18. The spiritual and intellectual retardation required to claim four crucified.
19. Four hours of content held forth over 36 hours.
95. wierwille uses repetition, plagiarized material, and lots of bull-Shonta to lengthen the class
To illustrate if it were to be used on this thread: Four hours of content held forth over 36 hours ...Thus PFAL suckage # 19 becomes "bored-again" as PFAL suckage # 95. What’s old is new again…or there’s nothing new under wierwille’s “ministry”zzzZZZ
But if I didn’t quote Nathan_Jr , I could also use the claim-without-proof-trick: I wish you could see # 95 in the original.
Another option – refer to the ancient Piece-of-Shonta text: For this purpose, was I spared an original thought.
Last but not least option or two :nicely ask “the teacher” to repeat the material – but ask in tongues:
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
Picking back up in chapter 9, Speaker in Tongues, in the green book titled The New Dynamic Church, on page 103 :
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.
First of all let us clarify that God is Holy Spirit. When a person is born again, God gives to His new son a gift. And since God is Holy Spirit, He can only give what He is – holy spirit. To help distinguish between God the Giver and His gift, The Giver, Holy Spirit, is always capitalized while His gift, holy spirit, is not.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
This brings me to my next point of why PFAL sucks…
97. wierwille’s tendency to particularize the nebulous, the mysterious, the unknowable, and the incomprehensible
If there’s one thing that comes with the territory of being a harmful and controlling cult-leader it’s having an affinity for sounding authoritative. Tangents that touch on the inherent vagueness of many topics like God, the Holy Spirit, heaven, hell, demonology were areas in which wierwille would have a field day.
I left TWI in ’86 and immediately dived deep into a bunch of biblical topics that I suspected wierwille had mishandled. One that I am still working on is The Holy Spirit. I may share more on this another time and place as I figure out what I’m doing-- but point # 97 touches a sensitive nerve with me – so at this point I’d just like to tentatively put forth a theory – When the Bible speaks of The Holy Spirit, The Spirit, the work of the Holy Spirit in the church in general and in believers individually it is always in regards to The Holy Spirit – God.
I don't see any biblical reasons to refer to the spirit being like a car battery powering the manifestations. Nor any of the other dubious articulating that wierwille did to draw a distinction from something in the Bible that is rather nebulous - Holy Spirit. Also keep in mind the culture and worldview of these ancient writers - something I touched on in another thread in doctrinal - here .
I’m not really looking to get into a discussion over the Trinity about this right now – but if anyone wants to bring up pet verses that wierwille used to suggest it was talking about an attribute, quality or power that resides in us or has been given to us that is separate from the Holy Spirit – God, I’m okay with discussing that since I have reviewed a lot of wierwille’s pet verses from a different perspective.
I’m leaving a few hyperlinks below – the books I’ve listed are the ones I own and have been reviewing those for a while – if you happen to have any of them you can refer to the pages, I give so you know what I’ve been looking at. The hyperlinks below my books are to various websites that get into this…FYI – what I’ve noticed I my search is that most sites are Trinitarian. I’ve included one link from Unitarians – and the article has a reference to Bullinger’s work on the Giver and the Gift…anyway…have fun – I’d appreciate any feedback or input appropriate to point # 97…
since God is Holy Spirit, He can only give what He is – holy spirit.
Not to mention, a planet stuffed full of nice things useful to a human being, like food, drink, etc. Also, rivers and mountains, forests, animals, fish. And then, a sun and a moon. And a few stars. (Okay, a few billion of those.) You get the gist.
None of these seems to me to be particularly intangible "holy spirit" but on the contrary, very physical objects.
So, working backwards, would that make God some sort of objective, solid, tangible, entity? Because if God can only give what he is, something solid, tangible, then God too must be objectively viewable, solid and tangible, no?
I’ve been reviewing both my RTHST and TNDC for several posts on this thread, and I can tell you right off the bat, wierwille beats around the bush in RTHST, he goes off on his stupid redefinitions of Greek words dechomai and lambano more than any details on HOW to speak in tongues.
However, in the green book, The New Dynamic Church, in chapter 10 How to Speak in Tongues on page 117 wierwille says the following:
Have you ever thought through the mechanics of speech? You with your own vocal organs have to do the speaking. The same mechanics that are involved in speaking English or any other known language are involved in speaking in tongues…
…The only difference between speaking in tongues and speaking in English is that when I say, “I love the Lord Jesus Christ,” I have to think. When I speak in tongues I do not think the words I speak. God gives the words to my spirit, and I formulate them on my lips. I do not think the words, but they are there when I move my lips, my throat, my tongue.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
My critique of wierwille’s above instructions involves my earlier post -here
97. wierwille’s tendency to particularize the nebulous, the mysterious, the unknowable, and the incomprehensible
wierwille’s description of the mechanics and process of speaking in tongues is typical of his affinity to delineate the inexplicable. Although he's actually just describing the mechanics of speech - a student's imagination can assume God is supplying the words.
He is describing very fine motor skills that any adult who speaks a language is very familiar with. Read the hyperlinks I have below.
The trick that wierwille pulls on students is to get them to loosen up on inhibitions.
Once a person gets over the fear of making a fool of themself – it’s easy to speak gibberish in front of others. Just use all the parts of speech you use when speaking in your language - except don't think about the sounds you are making...in high school I use to be good at mimicking Russian and Chinese - and my friends said it sounded real.
One must still engage the brain to think of how to form the lips, tongue, how much to open or close the vocal folds, etc. – if the vocal folds close completely – air cannot pass through. This is called a glottal stop. Many languages utilize the glottal stop to produce consonant sounds.
The most basic principle of speech production is that all sounds are produced by moving air. Air moves from the lungs to the mouth via the throat. The vocal folds (or vocal cords) vibrate as needed. (More on this below) And then the articulators (mouth, lips, tongue, cheek, palate, etc.) shape specific sounds.
Why do we need to be taught how to speak in tongues? If it’s something of God – we shouldn’t have to be taught. It’s like wierwille’s bogus Great Principle – God who is Spirit, teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit and blah dee blah blah…where is that stated in the Bible?
24. Disparages intuition, emotions, and cognitive skills.
A. promotes a rigid decision-making process based on what he says are the priorities
B. teaches people to expect to get revelation on a regular basis
C. He teaches "The Word" has priority over reason.
On 10/20/2022 at 3:09 AM, Twinky said:
27. Creates DIS-harmony in the home.
A. Causes friction and division between family members.
B. Allows and expects secrets between family members.
C. Promotes infidelity.
D. Promotes coercive control.
E. Promotes abortion.
F. Permits rape.
On 10/20/2022 at 10:56 AM, chockfull said:
46. Establishes a shipwreck of the family faith mindset that prevents cross organizational collaboration with other Christians.
47. Teaches a Christ in you concept that resembles an Iron Man suit - extrapolating a simple metaphor into a problematic doctrine of control as opposed to submitting one’s self to a Savior and Lord.
On 11/1/2022 at 6:38 PM, T-Bone said:
(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.
98. PFAL is a cult-leader’s playbook to maintain control
Taking note of an underlying theme in the posts I quoted, the tool of divisiveness is essential to control; there are numerous examples from history of warring empires, politics, sociology, religion, the work place, etc.:
Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power divisively. Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories.
However, it has been hard to distinguish between the exploitation of pre-existing divisions by opponents, and the deliberate creation or strengthening of these divisions implied by "divide and rule"…
…The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose its rule. Niccolò Machiavelli identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of The Art of War (1521)…a Captain should endeavor with every act to divide the forces of the enemy. Machiavelli advises that this act should be achieved either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker…
…The maxim divide et impera has been attributed to Philip II of Macedon. It was utilised by the Roman ruler Julius Caesar and the French emperor Napoleon (together with the maxim divide ut regnes)…
In economics, the concept is also mentioned as a strategy for market segmentation to get the most out of the players in a competitive market…
Psychopathy in the workplace - Clive R. Boddy found that "divide and conquer" was a common strategy by corporate psychopaths used as a smokescreen to help consolidate and advance their grip on power in the corporate hierarchy…
Picking back up in chapter 9, Speaker in Tongues, in the green book titled The New Dynamic Church, on page 103 :
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.
First of all let us clarify that God is Holy Spirit. When a person is born again, God gives to His new son a gift. And since God is Holy Spirit, He can only give what He is – holy spirit. To help distinguish between God the Giver and His gift, The Giver, Holy Spirit, is always capitalized while His gift, holy spirit, is not.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
This brings me to my next point of why PFAL sucks…
97. wierwille’s tendency to particularize the nebulous, the mysterious, the unknowable, and the incomprehensible
If there’s one thing that comes with the territory of being a harmful and controlling cult-leader it’s having an affinity for sounding authoritative. Tangents that touch on the inherent vagueness of many topics like God, the Holy Spirit, heaven, hell, demonology were areas in which wierwille would have a field day.
I left TWI in ’86 and immediately dived deep into a bunch of biblical topics that I suspected wierwille had mishandled. One that I am still working on is The Holy Spirit. I may share more on this another time and place as I figure out what I’m doing-- but point # 97 touches a sensitive nerve with me – so at this point I’d just like to tentatively put forth a theory – When the Bible speaks of The Holy Spirit, The Spirit, the work of the Holy Spirit in the church in general and in believers individually it is always in regards to The Holy Spirit – God.
I don't see any biblical reasons to refer to the spirit being like a car battery powering the manifestations. Nor any of the other dubious articulating that wierwille did to draw a distinction from something in the Bible that is rather nebulous - Holy Spirit. Also keep in mind the culture and worldview of these ancient writers - something I touched on in another thread in doctrinal - here .
I’m not really looking to get into a discussion over the Trinity about this right now – but if anyone wants to bring up pet verses that wierwille used to suggest it was talking about an attribute, quality or power that resides in us or has been given to us that is separate from the Holy Spirit – God, I’m okay with discussing that since I have reviewed a lot of wierwille’s pet verses from a different perspective.
I’m leaving a few hyperlinks below – the books I’ve listed are the ones I own and have been reviewing those for a while – if you happen to have any of them you can refer to the pages, I give so you know what I’ve been looking at. The hyperlinks below my books are to various websites that get into this…FYI – what I’ve noticed I my search is that most sites are Trinitarian. I’ve included one link from Unitarians – and the article has a reference to Bullinger’s work on the Giver and the Gift…anyway…have fun – I’d appreciate any feedback or input appropriate to point # 97…
the author suggests we define the work of the Holy Spirit is to manifest the active presence of God in the world, and now especially in the church. In the Old Testament the presence of God was many times manifested in the glory of God, in theophanies (like the cloud and fire during Israelites’ journey in the wilderness), the tabernacle, the temple and of course certain individuals who had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit – and in the Gospels Jesus Christ Himself manifested the presence of God among men. After Pentecost, the Holy Spirit and the immanency of the risen Christ are often considered primary indicators of God’s presence in the church.
Also wanted to add a few more hyperlinks on the Hoy Spirit in the OT and NT:
Here’s something else from Grudem’s Systematic Theology that makes me want to rethink what little I do know about the Holy Spirit…btw getting out of wierwille’s little theological box can be a real mindblower, don’t ya know!
In the realm of nature, it is the role of the Holy Spirit to give life to all animate creatures, whether on the ground or in the sky and sea, for “When you send forth your Spirit, they are created” (Ps. 104:30). Conversely, if God “should take back his spirit to himself, and gather to himself his breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust” (Job 34:14 - 15). Here we see the role of the Spirit in the giving and sustaining of human and animal life.
Parallel with this is the role of the Holy Spirit to give us new life in regeneration. Jesus told Nicodemus, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew (John 3:6 – 7; cf. vv. 5, 8; 6:63; 2 Cor. 3:6). He also said, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63 NASB; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6; Acts 10: 44 – 47; Titus 3:5).
Consistent with this life-giving function of the Holy Spirit is the fact that it was the Holy Spirit who conceived Jesus in the womb of Mary his mother (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). And on the day when Christ returns, it is the same Holy Spirit who will complete this life-giving work by giving new resurrection life to our mortal bodies: “if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you” (Rom. 8:11).
I took up the issue, from penworks' post, and asserted that the Bible interpreting itself is a good and useful teaching in the PFAL class.
How is that diversionary?
...other than disagreeing with the initial post of this thread....
Does all disagreement strike you as diversionary?
Are we supposed to me in march-step here like the Nazi Corps?
just for the record there is NOTHING good in PFAL.
wierwille teaching the Bible interprets itself is nonsensical !
PFAL used a bait-and-switch ploy to sucker people in
wierwille used pseudo-Christian ideas and biblical sounding phrases to convince people all was legit. But it was a lot of doubletalk solely for the purpose of pushing his interpretation of the Bible.
I like the Socratic method for getting down to the essentials of what the issues are - but you acting like a troll has NOTHING to do with the thread topic - it's all about you and promoting the "bait" used in PFAL.
Just for the record, and not because I side with Mike, by definition I disagree with your claim, brother, that there's nothing good in PFLAP.
It would be extremely difficult to sell the concept if it was ALL bad. However, I agree with you that overall, PFLAP is not good. Too much wrong with it.
just for the record there is NOTHING good in PFAL.
wierwille teaching the Bible interprets itself is nonsensical !
PFAL used a bait-and-switch ploy to sucker people in
wierwille used pseudo-Christian ideas and biblical sounding phrases to convince people all was legit. But it was a lot of doubletalk solely for the purpose of pushing his interpretation of the Bible.
I like the Socratic method for getting down to the essentials of what the issues are - but you acting like a troll has NOTHING to do with the thread topic - it's all about you and promoting the "bait" used in PFAL.
To be clear - there's NOTHING good in PFAL
5 minutes ago, Rocky said:
Just for the record, and not because I side with Mike, by definition I disagree with your claim, brother, that there's nothing good in PFLAP.
It would be extremely difficult to sell the concept if it was ALL bad. However, I agree with you that overall, PFLAP is not good. Too much wrong with it.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
There is so much wrong in PFLAP that the attempt to justify what might be right yields diminishing returns. Let's say 1% of PFAL is good. The effort required to parse the material and sift it down to that 1% seems, well, misguided at best and ultimately futile.
Whatever might be good has already been and continues to be taught by millions of others.
It's all bad, and the 1% that is good doesn't change that.
There is so much wrong in PFLAP that the attempt to justify what might be right yields diminishing returns. Let's say 1% of PFAL is good. The effort required to parse the material and sift it down to that 1% seems, well, misguided at best and ultimately futile.
Whatever might be good has already been and continues to be taught by millions of others.
It's all bad, and the 1% that is good doesn't change that.
I agree with Rocky that it wasn't all bad...if it were who would ever take the bait? Now, that's not to say (and I know Rocky didn't mean this either) that we need PFLAP because there is some good in it...not at all...a little leaven...yeah the entire thing is corrupt. But is it all bad, or even all untrue? Nope...there are many things there that are true, but the corruption causes the entire work to be worthless.
There is so much wrong in PFLAP that the attempt to justify what might be right yields diminishing returns. Let's say 1% of PFAL is good. The effort required to parse the material and sift it down to that 1% seems, well, misguided at best and ultimately futile.
Whatever might be good has already been and continues to be taught by millions of others.
It's all bad, and the 1% that is good doesn't change that.
Just for the record, and not because I side with Mike, by definition I disagree with your claim, brother, that there's nothing good in PFLAP.
It would be extremely difficult to sell the concept if it was ALL bad. However, I agree with you that overall, PFLAP is not good. Too much wrong with it.
yeah - I usually refrain from using absolutes - you have a good point - let me elaborate on my reasoning. Regarding the bait-and-switch concept - for the sake of brevity, I consider whatever was "good" in PFAL is merely the attractant. For example - wierwille opens the class talking about Jesus Christ. It's like a deceptive sales ad though - because wierwille presents a materialistic Jesus Christ - the more than abundant life available to Christians who are envious of the prosperity that unbelievers have. So - you can look at it a number of ways - he talks about Jesus Christ that's good - but then wierwille pivots to pursuing material abundance through the principles we can learn in the class - that's bad.
Another deviation is wierwille teaching "the Word" takes the place of the absent Christ - and students are unaware that "the Word" is what wierwille says it is - i.e., his interpretation of the Bible. so, in effect what wierwille says takes the place of the authority...the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
I mean - how far do you want to go to qualify how bad PFAL is? Books of Peter, Timothy, Titus, Corinthians, Galatians all speak of the danger of false teachers introducing heresies. I don't see any directives in the Bible that say we're to salvage or reform heresies. When Jesus talked of the bad fruit from bad trees - He didn't say to reform or salvage the bad tree...but hey, this is all a matter of opinion by everyone - me included...
my thinking is if something is that bad why try to cannibalize it for parts - what's the point?
I didn't throw out Jesus Christ when I left TWI. I got rid of the tendency to marginalize Jesus Christ as I was taught to do so by wierwille in PFAL....A personal relationship with Jesus Christ is more important to me than PFAL, systematic theology, philosophy, etc. I might use some ideas from any of that to help unpack deep subjects - yeah and usually when I refer to PFAL for that reason it's "okay, here's what it is NOT".
~ ~ ~ ~
also, I should add I understand your intention is not to side with Mike. I get that. and I'm of the opinion most things have some merit - even if you have to do some digging. But in dealing with Mike, I've noticed if you give him an inch, he takes a yard...His comeback is "aha - you validated PFAL"...uhm no - that's not it. I've noticed when you try to talk turkey with him - you wind up getting into his pork-barrel-agreements for his pet theories and his trying to get you to make concessions on other "good" things about PFAL...Earlier on this thread Mike was arguing for the silly PFAL idea that the Bible interprets itself...it's kinda hard to take Mike seriously when he endorses any of wierwille's idiotic ideas. It's difficult to follow the Socratic method of thoughtful debate with someone who usually has a PFAL-scripted-response to almost everything.
~ ~ ~ ~
this has given me the idea for point # 99 of why PFAL sucks - stay tuned
I understood your point when you first said it. But as you noted, speaking in absolutes can be misleading to readers who don't immediately pick up on your message.
I understood your point when you first said it. But as you noted, speaking in absolutes can be misleading to readers who don't immediately pick up on your message.
cool - I'm glad you brought it up though - never hurts to clarify
99. PFAL misleads students to think that the class is the touchstone for truth
What is a touchstone? Technically it’s a piece of fine-grained dark schist or jasper formerly used for testing alloys of gold by observing the color of the mark which they made on it…metaphorically it’s a standard or criterion by which something is judged or recognized; synonyms are criterion · standard · yardstick · benchmark · barometer · litmus test · indicator · indication · measure · point of reference · norm · gauge · reference · test · guide · guideline · exemplar · model · pattern.
I remember an old Way Magazine article written by LCM – in it he said PFAL is the touchstone for truth. Do you remember one of the claims on the back of the green PFAL sign-up card - enables you to separate truth from error. Think about it – we’re up to point # 99 of why PFAL sucks and a lot of these ideas revolve around the inability to distinguish fact from falsehood. Does the Bible interpret itself? Of course not! Is there a law of believing that enables you to manipulate reality? Nope! Are Christians supposed to tithe? Uh-uh!
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
waysider
Yes, I'd like one order of the "Where's the Exit?" to go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Okay - that's one order of mark and avoid
and ...do you want fried cognitive skills with that?
Edited by T-Boneeditor will mark and avoid typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
95. wierwille uses repetition, plagiarized material, and lots of bull-Shonta to lengthen the class
To illustrate if it were to be used on this thread: Four hours of content held forth over 36 hours ...Thus PFAL suckage # 19 becomes "bored-again" as PFAL suckage # 95. What’s old is new again…or there’s nothing new under wierwille’s “ministry”zzzZZZ
But if I didn’t quote Nathan_Jr , I could also use the claim-without-proof-trick: I wish you could see # 95 in the original.
Another option – refer to the ancient Piece-of-Shonta text: For this purpose, was I spared an original thought.
Last but not least option or two : nicely ask “the teacher” to repeat the material – but ask in tongues:
veuillez répéter
or
tongues with interpretation:
veuillez répéter … and know my children, please repeat the same gibberish I say
or
French Interlinear Text:
*veuillez répéter
[please] repeat
*veuillez not in the original newsletters to way corps
Edited by T-Boneveuillez répéter typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
96. PFAL relies on faulty logic and fantastic claims
To illustrate if that was used on this thread it would look like this:
The reason PFAL sucks is because PFAL sucks
Or
God told me to tell you that PFAL sucks
Or
God told me to tell you that PFAL sucks. I said to Him, if that’s really true can you make it rain in Columbia…and it’s five o’clock somewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Picking back up in chapter 9, Speaker in Tongues, in the green book titled The New Dynamic Church, on page 103 :
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.
First of all let us clarify that God is Holy Spirit. When a person is born again, God gives to His new son a gift. And since God is Holy Spirit, He can only give what He is – holy spirit. To help distinguish between God the Giver and His gift, The Giver, Holy Spirit, is always capitalized while His gift, holy spirit, is not.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
This brings me to my next point of why PFAL sucks…
97. wierwille’s tendency to particularize the nebulous, the mysterious, the unknowable, and the incomprehensible
If there’s one thing that comes with the territory of being a harmful and controlling cult-leader it’s having an affinity for sounding authoritative. Tangents that touch on the inherent vagueness of many topics like God, the Holy Spirit, heaven, hell, demonology were areas in which wierwille would have a field day.
I left TWI in ’86 and immediately dived deep into a bunch of biblical topics that I suspected wierwille had mishandled. One that I am still working on is The Holy Spirit. I may share more on this another time and place as I figure out what I’m doing - - but point # 97 touches a sensitive nerve with me – so at this point I’d just like to tentatively put forth a theory – When the Bible speaks of The Holy Spirit, The Spirit, the work of the Holy Spirit in the church in general and in believers individually it is always in regards to The Holy Spirit – God.
I don't see any biblical reasons to refer to the spirit being like a car battery powering the manifestations. Nor any of the other dubious articulating that wierwille did to draw a distinction from something in the Bible that is rather nebulous - Holy Spirit. Also keep in mind the culture and worldview of these ancient writers - something I touched on in another thread in doctrinal - here .
I’m not really looking to get into a discussion over the Trinity about this right now – but if anyone wants to bring up pet verses that wierwille used to suggest it was talking about an attribute, quality or power that resides in us or has been given to us that is separate from the Holy Spirit – God, I’m okay with discussing that since I have reviewed a lot of wierwille’s pet verses from a different perspective.
I’m leaving a few hyperlinks below – the books I’ve listed are the ones I own and have been reviewing those for a while – if you happen to have any of them you can refer to the pages, I give so you know what I’ve been looking at. The hyperlinks below my books are to various websites that get into this…FYI – what I’ve noticed I my search is that most sites are Trinitarian. I’ve included one link from Unitarians – and the article has a reference to Bullinger’s work on the Giver and the Gift…anyway…have fun – I’d appreciate any feedback or input appropriate to point # 97…
ladies and gentlemen here be dah hyperlinks:
My books:
See https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Theology-Millard-J-Erickson/dp/0801034337
pages 872ff the work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian and pages 877ff the miraculous gifts today
see https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Biblical-Doctrine/dp/0310286700
pages 634ff The work of the Holy Spirit
See https://www.amazon.com/Systematic-Theology-Introduction-Christian-Belief/dp/1596382171
Pages 923ff The Holy Spirit
See https://www.amazon.com/God-Love-Biblical-Systematic-Theology/dp/1433522691
Pages 213ff on Holy Spirit and pages 603ff the Holy Spirit and God’s people
~ ~ ~ ~
https://evidenceforchristianity.org/when-does-a-christian-receive-the-holy-spirit/
https://servantsofgrace.org/the-holy-spirit-and-the-christian/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Spirit
https://www.cru.org/us/en/train-and-grow/spiritual-growth/core-christian-beliefs/theological-perspective-on-the-holy-spirit.html
https://evidenceforchristianity.org/when-does-a-christian-receive-the-holy-spirit/
https://servantsofgrace.org/the-holy-spirit-and-the-christian/
https://slife.org/holy-spirit-in-christian-denominational-variations/
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/holy-spirit/the-giver-and-the-gift
Biblical Unitarian: The Giver and The Gift – with reference to Bullinger’s work
** ** ** **
pssst – that’s all folks
Edited by T-BoneThe Editor with a capital T and a capital E
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Not to mention, a planet stuffed full of nice things useful to a human being, like food, drink, etc. Also, rivers and mountains, forests, animals, fish. And then, a sun and a moon. And a few stars. (Okay, a few billion of those.) You get the gist.
None of these seems to me to be particularly intangible "holy spirit" but on the contrary, very physical objects.
So, working backwards, would that make God some sort of objective, solid, tangible, entity? Because if God can only give what he is, something solid, tangible, then God too must be objectively viewable, solid and tangible, no?
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
97.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’ve been reviewing both my RTHST and TNDC for several posts on this thread, and I can tell you right off the bat, wierwille beats around the bush in RTHST, he goes off on his stupid redefinitions of Greek words dechomai and lambano more than any details on HOW to speak in tongues.
However, in the green book, The New Dynamic Church, in chapter 10 How to Speak in Tongues on page 117 wierwille says the following:
Have you ever thought through the mechanics of speech? You with your own vocal organs have to do the speaking. The same mechanics that are involved in speaking English or any other known language are involved in speaking in tongues…
…The only difference between speaking in tongues and speaking in English is that when I say, “I love the Lord Jesus Christ,” I have to think. When I speak in tongues I do not think the words I speak. God gives the words to my spirit, and I formulate them on my lips. I do not think the words, but they are there when I move my lips, my throat, my tongue.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
My critique of wierwille’s above instructions involves my earlier post - here
97. wierwille’s tendency to particularize the nebulous, the mysterious, the unknowable, and the incomprehensible
wierwille’s description of the mechanics and process of speaking in tongues is typical of his affinity to delineate the inexplicable. Although he's actually just describing the mechanics of speech - a student's imagination can assume God is supplying the words.
He is describing very fine motor skills that any adult who speaks a language is very familiar with. Read the hyperlinks I have below.
The trick that wierwille pulls on students is to get them to loosen up on inhibitions.
Once a person gets over the fear of making a fool of themself – it’s easy to speak gibberish in front of others. Just use all the parts of speech you use when speaking in your language - except don't think about the sounds you are making...in high school I use to be good at mimicking Russian and Chinese - and my friends said it sounded real.
One must still engage the brain to think of how to form the lips, tongue, how much to open or close the vocal folds, etc. – if the vocal folds close completely – air cannot pass through. This is called a glottal stop. Many languages utilize the glottal stop to produce consonant sounds.
The most basic principle of speech production is that all sounds are produced by moving air. Air moves from the lungs to the mouth via the throat. The vocal folds (or vocal cords) vibrate as needed. (More on this below) And then the articulators (mouth, lips, tongue, cheek, palate, etc.) shape specific sounds.
Why do we need to be taught how to speak in tongues? If it’s something of God – we shouldn’t have to be taught. It’s like wierwille’s bogus Great Principle – God who is Spirit, teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit and blah dee blah blah…where is that stated in the Bible?
Some related hyperlinks I have below:
https://www.speechbuddy.com/blog/language-development/a-quick-primer-on-the-mechanics-of-speech/
https://prezi.com/p/ketszfrzz2ox/mechanic-and-process-of-speaking/
http://www.literary-articles.com/2012/03/mechanism-of-speech-process-and.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_skill
Organs of Speech – Literature and Humanities
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
98. PFAL is a cult-leader’s playbook to maintain control
Taking note of an underlying theme in the posts I quoted, the tool of divisiveness is essential to control; there are numerous examples from history of warring empires, politics, sociology, religion, the work place, etc.:
Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power divisively. Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories.
However, it has been hard to distinguish between the exploitation of pre-existing divisions by opponents, and the deliberate creation or strengthening of these divisions implied by "divide and rule"…
…The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose its rule. Niccolò Machiavelli identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of The Art of War (1521)…a Captain should endeavor with every act to divide the forces of the enemy. Machiavelli advises that this act should be achieved either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker…
…The maxim divide et impera has been attributed to Philip II of Macedon. It was utilised by the Roman ruler Julius Caesar and the French emperor Napoleon (together with the maxim divide ut regnes)…
In economics, the concept is also mentioned as a strategy for market segmentation to get the most out of the players in a competitive market…
Psychopathy in the workplace - Clive R. Boddy found that "divide and conquer" was a common strategy by corporate psychopaths used as a smokescreen to help consolidate and advance their grip on power in the corporate hierarchy…
From Wikipedia: divide and rule
~ ~ ~ ~
Circling back to the posts I quoted above – note the threefold strategy for isolating followers:
1. Promotes cognitive dissonance – isolation from reality
2. Dis-harmony in the home – promotes estrangement from family
3. Polarizing theology – TWI-followers are galvanized to dissent from all other Christian groups over doctrinal issues
Below are some hyperlinks that address the unhealthy aspect of isolation:
Isolation's Silent Role in the Teen Mental Health Crisis - Social isolation is contributing to anxiety, depression, and more for youth
The Dangers of Isolation
Isolation and mental health: thinking outside the box
Edited by T-Boneadding text and hyperlinks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Just wanted to mention some after thoughts from reading one of the books I mentioned earlier - Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem -
the author suggests we define the work of the Holy Spirit is to manifest the active presence of God in the world, and now especially in the church. In the Old Testament the presence of God was many times manifested in the glory of God, in theophanies (like the cloud and fire during Israelites’ journey in the wilderness), the tabernacle, the temple and of course certain individuals who had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit – and in the Gospels Jesus Christ Himself manifested the presence of God among men. After Pentecost, the Holy Spirit and the immanency of the risen Christ are often considered primary indicators of God’s presence in the church.
Also wanted to add a few more hyperlinks on the Hoy Spirit in the OT and NT:
Holy Spirit in the Old Testament: Upon or Within People? | Renewing Truth
What was the role of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament?
The Spirit and the Old Testament
Jesus' use of Spirit upon verse in Isaiah
The role of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
DID THE HOLY SPIRIT INDWELL ALL BELIEVERS DURING THE OLD TESTAMENT PERIOD?
Israel My Glory org: The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
Is the Holy Spirit the Same in the Old Testament? by G Campbell Morgan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Here’s something else from Grudem’s Systematic Theology that makes me want to rethink what little I do know about the Holy Spirit…btw getting out of wierwille’s little theological box can be a real mindblower, don’t ya know!
In the realm of nature, it is the role of the Holy Spirit to give life to all animate creatures, whether on the ground or in the sky and sea, for “When you send forth your Spirit, they are created” (Ps. 104:30). Conversely, if God “should take back his spirit to himself, and gather to himself his breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust” (Job 34:14 - 15). Here we see the role of the Spirit in the giving and sustaining of human and animal life.
Parallel with this is the role of the Holy Spirit to give us new life in regeneration. Jesus told Nicodemus, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew (John 3:6 – 7; cf. vv. 5, 8; 6:63; 2 Cor. 3:6). He also said, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63 NASB; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6; Acts 10: 44 – 47; Titus 3:5).
Consistent with this life-giving function of the Holy Spirit is the fact that it was the Holy Spirit who conceived Jesus in the womb of Mary his mother (Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). And on the day when Christ returns, it is the same Holy Spirit who will complete this life-giving work by giving new resurrection life to our mortal bodies: “if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you” (Rom. 8:11).
end of excerpt
From page 636 of Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Grudem
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
just for the record there is NOTHING good in PFAL.
wierwille teaching the Bible interprets itself is nonsensical !
PFAL used a bait-and-switch ploy to sucker people in
wierwille used pseudo-Christian ideas and biblical sounding phrases to convince people all was legit. But it was a lot of doubletalk solely for the purpose of pushing his interpretation of the Bible.
I like the Socratic method for getting down to the essentials of what the issues are - but you acting like a troll has NOTHING to do with the thread topic - it's all about you and promoting the "bait" used in PFAL.
To be clear - there's NOTHING good in PFAL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Just for the record, and not because I side with Mike, by definition I disagree with your claim, brother, that there's nothing good in PFLAP.
It would be extremely difficult to sell the concept if it was ALL bad. However, I agree with you that overall, PFLAP is not good. Too much wrong with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
There is so much wrong in PFLAP that the attempt to justify what might be right yields diminishing returns. Let's say 1% of PFAL is good. The effort required to parse the material and sift it down to that 1% seems, well, misguided at best and ultimately futile.
Whatever might be good has already been and continues to be taught by millions of others.
It's all bad, and the 1% that is good doesn't change that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I agree with Rocky that it wasn't all bad...if it were who would ever take the bait? Now, that's not to say (and I know Rocky didn't mean this either) that we need PFLAP because there is some good in it...not at all...a little leaven...yeah the entire thing is corrupt. But is it all bad, or even all untrue? Nope...there are many things there that are true, but the corruption causes the entire work to be worthless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Indeed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
yeah - I usually refrain from using absolutes - you have a good point - let me elaborate on my reasoning. Regarding the bait-and-switch concept - for the sake of brevity, I consider whatever was "good" in PFAL is merely the attractant. For example - wierwille opens the class talking about Jesus Christ. It's like a deceptive sales ad though - because wierwille presents a materialistic Jesus Christ - the more than abundant life available to Christians who are envious of the prosperity that unbelievers have. So - you can look at it a number of ways - he talks about Jesus Christ that's good - but then wierwille pivots to pursuing material abundance through the principles we can learn in the class - that's bad.
Another deviation is wierwille teaching "the Word" takes the place of the absent Christ - and students are unaware that "the Word" is what wierwille says it is - i.e., his interpretation of the Bible. so, in effect what wierwille says takes the place of the authority...the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
I mean - how far do you want to go to qualify how bad PFAL is? Books of Peter, Timothy, Titus, Corinthians, Galatians all speak of the danger of false teachers introducing heresies. I don't see any directives in the Bible that say we're to salvage or reform heresies. When Jesus talked of the bad fruit from bad trees - He didn't say to reform or salvage the bad tree...but hey, this is all a matter of opinion by everyone - me included...
my thinking is if something is that bad why try to cannibalize it for parts - what's the point?
I didn't throw out Jesus Christ when I left TWI. I got rid of the tendency to marginalize Jesus Christ as I was taught to do so by wierwille in PFAL....A personal relationship with Jesus Christ is more important to me than PFAL, systematic theology, philosophy, etc. I might use some ideas from any of that to help unpack deep subjects - yeah and usually when I refer to PFAL for that reason it's "okay, here's what it is NOT".
~ ~ ~ ~
also, I should add I understand your intention is not to side with Mike. I get that. and I'm of the opinion most things have some merit - even if you have to do some digging. But in dealing with Mike, I've noticed if you give him an inch, he takes a yard...His comeback is "aha - you validated PFAL"...uhm no - that's not it. I've noticed when you try to talk turkey with him - you wind up getting into his pork-barrel-agreements for his pet theories and his trying to get you to make concessions on other "good" things about PFAL...Earlier on this thread Mike was arguing for the silly PFAL idea that the Bible interprets itself...it's kinda hard to take Mike seriously when he endorses any of wierwille's idiotic ideas. It's difficult to follow the Socratic method of thoughtful debate with someone who usually has a PFAL-scripted-response to almost everything.
~ ~ ~ ~
this has given me the idea for point # 99 of why PFAL sucks - stay tuned
Edited by T-Bonetypo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I understood your point when you first said it. But as you noted, speaking in absolutes can be misleading to readers who don't immediately pick up on your message.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
cool - I'm glad you brought it up though - never hurts to clarify
Edited by T-Boneadd emojis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
99. PFAL misleads students to think that the class is the touchstone for truth
What is a touchstone? Technically it’s a piece of fine-grained dark schist or jasper formerly used for testing alloys of gold by observing the color of the mark which they made on it…metaphorically it’s a standard or criterion by which something is judged or recognized; synonyms are criterion · standard · yardstick · benchmark · barometer · litmus test · indicator · indication · measure · point of reference · norm · gauge · reference · test · guide · guideline · exemplar · model · pattern.
I remember an old Way Magazine article written by LCM – in it he said PFAL is the touchstone for truth. Do you remember one of the claims on the back of the green PFAL sign-up card - enables you to separate truth from error. Think about it – we’re up to point # 99 of why PFAL sucks and a lot of these ideas revolve around the inability to distinguish fact from falsehood. Does the Bible interpret itself? Of course not! Is there a law of believing that enables you to manipulate reality? Nope! Are Christians supposed to tithe? Uh-uh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
100. The hook
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm no fish expert, but that appears to be a Common Sucker.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
101. Develops a parent to child attitude and tone interacting with other members of the body of Christ who have not “taken the class”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
hey - slow down Chockfull ! I've had to renumber my next post twice while I was doing the final edits !!!
Just kidding!
I love all the input by everyone
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.