GSC has become a social media platform dominated by Mike and a small handful of people who somehow get their dopamine fix from asking him inane questions.
Start something new, then. Perhaps iin Open. Maybe Mike won't go there.
GSC has become a social media platform dominated by Mike and a small handful of people who somehow get their dopamine fix from asking him inane questions.
I prefer extreme hot sauce and ball peen hammers though.
(Grab some drinks and snacks...this is going to be a long post )
34. Encourages an us-versus-them mindset - great for fortifying groupthink and isolation. “I have no friends when it comes to the Word.”
A. wierwille’s animosity toward Christians outside of TWI was camouflaged by his self-righteous stand on “rightly-dividing the Word”.
B. sets up false dilemmas to polarize students into favoring the supposedly only right choice.
Following up on my earlier post with reference to rightly-dividing, I want to start in the orange book, Power for Abundant Living: The Accuracy of the Bible, chapter 10, The Rightly -divided Word, pages 115:
Time and again I have heard the statement that God’s Word causes trouble in a community or in a church or in our society. After frequently hearing that and after searching The Word as to why there is division and lack of accord among Christians, I wrote a study entitled “Why Division?” Division comes not from the Word of God; it comes from the unbelief of those who refuse to believe the integrity and the accuracy of God’s Word.
End of excerpt
~ ~~ ~
The above sets up reader to get used to the idea of cults “insulating” and/or physically isolating followers from the outside world.
Also, wierwille does not specify the issues of division and lack of harmony.
What did wierwille mean by saying division comes from those who refuse to believe the integrity and accuracy of God’s Word?
What did he mean?
This is indeed a puzzling statement since the Bible is considered the sacred text in Christianity, Judaism, Samaritanism, and many other religions. My curiosity is immediately drawn to the two nouns near the end of his phrase “the integrity and the accuracy of God’s Word”. I’m assuming he’s using standard definitions.
Integrity = internal consistency, the condition of being unified, unimpaired, or sound in construction.
Accuracy = the quality or state of being correct or precise, the degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard.
In PFAL, wierwille throws around other phrases like mathematical exactness and scientific precision…or…now your Bible won’t fall to pieces…it fits like a hand in a glove…these phrases were used to reinforce certain erroneous teachings - like the 4 crucified with Jesus (something he copied from Bullinger). He would make note of differences in descriptions or discrepancies in the texts to promote a composite narrative of what really happened.
*As a side note on wierwille’s integrity / accuracy spiel see below: Footnote inerrancy versus infallibility…and in case you’re wondering where I stand – I believe in the infallibility of Scripture as being authoritative on all religious matters and that it will never steer me wrong. I do not believe the Scriptures are inerrant.
Continuing from pages 115 & 116 of The Rightly-divided Word:
The subject of this chapter is the accuracy of God’s Word and a workman’s responsibility to that Word. II Timothy 2:15 is our point of departure in studying this topic:
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The one great requirement of every Biblical student is to rightly divide the Word of Truth. The Bible, the Word of God in its originally-revealed form, is the Word of Truth. But when it is wrongly divided, the true Word does not exist. We have the Word of Truth only to the extent that the Word of God is rightly-divided. Everybody at one time or another divides the Word. The question is not whether we divide the Word; the question is whether we rightly divide it.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
Just wanted to point out a few suspicious ideas wierwille has in the above quote. II Timothy along with I Timothy and Titus are generally considered to be pastoral epistles. Wikipedia states - see my hyperlinks below for each epistle - along with most of the Study Bibles I’ve looked at concur in the opening remarks of those books. So, wierwille’s remark, “The one great requirement of every Biblical student is to rightly divide the Word of Truth” is misleading. The epistle is addressing pastors.
The other questionable item is wierwille’s definition of the Greek word for “rightly dividing” which is orthotomounta in Greek. On page 119 he says this”
… “rightly dividing” in the King James Version, literally means “a perfectly right cutting.” Its intricate nuance of meaning is that there is only one way to rightly cut the Word; all other ways are wrong cuttings…There is only one way to rightly cut The Word; all other ways are wrong cuttings. Now do you understand why we have splits, denominations, and sects in so-called Christianity? They stem from the wrong dividing of The Word.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
The following are excerpts fromBible Hub commentaries on II Timothy 2:15 – these are just a few excerpts from a wide variety of commentaries – I left the hyperlink at the end of these excerpts to encourage you to look at them for a better sense of what Paul was talking about:
rightly dividing the word of truth.—Better rendered rightly laying out the word of truth. The Greek word translated in the English version “rightly dividing,” literally signifies “cutting a straight line.” It seems most correct to regard it as a metaphor from laying out a road (see Proverbs 3:6, in the LXX. rendering, where the word is so used), “or drawing a furrow, the merit of which consists in the straightness with which the work of cutting, or laying out, is performed. The word of truth is, as it were, a road which is to be laid out straightly and truly.” So Ellicott. To affirm (see Alford and Huther-Meyer) that the notion of “cutting” had been gradually lost, and that the word already in the time of St. Paul signified simply “to manage rightly,” “to treat truthfully without falsifying,” and that the exact opposite is to corrupt or adulterate the Word of God (2Corinthians 2:17),
2 Timothy 2:15. Study to show thyself approved, &c. — Greek, σπουδασον σεαυτον δοκιμον παραστησαι τω Θεω, literally, be zealous, make haste, or diligently endeavour, to present thyself approved to God, what ever men may judge of thee and thy services; a workman that needeth not to be ashamed — Either on account of unfaithfulness, unskilfulness, lukewarmness, negligence, or sloth; rightly dividing the word of truth — Greek, ορθοτομουντα, literally, rightly cutting up the word — In allusion, as some think, to the action of the Jewish priests in dissecting the victims, and separating the parts in a proper manner, as some were to be laid on God’s altar, and others to be given to those who were to share in the sacrifices. Or rather, the metaphor may be taken from the distribution made by a steward in delivering out to each person under his care such things as his office and their necessities require; or to the action of one who carves at a table, and distributes meat to the guests, according to their ages, and their state of health. In this manner the apostle himself divided the word to the Corinthians, feeding them with milk, as babes in Christ, and not with meat, as not being then able to bear it. See Hebrews 5:12-14. The Vulgate version renders the clause, recte tractantem, rightly handling the word, which gives the apostle’s meaning very well. Thus those ministers handle it who duly explain and apply the whole gospel, so as to give each hearer his due portion. But they that give one part of the gospel to all, (the promises and comforts, suppose, to unawakened, hardened, and scoffing sinners,) have real need to be ashamed. To divide or handle the word of truth aright, implies that it be done, 1st, With evidence and demonstration, so as to convince the conscience, Acts 2:37; 1 Corinthians 2:4. 2d, With sincerity and faithfulness, delivering the whole counsel of God, Acts 20:27. 3d, With power and authority, Matthew 7:29; 1 Thessalonians 1:5. 4th, With wisdom and seasonableness, as men are able to bear it, Mark 4:33; John 16:12. 5th, With meekness, gentleness, love, and all winning insinuations, 2 Timothy 2:24-25; 1 Thessalonians 2:7. 6th, With courage and boldness, Jeremiah 1:17; Ephesians 6:19.
Rightly dividing the word of truth - The word here rendered "rightly dividing," occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means, properly, "to cut straight, to divide right;" and the allusion here may be to a steward who makes a proper distribution to each one under his care of such things as his office and their necessities require; compare the notes at Matthew 13:52. Some have supposed that there is an allusion here to the Jewish priest, cutting or dividing the sacrifice into proper parts; others, that the allusion is to the scribes dividing the law into sections; others, to a carver distributing food to the guests at a feast. Robinson (Lexicon) renders it, "rightly proceeding as to the word of truth;" that is, rightfully and skillfully teaching the word of truth. The idea seems to be, that the minister of the gospel is to make a proper distribution of that word, adapting his instructions to the circumstances and wants of his hearers, and giving to each that which will be fitted to nourish the soul for heaven.
The objective in the book of Timothy appears to be that those so called to oversee the church in some capacity should strive to be honest and responsible in supervising the church.
the way wierwille handles the passage it looks to me like he is grooming students to think they are qualified theologians and Biblical text scholars – with a subtext of trusting what wierwille says the text should be. I should point out wierwille is neither a qualified theologian nor a Biblical text scholar.
Other things to keep in mind – Timothy did not have a huge knowledge and experience gap to span like we do – he was of course in close proximity to some New Testament events, familiar with the biblical languages, various cultures and worldviews, probably had access to certain reliable and complete manuscripts and scrolls of the Old Testament – so probably didn’t have to do much textual research…so I can’t imagine Paul was that concerned about raising up Biblical text scholars. If you ever read about the apostle Paul – you may have noticed in his epistles and in narratives of his life that he was driven to present Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the law, as our risen Lord and Savior and having supremacy in the grand scheme of things.
Since I left TWI and got into studying the Bible without the mental PFAL-filter, and in going to local churches of different denominations I’ve come to the opinion that wierwille like to make a mountain out of a molehill to galvanize PFAL students into choosing his ministry for the sake of the truth. And my honest feedback of comparing TWI with the local churches I’ve attended – is that I see a lot more concern for genuinely representing Christ in the community and being relevant to the individual, and most have charitable programs going on…and I don’t have a problem giving money to a local church because I can see where it goes to support legitimate overseers, pay for church building maintenance, utility bills and into programs that help those in need in my part of town.
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
*Footnote on inerrancy versus infallibility:
There are two theological terms that are often used to explain the nature of the Bible—inerrancy and infallibility. They are used to point out how the Bible is different from all other books that have ever been written. Many use these terms interchangeably. Infallibility means incapable of making a mistake, while inerrancy means the absence of any error.
These concepts arose when the issue of the divine inspiration of the Bible was being addressed. Questions arose such as: In what sense, or to what degree, is the Bible the divinely inspired Word of God? How does it differ from all other books? The Word Infallible Means Trustworthy. When referring to Scripture, the term infallible is usually used to mean reliable and trustworthy. It refers to something that is without any type of defect whatsoever. Those who trust its infallible teachings will never be lead astray.
The term, “inerrancy” is more recent. While some Christians use inerrancy and infallible interchangeably, they are normally used in slightly different ways. Inerrancy contends that the Bible does not have any errors of fact or any statements that are contradictory. Inerrancy is more concerned with the details of Scripture.
C. class pushes a pseudointellectualism with the Bible – which overshadows developing a relationship with Christ.
Whether TWI-followers realize it or not – over time they become more concerned about relating The Bible to PFAL then relating to Jesus Christ. I admit the idea seems easy and convenient – use PFAL as a template to interpret the Bible and determine what’s applicable to oneself.
From wierwille’sPower For Abundant Living: The Accuracy of the Bible,chapter 7, Man Shall Not Live By Bread Alone, page 93 begins:
Man’s basic spiritual problem is not believing the integrity of the Word of God. Very few people believe that the Word of God is accurate, that it means what it says and that it says what it means. Thus man is in a constant dilemma in his quest for truth; he has no touchstone for truth because he will not go to The Word and study its integrity and accuracy.
There are a few problematic ideas in wierwille’s statements. He speaks of our quest for truth and the need for a touchstone for truth. Touchstone is a standard or criterion by which something is judged or recognized. I won’t repeat myself here since I discussed in an earlier post about scientific truth offers no criteria for metaphysical truth and so I personally lean toward the correspondence theory of truth – see my earlier post >here.
Another erroneous concept he repeats is the integrity and accuracy of the Word which I analyzed in my above quote.
The huge problem with wierwille’s circular reasoning is that he’s using his conclusion (the integrity and accuracy of the Word = the Bible has mathematical exactness and scientific precision = it fits like a hand in a glove – those are all wierwille’s pet phrases) to show that the reason for his conclusion is true.
In my opinion there’s subliminal messages as well – I’ll be brief here - the flaky ideas incognito are as follows:
1.“The Word” – wierwille’s pet phrase to brand his unique interpretation of the Bible; it is noteworthy that the few times the standalone phrase “the Word” is used – such as“ho logos” in the Greek interlinear – it’s always in reference to Jesus Christ. In PFAL, wierwille boldly states the Word takes the place of the absent Christ– there are two serious fallacies in that statement. Christ is not absent and there’s nothing that can take His place! If you think this thread is all over the map, you might want to check out OldSkool’s threadThe Absent Christ?
2.Along the same lines as # 1 – an intellectual pursuit is substituted for developing a relationship with Jesus Christ and following in His footsteps; instead of WWJD = what would Jesus do?A TWI-follower’s subconscious motto tends to be WWwT = what would wierwille think?There’s little concern for imitating the selflessness and compassion of someone we think we know a lot about and so we don’t bother reading the Gospels because they’re not written to us anyway. Instead a TWI-follower will tend to frame a problem with what would wierwille think about that? When I was in-residence, we watched LCM’s video VP and Me and he explains at the beginning of his presidency he would visualize how wierwille would handle an issue. See my post on Gnosticism and WWJD versus WWwT
Think about the modern-day conveniences of printed Bibles and study resources, podcasts, radio and TV, online resources – it’s no wonder when we read certain passages, we immediately think it’s talking about the Bible. Now to be fair – the passage may be somewhat self-referencing – but considering the original audience may not have had access to a text there has to be more to it than that.
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.Matthew 4:4 KJV
Consider these excerpts from Wikipedia - comments on Matthew 4:4:
Jesus rebuts Satan's advances by quoting scripture. The verse in question is from Deuteronomy 8:3. In its original context the verse is describing how while wandering through the wilderness in Exodus the Israelites lacked food. Despite God's promises they complained and worried about their hunger, but in the end God provided manna to feed them all. This same reply is also quoted in Luke 4:4, though in Luke it is somewhat abbreviated, not containing "but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." The quote uses the exact wording of the Septuagint, but Hill notes that it is not an exact translation of the original Hebrew which has "everything" rather than "every word."
Gundry feels the author of Matthew added this section to emphasize Jesus' obedience to God.[2] Jones states that by replying with nothing but quotes from scripture, Jesus illustrates his "perfect detachment from everything except God's will."
Jesus rejects Satan's idea, and uses nothing but a word of scripture as his argument. France notes that God's word would not literally make up for not having any food. Instead it is a question of priority. If God instructed Jesus to fast in the desert, then it is that word that must be followed and it takes priority over any feelings such as hunger.
There are a number of explanations for why Satan attempted to have Jesus turn stones into bread and why it was important that Jesus refuse. The act of using God's powers to create bread is not in itself wrong, as demonstrated in Matthew 14 and 15 where Jesus actually does perform this miracle. In the Middle Ages it became common to argue that Satan was simply tempting Christ into gluttony. Most modern scholars do not accept this view. France notes that tempt should better be translated as test that Satan was testing Jesus' understanding of his role rather than luring him into evil. Jones notes that calling someone who has fasted for forty days gluttonous because they want food is not very fair. Most modern scholars thus reject the sin explanation.
Another view that was popular for a time was that this represented Jesus rejecting the role of the "economic messiah," that in this verse he demonstrates that it is not his role to feed the hungry of the world, but rather to provide spiritual sustenance. The most popular view today is that this passage echoes the history of Israel. The quote itself comes from the part of the Old Testament describing the period after the Exodus when the Israelites were wandering hungry in the wilderness and complaining about their hunger. This verse is seen to demonstrate that Jesus does not make the same mistake they did and accepts that God will ensure his safety.
Metaphorical extensions
The phrase "Man shall not live by bread alone" is today a common expression meaning that people need more than material things to truly live. However, it is also sometimes used in almost the opposite sense to justify material luxuries beyond simple things like bread.
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.Psalm 138:2
The way wierwille had handled this verse – it was to mean out of all of the works of God’s creation the greatest of His works is His Word – and he likens it to God’s signature on a check – He guarantees it. I don’t have a real problem with that other than the misguided attitude it led me into. In my TWI years of involvement, there was almost like a disconnect in my head, thinking it was so important to “master” what the Bible says on a subject – rather than being thankful that God is always faithful to deliver on His promises. Other translations reflect as much:
I bow before your holy Temple as I worship. I praise your name for your unfailing love and faithfulness; for your promises are backed by all the honor of your name.Psalm 138:2 NLT
I will bow down toward Your holy temple And give thanks to Your name for Your mercy and Your truth; For You have made Your word great according to all Your name.Psalm 138:2 NASB
I will bow down toward Your holy temple and give thanks to Your name for Your constant love and truth. You have exalted Your name and Your promise above everything else.Psalm 138:2 HCSB
We’re all familiar with the phrase so and so is man or woman of their word. What does that mean? That person keeps their promises, they can be trusted. It’s not that the Bible is book of incantations, spells, charms, enchantments or bewitchery – like a magical formula intended to trigger a magical effect on a person or objects – a formula that can be spoken in affirmations, sung or chanted.
Some of us might need to stop being so materialistic in how we view the promises of God. When I was in TWI, I tended to plug in a specific thing when looking at promises in the Bible – more money, new car, better job, etc. But now I’m still learning to be a lot more flexible – and leave it up to God to see how to work out the answer to my prayers. The promise is God answers prayer – that’s basically it. It doesn’t mean He’s always going to answer my requests the way I think He should.
Notice the emphasis in the following passages in Romans 8 – the Spirit helps us – oftentimes we don’t know what specifics to pray for - but the Spirit does and intercedes according to God’s will – and God causes all things to work together so our prayers are conveniently answered – nope ! It doesn’t say that. Many times there’s a long stretch of trouble before things get worked out God’s way – often preachers will refer to Joseph’s hard road up toGenesis 50- when he says his brothers’ betrayal of selling him into slavery, God eventually worked out for the good of Joseph and his people – so read the following with a more open mind of patience and trust in God being a person of His word is about:
26 In the same way the Spirit [comes to us and] helps us in our weakness. We do not know what prayer to offer or how to offer it as we should, but the Spirit Himself [knows our need and at the right time] intercedes on our behalf with sighs and groanings too deep for words. 27 And He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because the Spirit intercedes [before God] on behalf of God’s people in accordance with God’s will.
28 And we know [with great confidence] that God [who is deeply concerned about us] causes all things to work together [as a plan] for good for those who love God, to those who are called according to His plan and purpose.Romans 8: 26 – 28 Amplified
~ ~ ~ ~
On this last one, notice it says through the knowledge of him– it does not say through the knowledge of the Bible. There suggests a relationship with a person. Certainly knowledge of what’s in the Bible can help…and contrary to wierwille saying in the class the Bible is not an aid to devotion - that’s exactly what it is – for I think we are invited to love God…of course we will develop a certain affection for the Bible too – because we may see it as a personal message form someone who loves us very much. I’m including more of the context so we can see a number of qualities we are to include in our faith development:
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.II Peter 1:3 – 8 KJV
PFAL is promoted as a class to learn about the Bible - but it actually pushes a pseudointellectualism * with the Bible - it's faking an intellectual capacity to be appealing to others - and eclipses the importance of a dynamic relationship with Christ
We should be approaching 90, I think. I meant to call out Chock on it, but there was too much bullshonta at the time.
I'm working on a subset of 34 - if you check out the quote - and by the way - let me finishe editing I have a bunch of hyperlinks to add...I'm aware of what numbers we're up to so thanks
I don't really care about the numbering - we'd have a lot more items if I individualized each sucky point - but I like doing subsets to show a relation to another point - and that's just me being my anal-retentive self everyone is free to post as they see fit - without having a fit about it
I'm working on a subset of 34 - if you check out the quote - and by the way - let me finishe editing I have a bunch of hyperlinks to add...I'm aware of what numbers we're up to so thanks
I don't really care about the numbering - we'd have a lot more items if I individualized each sucky point - but I like doing subsets to show a relation to another point - and that's just me being my anal-retentive self everyone is free to post as they see fit - without having a fit about it
Oh. I see what you’re doing. It wasn’t initially clear to me. I like your subsets. Most of the points could benefit from expansion.
90. The teacher discourages the use of cognitive skills
Here’s an excerpt from page 103 of The New Dynamic Church, chapter 9, Speaking in Tongues,:
No one can go any further than he himself has been taught, and a teacher can teach no more than he knows. If you want to help someone else, first you yourself must be helped; otherwise, the blind lead the blind and they both stumble around. One of the darkest spots of understanding in the Bible concerns the Holy Spirit, both the Giver and the gift of holy spirit. Let us no longer be blind. Let us study God’s Word to understand His will.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
This point might get into a few subsets – some ideas in this chapter as well as the topic of speaking in tongues have been milling aboutin my head for years ( here's visual aid of inside my head - - ) …won’t get into it much on this post…just thought I’d lead with this since, for me, since the most tantalizing aspect of PFAL is the bait that wierwille led me to think he would cure my “spiritual blindness” if you will.
One of the most insidious ideas that runs through PFAL is stated in plain sight – in the first sentence of the above excerpt.
On a Sunday Night Teaching Tape titled Carnal Versus Spiritual wierwille makes some fascinating goofball statementswithout any pertinent Scripture references to support his claims. Here are some of his wildly exciting claims:
1. Psychologists talk about the subconscious…they’ve never been there…it’s actually the mind of the spirit.
2. All learning comes by way of the five senses…When you’re born again you now have another avenue of learning…In Galatians 1, Paul said he did not receive the gospel from any man, nor was he taught it – he received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ…
3. It’s Christ behind every cell of your being…even behind your brain cells.
4. All the great discoveries and inventions come by way of the spirit – revelation.
5. It’s not because you have such a high IQ – it’s because God has such a high IQ.
6. Countries without Christ do not invent.
Apparently wierwille had a very low opinion of a human being’s cognitive skills…If I had to guess why he felt that way – I’d say it’s probably because he was lazy and incompetent – I mean, why else would he plagiarize so much? To be honest, I have a very low opinion of wierwille’s cognitive skills...Also, I’d like to point out in point # 2 and point # 4, wierwille equates the revelation of the gospel – a metaphysical truth, with discoveries and inventions – scientific truth.
Since I left TWI, I have grown to appreciate the freedom I have in relating faith to reason. Having a rigid mindset is far worse than being wrong. So many things are unknown – and if I don’t think I have the last word – a definitive or conclusive answer on something – then I leave that particular belief in a constant state of flux. What is a state of flux? It means that I leave a certain idea in “…a state of uncertainty about what should be done (usually following some important event) preceding the establishment of a new direction of action.” From Quora - which brings me mention the acid. For me the important event was realizing that a lot of the theology and practical advice that TWI promoted was bogus – and had very little viable information. For me 12 years of TWI-lifestyle become so repetitive and frustrating. Some may feel that describes where they’re at right now – then maybe they should take the acid test. Come to terms with reality – be honest with yourself - reengage your cognitive skills and emotional intelligence.
~ ~ ~ ~
I anticipate covering speaking in tongues and this chapter 9 & possibly 10 in several follow up posts.
In the meantime - all Grease Spotters please feel free to contribute anything appropriate to this thread topic Why PFAL sucks– and of course you’re also welcome to key off this post and my follow-up posts on speaking in tongues.
and of course you’re also welcome to key off this post and my follow-up posts on speaking in tongues.
Are you planning to write it in glossolalia first and then follow with an English interpretation? Or, do you intend to only provide the English and let someone else provide the glossolalia interpretation?
Either way, your prologue has whetted this appetite.
Meanwhile, I'll wipe my a$$ with victor's claim number 6.
Are you planning to write it in glossolalia first and then follow with an English interpretation? Or, do you intend to only provide the English and let someone else provide the glossolalia interpretation?
Either way, your prologue has whetted this appetite.
Meanwhile, I'll wipe my a$$ with victor's claim number 6.
I’ll probably be more conventional and point out wierwille’s misinterpretations of Scripture and his bogus speech-mechanics prep…I’ll probably slip in some other sources…
Meanwhile you might enjoy this video – John MacArthur, author of Charismatic Chaos, mistakenly gets invited to speak at a huge Charismatic’s conference
(whoever lined up the speakers probably didn’t know of MacArthur’s views and he thought they wanted to hear the other side – both groups figured the other side were starting to come around – this interview is hilarious to watch)...anyway here's the video
FYI: I like John MacArthur and have a number of his books, commentaries and study Bible...I like him because he's sharp in his theology - he's a tough conservative evangelical type - so he doesn't get sloppy in his hermeneutics and is usually solid in his logic
But I’ll let everyone know right now – my stance on the matter – I believe I faked it and I will get into that later on in this thread. When I first left TWI – I was leaning strongly toward cessationismbut in the last few years I’ve softened up – and think the nine manifestations are possible today - there's other abilities too if you check out near the end of Romans– but it’s up to the Spirit to do the distributing – not some Betamax video tape of PFAL !...don’t anyone get nervous – if you’ve really got something don’t let my two-bit analysis shake you – if it works for you than keep on with the keeping on.
Meanwhile you might enjoy this video – John MacArthur, author of Charismatic Chaos, mistakenly gets invited to speak at a huge Charismatic’s conference
(whoever lined up the speakers probably didn’t know of MacArthur’s views and he thought they wanted to hear the other side – both groups figured the other side were starting to come around – this interview is hilarious to watch)...anyway here's the video
People have been speaking in tongues, and also faking it, for thousands of years. Long before Paul and the Montanists. It is proof only of itself. Nothing more. It is nothing to be proud of. If it can be taught, it's not the real deal.
I’ll probably be more conventional and point out wierwille’s misinterpretations of Scripture and his bogus speech-mechanics prep…I’ll probably slip in some other sources…
Meanwhile you might enjoy this video – John MacArthur, author of Charismatic Chaos, mistakenly gets invited to speak at a huge Charismatic’s conference
(whoever lined up the speakers probably didn’t know of MacArthur’s views and he thought they wanted to hear the other side – both groups figured the other side were starting to come around – this interview is hilarious to watch)...anyway here's the video
FYI: I like John MacArthur and have a number of his books, commentaries and study Bible...I like him because he's sharp in his theology - he's a tough conservative evangelical type - so he doesn't get sloppy in his hermeneutics and is usually solid in his logic
But I’ll let everyone know right now – my stance on the matter – I believe I faked it and I will get into that later on in this thread. When I first left TWI – I was leaning strongly toward cessationismbut in the last few years I’ve softened up – and think the nine manifestations are possible today - there's other abilities too if you check out near the end of Romans– but it’s up to the Spirit to do the distributing – not some Betamax video tape of PFAL !...don’t anyone get nervous – if you’ve really got something don’t let my two-bit analysis shake you – if it works for you than keep on with the keeping on.
Nice content T Bone. That video is super enlightening on the cowbell movement. No wait I mean the cymbal and gong movement. No wrong again the Charismatic Movement.
For me on the SIT topic I’m not that interested in hyper analyzing my past. I’ve been a seeking Christian praying. I’ve been a band leader of a cowbell orchestra.
I kinda think the Corinthians section is like a package deal.
But then again I don’t have Astro Physicists inviting me to teach them the Bible in my spare time on free will and gifts and absent Christ and deterministic foreknowledge being a license to sin either.
92. Students develop a false confidence in wierwille’s ideas
When I first took PFAL, there was great anticipation and anxiety building toward the session when wierwille would “lead us into receiving the holy spirit” – speaking in tongues. I worried that I might not have the believing to receive it. But I hung in there because I wanted that unshakeable confidence that wierwille talked about – “when you speak in tongues you’ll know that you know, that you know that you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going.”
~ ~ ~ ~
Have you ever wondered what faith is all about?
for we walk by faith, not by sight [living our lives in a manner consistent with our confident belief in God’s promises] II Corinthians 5:7 Amplified
One commentary on this verse says:
For we walk by faith, not by sight—Better, and not by what we see (or, by appearance). It seems almost sad to alter the wording of a familiar and favourite text, but it must be admitted that the word translated “sight” never means the faculty of seeing, but always the form and fashion of the thing seen. (Comp. Luke 3:22; Luke 9:29; John 5:37.) The fact is taken for granted; and it comes as the proof that as we are, we are absent from the Lord. Now we believe in Him without seeing Him; hereafter we shall see Him face to face. Our life and conduct and our “walk” in this world rest on our belief in the Unseen.
I’m not a philosopher or theologian. I’m a technician by trade – it comes natural to me – I guess because I’ve always been fascinated by how things work. Not that I always could figure out how something worked – but you know a typical kid’s mentality - it couldn’t hurt to try.Even as a kid growing up in a Roman Catholic home, I remember having these “think-about-it-sessions” on metaphysical matters.Where was heaven? What does God look like? Does God really exist?
That last question was a dandy. I was troubled with that one day - after a ride home on the school bus – during which I overheard some older kids talking about their dads dressing up to be Santa. Since I still believed there was a real Santa Claus – my belief system was shaken to the core.
Thus, began sporadic think-about-it-sessions over whether God existed. Which would then prompt me to go to mom and dad. I never asked them about the legend of Santa – I went straight for the question of all questions – how do you know if God exists?
Mom’s response came from a life filled with challenges – her dad a widower and fisherman by trade – she was often being looked after by relatives and boarding schools. She talked about having a trust in God – that He was always there with her. Mom always seemed anchored – nothing seemed to shake her. I still remember the calming effect just being around her – like sitting by a gentle stream and listening to the water move around the rocks and brush by the shoreline.
Dad’s response came out of a tough life too – a medic in the war, got 2 Purple Hearts. He was technical-minded too – probably where I got it from. For a time was a shop foreman at a Bulova factory. He suffered from PTSD related to the war – but there wasn’t that much awareness of it as there is now. He could tough it out with the best of them. He would often call my attention to the beauty and wonder of nature – and like mom he felt that God is always with us – tending to His wonderful creations big and small.
~ ~ ~ ~
I still have think-about-it-sessions on a wide variety of topics. But not about whether God exists. When you come right down to it – there is no way to prove in the existence or non-existence of God. I think it’s something we each have to figure out for ourselves…Leaving TWI was one of the most trying times in my life. Because what was at stake was a childhood faith that has gotten me through some really big messes that I made.
During my slow exit from a harmful and controlling cult like The Way International, there was that “faith thing” that anchored me to something intangible – and there was that “tech thing” that kept driving me to figure out how this Christian life is supposed to work.
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.Matthew 7
~ ~ ~ ~
As I leave behind the bogus tenets of a cult, I find my faith deepens as I focus on what truly matters in my personal belief system. In the Christian faith – Jesus Christ is at the center of it. I aim to know more about Him. I read a great book – faith affirming - The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona. It got me to think like an historian or lawyer would studying a past event or a case – looking at the evidence, probabilities, testimonies – of even hostile witnesses.
If you think about the evangelizing efforts of the early church – it was simple. They didn’t formulate catechisms, Bible classes, discipling programs…They didn’t have a cookie cutter mentality of expecting everyone to experience Christianity the way they did. They just preached about Jesus Christ offering Himself to be our Savior from sin and death and God raising Him from the dead, and now Jesus Christ is Lord - He has supremacy over all creation and has promised to be with us always in a personal relationship of love.
Edited by T-Bone can you believe it? I edited this post myself!
for we walk by faith, not by sight [living our lives in a manner consistent with our confident belief in God’s promises] II Corinthians 5:7 Amplified
One commentary on this verse says:
For we walk by faith, not by sight—Better, and not by what we see (or, by appearance). It seems almost sad to alter the wording of a familiar and favourite text, but it must be admitted that the word translated “sight” never means the faculty of seeing, but always the form and fashion of the thing seen. (Comp. Luke 3:22; Luke 9:29; John 5:37.) The fact is taken for granted; and it comes as the proof that as we are, we are absent from the Lord. Now we believe in Him without seeing Him; hereafter we shall see Him face to face. Our life and conduct and our “walk” in this world rest on our belief in the Unseen.
I feel faith in most of it's uses in scripture is simply talking about trusting God and taking him at his word in spite of the fact that what we see seems contrary to his promises. So - faith = trust. It's the least that God requires of us...that we trust/believe him at his word. Its a concept that has been redefined multiple times through the years and wierwille ran with that ball with the law of believing stuff he promoted.
There are clearly stated “rules” in PFAL: 1. To receive anything from God you must know what is available, 2. Know how to receive it…etc.
There’s also many words-of-“wisdom”-one-liners that get parroted in groupthink that effectively get massaged into a priori assumptions. For example, “You can’t go beyond what you’re taught” over time becomes “Thou shall not deviate from what wierwille says.”
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
120
259
157
205
Popular Days
Nov 2
154
Oct 30
111
Nov 3
106
Nov 4
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 120 posts
T-Bone 259 posts
OldSkool 157 posts
Nathan_Jr 205 posts
Popular Days
Nov 2 2022
154 posts
Oct 30 2022
111 posts
Nov 3 2022
106 posts
Nov 4 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
VPW's statement that the Bible interprets itself is nonsense. The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it me
waysider
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Charity
What I see in what you wrote Chockfull is that we were meant to have a relationship with the class - you know the one that replaced our relationship with Christ. It was our lord in that it had power,
Posted Images
chockfull
39. The brainwashees crying comments on #38 of Wierwille worshippers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Start something new, then. Perhaps iin Open. Maybe Mike won't go there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I prefer extreme hot sauce and ball peen hammers though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I actually put a lot of thought into NOT disturbing things too much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
okay...back to topic
34.
C. class pushes a pseudointellectualism with the Bible – which overshadows developing a relationship with Christ.
Whether TWI-followers realize it or not – over time they become more concerned about relating The Bible to PFAL then relating to Jesus Christ. I admit the idea seems easy and convenient – use PFAL as a template to interpret the Bible and determine what’s applicable to oneself.
From wierwille’s Power For Abundant Living: The Accuracy of the Bible, chapter 7, Man Shall Not Live By Bread Alone, page 93 begins:
Man’s basic spiritual problem is not believing the integrity of the Word of God. Very few people believe that the Word of God is accurate, that it means what it says and that it says what it means. Thus man is in a constant dilemma in his quest for truth; he has no touchstone for truth because he will not go to The Word and study its integrity and accuracy.
There are a few problematic ideas in wierwille’s statements. He speaks of our quest for truth and the need for a touchstone for truth. Touchstone is a standard or criterion by which something is judged or recognized. I won’t repeat myself here since I discussed in an earlier post about scientific truth offers no criteria for metaphysical truth and so I personally lean toward the correspondence theory of truth – see my earlier post > here .
Another erroneous concept he repeats is the integrity and accuracy of the Word which I analyzed in my above quote.
The huge problem with wierwille’s circular reasoning is that he’s using his conclusion (the integrity and accuracy of the Word = the Bible has mathematical exactness and scientific precision = it fits like a hand in a glove – those are all wierwille’s pet phrases) to show that the reason for his conclusion is true.
In my opinion there’s subliminal messages as well – I’ll be brief here - the flaky ideas incognito are as follows:
1. “The Word” – wierwille’s pet phrase to brand his unique interpretation of the Bible; it is noteworthy that the few times the standalone phrase “the Word” is used – such as “ho logos” in the Greek interlinear – it’s always in reference to Jesus Christ. In PFAL, wierwille boldly states the Word takes the place of the absent Christ – there are two serious fallacies in that statement. Christ is not absent and there’s nothing that can take His place! If you think this thread is all over the map, you might want to check out OldSkool’s thread The Absent Christ?
2. Along the same lines as # 1 – an intellectual pursuit is substituted for developing a relationship with Jesus Christ and following in His footsteps; instead of WWJD = what would Jesus do? A TWI-follower’s subconscious motto tends to be WWwT = what would wierwille think? There’s little concern for imitating the selflessness and compassion of someone we think we know a lot about and so we don’t bother reading the Gospels because they’re not written to us anyway. Instead a TWI-follower will tend to frame a problem with what would wierwille think about that? When I was in-residence, we watched LCM’s video VP and Me and he explains at the beginning of his presidency he would visualize how wierwille would handle an issue. See my post on Gnosticism and WWJD versus WWwT
3. wierwille’s admixture of Gnosticism and fundamentalism fosters a contradictory belief system of irrationalism see my post on Gnosticism + an element of irrationalism in fundamentalism
Think about the modern-day conveniences of printed Bibles and study resources, podcasts, radio and TV, online resources – it’s no wonder when we read certain passages, we immediately think it’s talking about the Bible. Now to be fair – the passage may be somewhat self-referencing – but considering the original audience may not have had access to a text there has to be more to it than that.
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4 KJV
Consider these excerpts from Wikipedia - comments on Matthew 4:4:
Jesus rebuts Satan's advances by quoting scripture. The verse in question is from Deuteronomy 8:3. In its original context the verse is describing how while wandering through the wilderness in Exodus the Israelites lacked food. Despite God's promises they complained and worried about their hunger, but in the end God provided manna to feed them all. This same reply is also quoted in Luke 4:4, though in Luke it is somewhat abbreviated, not containing "but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." The quote uses the exact wording of the Septuagint, but Hill notes that it is not an exact translation of the original Hebrew which has "everything" rather than "every word."
Gundry feels the author of Matthew added this section to emphasize Jesus' obedience to God.[2] Jones states that by replying with nothing but quotes from scripture, Jesus illustrates his "perfect detachment from everything except God's will."
Jesus rejects Satan's idea, and uses nothing but a word of scripture as his argument. France notes that God's word would not literally make up for not having any food. Instead it is a question of priority. If God instructed Jesus to fast in the desert, then it is that word that must be followed and it takes priority over any feelings such as hunger.
There are a number of explanations for why Satan attempted to have Jesus turn stones into bread and why it was important that Jesus refuse. The act of using God's powers to create bread is not in itself wrong, as demonstrated in Matthew 14 and 15 where Jesus actually does perform this miracle. In the Middle Ages it became common to argue that Satan was simply tempting Christ into gluttony. Most modern scholars do not accept this view. France notes that tempt should better be translated as test that Satan was testing Jesus' understanding of his role rather than luring him into evil. Jones notes that calling someone who has fasted for forty days gluttonous because they want food is not very fair. Most modern scholars thus reject the sin explanation.
Another view that was popular for a time was that this represented Jesus rejecting the role of the "economic messiah," that in this verse he demonstrates that it is not his role to feed the hungry of the world, but rather to provide spiritual sustenance. The most popular view today is that this passage echoes the history of Israel. The quote itself comes from the part of the Old Testament describing the period after the Exodus when the Israelites were wandering hungry in the wilderness and complaining about their hunger. This verse is seen to demonstrate that Jesus does not make the same mistake they did and accepts that God will ensure his safety.
Metaphorical extensions
The phrase "Man shall not live by bread alone" is today a common expression meaning that people need more than material things to truly live. However, it is also sometimes used in almost the opposite sense to justify material luxuries beyond simple things like bread.
End of excerpts
From : Wikipedia: Matthew 4:4
~ ~ ~ ~
here's another verse he uses in that chapter:
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
The way wierwille had handled this verse – it was to mean out of all of the works of God’s creation the greatest of His works is His Word – and he likens it to God’s signature on a check – He guarantees it. I don’t have a real problem with that other than the misguided attitude it led me into. In my TWI years of involvement, there was almost like a disconnect in my head, thinking it was so important to “master” what the Bible says on a subject – rather than being thankful that God is always faithful to deliver on His promises. Other translations reflect as much:
I bow before your holy Temple as I worship. I praise your name for your unfailing love and faithfulness; for your promises are backed by all the honor of your name. Psalm 138:2 NLT
I will bow down toward Your holy temple And give thanks to Your name for Your mercy and Your truth; For You have made Your word great according to all Your name. Psalm 138:2 NASB
I will bow down toward Your holy temple and give thanks to Your name for Your constant love and truth. You have exalted Your name and Your promise above everything else. Psalm 138:2 HCSB
We’re all familiar with the phrase so and so is man or woman of their word. What does that mean? That person keeps their promises, they can be trusted. It’s not that the Bible is book of incantations, spells, charms, enchantments or bewitchery – like a magical formula intended to trigger a magical effect on a person or objects – a formula that can be spoken in affirmations, sung or chanted.
Some of us might need to stop being so materialistic in how we view the promises of God. When I was in TWI, I tended to plug in a specific thing when looking at promises in the Bible – more money, new car, better job, etc. But now I’m still learning to be a lot more flexible – and leave it up to God to see how to work out the answer to my prayers. The promise is God answers prayer – that’s basically it. It doesn’t mean He’s always going to answer my requests the way I think He should.
Notice the emphasis in the following passages in Romans 8 – the Spirit helps us – oftentimes we don’t know what specifics to pray for - but the Spirit does and intercedes according to God’s will – and God causes all things to work together so our prayers are conveniently answered – nope ! It doesn’t say that. Many times there’s a long stretch of trouble before things get worked out God’s way – often preachers will refer to Joseph’s hard road up to Genesis 50 - when he says his brothers’ betrayal of selling him into slavery, God eventually worked out for the good of Joseph and his people – so read the following with a more open mind of patience and trust in God being a person of His word is about:
26 In the same way the Spirit [comes to us and] helps us in our weakness. We do not know what prayer to offer or how to offer it as we should, but the Spirit Himself [knows our need and at the right time] intercedes on our behalf with sighs and groanings too deep for words. 27 And He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because the Spirit intercedes [before God] on behalf of God’s people in accordance with God’s will.
28 And we know [with great confidence] that God [who is deeply concerned about us] causes all things to work together [as a plan] for good for those who love God, to those who are called according to His plan and purpose. Romans 8: 26 – 28 Amplified
~ ~ ~ ~
On this last one, notice it says through the knowledge of him – it does not say through the knowledge of the Bible. There suggests a relationship with a person. Certainly knowledge of what’s in the Bible can help…and contrary to wierwille saying in the class the Bible is not an aid to devotion - that’s exactly what it is – for I think we are invited to love God…of course we will develop a certain affection for the Bible too – because we may see it as a personal message form someone who loves us very much. I’m including more of the context so we can see a number of qualities we are to include in our faith development:
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. II Peter 1:3 – 8 KJV
PFAL is promoted as a class to learn about the Bible - but it actually pushes a pseudointellectualism * with the Bible - it's faking an intellectual capacity to be appealing to others - and eclipses the importance of a dynamic relationship with Christ
* Pseudointellectualism - see Quora: What is pseudointellectualism
Edited by T-BoneThe Hyperlink-A-Nator has struck again
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
We should be approaching 90, I think. I meant to call out Chock on it, but there was too much bullshonta at the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I'm working on a subset of 34 - if you check out the quote - and by the way - let me finishe editing I have a bunch of hyperlinks to add...I'm aware of what numbers we're up to so thanks
I don't really care about the numbering - we'd have a lot more items if I individualized each sucky point
- but I like doing subsets to show a relation to another point - and that's just me being my anal-retentive self 
everyone is free to post as they see fit - without having a fit about it
Edited by T-Bonereorganized
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
777. PFAL might suck. But the Bible doesn't suck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
that's the last straw
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Oh. I see what you’re doing. It wasn’t initially clear to me. I like your subsets. Most of the points could benefit from expansion.
Not being anal, it just looks that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
90. The teacher discourages the use of cognitive skills
Here’s an excerpt from page 103 of The New Dynamic Church, chapter 9, Speaking in Tongues,:
No one can go any further than he himself has been taught, and a teacher can teach no more than he knows. If you want to help someone else, first you yourself must be helped; otherwise, the blind lead the blind and they both stumble around. One of the darkest spots of understanding in the Bible concerns the Holy Spirit, both the Giver and the gift of holy spirit. Let us no longer be blind. Let us study God’s Word to understand His will.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
This point might get into a few subsets – some ideas in this chapter as well as the topic of speaking in tongues have been milling about in my head for years ( here's visual aid of inside my head -
- 
) …won’t get into it much on this post…just thought I’d lead with this since, for me, since the most tantalizing aspect of PFAL is the bait that wierwille led me to think he would cure my “spiritual blindness” if you will.
One of the most insidious ideas that runs through PFAL is stated in plain sight – in the first sentence of the above excerpt.
On a Sunday Night Teaching Tape titled Carnal Versus Spiritual wierwille makes some fascinating goofball statements without any pertinent Scripture references to support his claims. Here are some of his wildly exciting claims:
1. Psychologists talk about the subconscious…they’ve never been there…it’s actually the mind of the spirit.
2. All learning comes by way of the five senses…When you’re born again you now have another avenue of learning…In Galatians 1, Paul said he did not receive the gospel from any man, nor was he taught it – he received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ…
3. It’s Christ behind every cell of your being…even behind your brain cells.
4. All the great discoveries and inventions come by way of the spirit – revelation.
5. It’s not because you have such a high IQ – it’s because God has such a high IQ.
6. Countries without Christ do not invent.
Apparently wierwille had a very low opinion of a human being’s cognitive skills…If I had to guess why he felt that way – I’d say it’s probably because he was lazy and incompetent – I mean, why else would he plagiarize so much? To be honest, I have a very low opinion of wierwille’s cognitive skills...Also, I’d like to point out in point # 2 and point # 4, wierwille equates the revelation of the gospel – a metaphysical truth, with discoveries and inventions – scientific truth.
Since I left TWI, I have grown to appreciate the freedom I have in relating faith to reason. Having a rigid mindset is far worse than being wrong. So many things are unknown – and if I don’t think I have the last word – a definitive or conclusive answer on something – then I leave that particular belief in a constant state of flux. What is a state of flux? It means that I leave a certain idea in “…a state of uncertainty about what should be done (usually following some important event) preceding the establishment of a new direction of action.” From Quora - which brings me mention the acid. For me the important event was realizing that a lot of the theology and practical advice that TWI promoted was bogus – and had very little viable information. For me 12 years of TWI-lifestyle become so repetitive and frustrating. Some may feel that describes where they’re at right now – then maybe they should take the acid test. Come to terms with reality – be honest with yourself - reengage your cognitive skills and emotional intelligence.
~ ~ ~ ~
I anticipate covering speaking in tongues and this chapter 9 & possibly 10 in several follow up posts.
In the meantime - all Grease Spotters please feel free to contribute anything appropriate to this thread topic Why PFAL sucks – and of course you’re also welcome to key off this post and my follow-up posts on speaking in tongues.
Edited by T-Boneadd emojis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
91. Because all the SIT at the same time as the dividing off from Christs body makes you always needing more cowbell.
SNL interpretation according to usage
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Are you planning to write it in glossolalia first and then follow with an English interpretation? Or, do you intend to only provide the English and let someone else provide the glossolalia interpretation?
Either way, your prologue has whetted this appetite.
Meanwhile, I'll wipe my a$$ with victor's claim number 6.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
6. Countries without Christ do not invent.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Love it ! One of my all time favs of SNL "I'm Bruce Dickenson, baby cock-a-the-walk"
Hey - I saw a poster of Christopher Walkens in window of hair salon it said Walkens welcome
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’ll probably be more conventional and point out wierwille’s misinterpretations of Scripture and his bogus speech-mechanics prep…I’ll probably slip in some other sources…
Meanwhile you might enjoy this video – John MacArthur, author of Charismatic Chaos, mistakenly gets invited to speak at a huge Charismatic’s conference
(whoever lined up the speakers probably didn’t know of MacArthur’s views and he thought they wanted to hear the other side – both groups figured the other side were starting to come around – this interview is hilarious to watch)...anyway here's the video
John MacArthur explains why tongues is easy to falsify in an ignorant environment
FYI: I like John MacArthur and have a number of his books, commentaries and study Bible...I like him because he's sharp in his theology - he's a tough conservative evangelical type - so he doesn't get sloppy in his hermeneutics and is usually solid in his logic
But I’ll let everyone know right now – my stance on the matter – I believe I faked it and I will get into that later on in this thread. When I first left TWI – I was leaning strongly toward cessationism but in the last few years I’ve softened up – and think the nine manifestations are possible today - there's other abilities too if you check out near the end of Romans– but it’s up to the Spirit to do the distributing – not some Betamax video tape of PFAL !...don’t anyone get nervous – if you’ve really got something don’t let my two-bit analysis shake you – if it works for you than keep on with the keeping on.
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
a most excellent counterargument! thanks Nathan !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Damn, that was good. Every minute.
People have been speaking in tongues, and also faking it, for thousands of years. Long before Paul and the Montanists. It is proof only of itself. Nothing more. It is nothing to be proud of. If it can be taught, it's not the real deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Nice content T Bone. That video is super enlightening on the cowbell movement. No wait I mean the cymbal and gong movement. No wrong again the Charismatic Movement.
For me on the SIT topic I’m not that interested in hyper analyzing my past. I’ve been a seeking Christian praying. I’ve been a band leader of a cowbell orchestra.
I kinda think the Corinthians section is like a package deal.
But then again I don’t have Astro Physicists inviting me to teach them the Bible in my spare time on free will and gifts and absent Christ and deterministic foreknowledge being a license to sin either.
Too old and tired for that bullshonta anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
92. Students develop a false confidence in wierwille’s ideas
When I first took PFAL, there was great anticipation and anxiety building toward the session when wierwille would “lead us into receiving the holy spirit” – speaking in tongues. I worried that I might not have the believing to receive it. But I hung in there because I wanted that unshakeable confidence that wierwille talked about – “when you speak in tongues you’ll know that you know, that you know that you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going.”
~ ~ ~ ~
Have you ever wondered what faith is all about?
for we walk by faith, not by sight [living our lives in a manner consistent with our confident belief in God’s promises] II Corinthians 5:7 Amplified
One commentary on this verse says:
For we walk by faith, not by sight—Better, and not by what we see (or, by appearance). It seems almost sad to alter the wording of a familiar and favourite text, but it must be admitted that the word translated “sight” never means the faculty of seeing, but always the form and fashion of the thing seen. (Comp. Luke 3:22; Luke 9:29; John 5:37.) The fact is taken for granted; and it comes as the proof that as we are, we are absent from the Lord. Now we believe in Him without seeing Him; hereafter we shall see Him face to face. Our life and conduct and our “walk” in this world rest on our belief in the Unseen.
From : Bible Hub: II Corinthians 5:7 commentary
~ ~ ~ ~
I’m not a philosopher or theologian. I’m a technician by trade – it comes natural to me – I guess because I’ve always been fascinated by how things work. Not that I always could figure out how something worked – but you know a typical kid’s mentality - it couldn’t hurt to try. Even as a kid growing up in a Roman Catholic home, I remember having these “think-about-it-sessions” on metaphysical matters. Where was heaven? What does God look like? Does God really exist?
That last question was a dandy. I was troubled with that one day - after a ride home on the school bus – during which I overheard some older kids talking about their dads dressing up to be Santa. Since I still believed there was a real Santa Claus – my belief system was shaken to the core.
Thus, began sporadic think-about-it-sessions over whether God existed. Which would then prompt me to go to mom and dad. I never asked them about the legend of Santa – I went straight for the question of all questions – how do you know if God exists?
Mom’s response came from a life filled with challenges – her dad a widower and fisherman by trade – she was often being looked after by relatives and boarding schools. She talked about having a trust in God – that He was always there with her. Mom always seemed anchored – nothing seemed to shake her. I still remember the calming effect just being around her – like sitting by a gentle stream and listening to the water move around the rocks and brush by the shoreline.
Dad’s response came out of a tough life too – a medic in the war, got 2 Purple Hearts. He was technical-minded too – probably where I got it from. For a time was a shop foreman at a Bulova factory. He suffered from PTSD related to the war – but there wasn’t that much awareness of it as there is now. He could tough it out with the best of them. He would often call my attention to the beauty and wonder of nature – and like mom he felt that God is always with us – tending to His wonderful creations big and small.
~ ~ ~ ~
I still have think-about-it-sessions on a wide variety of topics. But not about whether God exists. When you come right down to it – there is no way to prove in the existence or non-existence of God. I think it’s something we each have to figure out for ourselves…Leaving TWI was one of the most trying times in my life. Because what was at stake was a childhood faith that has gotten me through some really big messes that I made.
During my slow exit from a harmful and controlling cult like The Way International, there was that “faith thing” that anchored me to something intangible – and there was that “tech thing” that kept driving me to figure out how this Christian life is supposed to work.
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29 because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law. Matthew 7
~ ~ ~ ~
As I leave behind the bogus tenets of a cult, I find my faith deepens as I focus on what truly matters in my personal belief system. In the Christian faith – Jesus Christ is at the center of it. I aim to know more about Him. I read a great book – faith affirming - The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona. It got me to think like an historian or lawyer would studying a past event or a case – looking at the evidence, probabilities, testimonies – of even hostile witnesses.
If you think about the evangelizing efforts of the early church – it was simple. They didn’t formulate catechisms, Bible classes, discipling programs…They didn’t have a cookie cutter mentality of expecting everyone to experience Christianity the way they did. They just preached about Jesus Christ offering Himself to be our Savior from sin and death and God raising Him from the dead, and now Jesus Christ is Lord - He has supremacy over all creation and has promised to be with us always in a personal relationship of love.
Edited by T-Bonecan you believe it? I edited this post myself!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I feel faith in most of it's uses in scripture is simply talking about trusting God and taking him at his word in spite of the fact that what we see seems contrary to his promises. So - faith = trust. It's the least that God requires of us...that we trust/believe him at his word. Its a concept that has been redefined multiple times through the years and wierwille ran with that ball with the law of believing stuff he promoted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
92. Ethical dilemmas…..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
93. a cult-leader’s teachings become law
There are clearly stated “rules” in PFAL: 1. To receive anything from God you must know what is available, 2. Know how to receive it…etc.
There’s also many words-of-“wisdom”-one-liners that get parroted in groupthink that effectively get massaged into a priori assumptions. For example, “You can’t go beyond what you’re taught” over time becomes “Thou shall not deviate from what wierwille says.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
94. It puts Jesus Christ in a box
While that is convenient for fast food lunches and compartmentalization he really wants to get outta there.
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.