Peace!
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well put. I could endorse almost all of that.
At the end with the GP, I think the need is on our side. We can hear richer, more detailed things, and not have any fear. Without spirit, the communication is not so clear or detailed, might involve fear, and dreams may be necessary, murky as they are. When we get spirit that need on our part is met and God is not limited to our limitations so much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
He mentioned the "Actual Errors in PFAL" thread.
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4227-actual-errors-in-pfal/
The other thread actually predated all versions of the GSC, and was on Waydale (before my time.)
That was his commentaries on The Blue Book (The Bible Tells Me So).
However, someone reposted the contents to the GSC later.
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/4730-waydale-repost-rafael-olmedas-original-blue-book-commentary/
There was also "The Blue Book- The Baby and the Bathwater." I need to check that thread, since it links to a website no longer there. However, if I can find the content elsewhere, I'll link it on the thread.
https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/2746-the-blue-book-the-baby-and-the-bathwater/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Is this it?
https://web.archive.org/web/20030713171917/http://www.livingepistlessociety.org/10Blue2.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You had 1/2 of the links. I had to switch browsers because my other browser has support for that, so I don't have to do everything manually.
So,
the baby:
https://web.archive.org/web/20030713171019/http://www.livingepistlessociety.org/10Blue.htm
the bathwater:
https://web.archive.org/web/20031030051643/http://www.livingepistlessociety.org/10Blue2.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In that thread, I also posted both the working links and pasted the contents of the pages in question. Since their author is a Mod here, I don't think there's any problem with reposting the entire content- if he doesn't like it, he can just delete the post with the paste job and leave the link post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Great - I got the bathwater link from OldSkool. Thanks for all the info!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Welllll the Christ in you hope of glory wasn’t the presence of Christ in any sense. It was the iron man suit lower case hs in the great principle. They didn’t teach hs was literally Jesus just the power.
I do note your point especially since you have no vested interest.
Personally my goalposts have moved a good deal in my faith and Christology or whatever the theological official term is.
The clearest example I can think of regarding the absence of Christ in TWI is that they can dedicate two full classes to the study of I Cor 12-14 yet never collaborate with other Christians their entire life - the eye saying no need for hand. Blind to a big verse smack in the middle of their wheelhouse.
There are other fundamental issues with VPW Christ in you mental models of Jesus appendages being “behind” yours that I have also.
I feel a lot more connected with other Christians with dumping fundamentalist views. And with community in general with those of other faiths. I am much more free to interact without the burden of an underlying sales quota to fulfill. Exchanges are much more easy and light as a result. Philosophy or religion. Occasionally most don’t speak of those things regularly.
Good talk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The GP is nonsense - the musings of a cult leader. It’s a chart. With repetition.
No you don’t hear richer more detailed things. Read Ezekiel.
Yes people have plenty of fear in this day and time.
God seemed to appear in dreams in the OT. And some say in a sense the book of revelation is a dream.
“God is never limited” - direct quote from Baalaams @$$.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
What a belittling thing to say about God: “When we get spirit that need on our part is met and God is not limited to our limitations so much” …sounds like wierwille’s stuff right out of the Blue Book, law of believing nonsense – we limit God Almighty?!?!
Hogwash!
~ ~ ~ ~
Another issue is repeating the same erroneous speculation wierwille promoted – “When we get spirit”. What do you mean “when”? Everyone has it! We were created in the image and likeness of God. wierwille’s fundamentalism dictated spirit literally died in Genesis 3.
BUT
Words and concepts of the Bible should be understood in their cultural context. To the Hebrews death meant separation. Physical death – separation of the life-force from the body. Spiritual death – separation of the person from God. I’ve posted on several threads about the biblical writers’ using spirit and soul synonymously – in other words spirit and soul are used interchangeably. If you find the time - you might want to check it out or do your own study with a concordance.
NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, Personal Size, Hardcover, Red Letter: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture: Zondervan, Keener, Craig S., Walton, John H.: 0025986447847: Amazon.com: Books
ESV Systematic Theology Study Bible, Hardcover: 9781433553370 - Christianbook.com
I’d go into it more but I’ve got to clean
windowsdishes ......But I’ll leave you with this:
Romans 6, 7, and 8 makes a lot more sense when it’s understood that it’s talking figuratively about being dead to sin and crucified with Christ…it’s not talking about an alternate reality or magical thinking…but rather Paul is talking metaphorically about the inner struggle we are faced with:
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
Romans 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
God limits Himself, and for various reasons.
One big one is to protect us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Can you narrow that down to a chapter or three?
Edited by MikeLink 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.