Is the Advanced Class considered part of the collaterals?
No.
In VPW's last teaching the AC is conspicuously missing from the list he tells us to master. This list is in that teaching twice, and twice the AC is missing.
By "collaterals" I mean the printed books and printed magazine articles of VPW. He called them the written materials that come with the class.
Earl Burton handles this some in the Festschrift book they did for VPW in 1982, but it is a little too boring to keep me awake.
The way I handle this is I figure if the people who WROTE the scriptures were to divorce their own thinking from what God was telling them to write, then people who READ the scriptures are not to inject their private thoughts into it either.
It's almost a tautology.
You are very wrong! It's not almost - it's not even close!!!
Tautology = the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession). SIMILAR: repetition, repetitiveness, repetitiousness, reiteration, a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words…in LOGIC a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
The passage merely states the ORIGIN of the prophecy - plain and simple. You are adding assumptions!
11 minutes ago, Mike said:
It is also self evident. What good is it to read God's Word without getting HIS interpretation, and being side tracked by self generated ideas?
the point of genuine honest hermeneutics is to discover what the message meant to the original recipients - which most Bible scholars assume is how God wanted it to be interpreted. That necessitates expertise in the biblical languages / syntax and ancient biblical customs - and good old textual criticism as well...that was all ignored by wierwille's mindless and careless plagiarism which side-tracked PFAL students with his erroneous delusional ideas.
The way I handle this is I figure if the people who WROTE the scriptures were to divorce their own thinking from what God was telling them to write, then people who READ the scriptures are not to inject their private thoughts into it either.
Wrong again. We are fellow worker with God and God credits the authors such as Paul, Peter, etc and they certainly did put themselves into scripture, view points, manners of speaking, etc. You make it sound like you understand what it was like for them to receive inspiritation of God to write what they did...truth is none of us know what that was like.
1 Corinthians 7:6 is a shining example:
But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
I have also told the story here several times how Schoenheit TWICE implied to me on the phone that no such bad influence made it into the collaterals.
Don’t get me started on all the morally depraved implications of wierwille’s licentiousness that runs like a red-light-district thread throughout PFAL AND the collaterals.
But hey, if you want to further derail your own thread – feel free to bring up a collateral topic and I bet I could easily correlate his twisted use of scripture and doubletalk to show you what I mean.
I've told the story here so many times that I abbreviated it here this time. I was a twig leader and the people NEEDED to get the subject looked into. I did not feel qualified, and would never have wanted to research it on my own. I had to do it for them.
Something about your rationalization sounds soooooooo familiar: 10Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11“I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.
12Early in the morning Samuel got up and went to meet Saul, but he was told, “Saul has gone to Carmel. There he has set up a monument in his own honor and has turned and gone on down to Gilgal.”
13When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord’s instructions.”
14But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”
15Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”
16“Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”
“Tell me,” Saul replied.
17Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ 19Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”
20“But I did obey the Lord,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. 21The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal.”
22But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king.”
24Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them. 25Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord.”
26But Samuel said to him, “I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel!”
perhaps you inadvertently provided a distraction to your people - instead of looking into the bigger picture of wierwille's erroneous theology - you offered a diversion to keep their minds busy.
It would help if you remembered WHICH tapes. I have heard similar things, but I can't remember where. The collaterals do not have any of these kinds of comments, though.
The reason I ask for your sources is because I like to check the context on things like that.
Someday we will have searchable transcripts for the SNT tapes, but that is a long process. I have friends working on it.
Don’t get me started on all the morally depraved implications of wierwille’s licentiousness that runs like a red-light-district thread throughoutPFALANDthe collaterals.
But hey,if you want to further derail your own thread– feel free to bring up a collateral topic and I bet I could easily correlate his twisted use of scripture and doubletalk to show you what I mean.
Yeah I show you by context that wierwille had debauchery coming out the wazoo!
So, I ask again in a different way, do you advocate doing the opposite of what VPW taught in PFAL on avoiding one's own private interpretation?
I don't think those are the only two choices, false choices at that. Definately don't do what VPW taught in PFAL on avoiding ones own private intrepretation...I don't know what the opposite would be, but lets not do that either...both choices suck.
How about just reading scripture with faith that God is perfectly capable of communicating himself in written form and just read whats written. The entire idea that we need to somehow work scripture back toi God's original intent is ludicrous and it sets the stage for wierwille telling us what God's original intent was and he was absolutely void of any authority to do so given his lifestyle as a drunken serial sexual predator who taught others' to be the same. He ws a wolf in sheeps clothing. Just read the Bible with confidence and trust in whats written without letting wierwille's fake theology throw you off base dude. I mean do you not believe the following? Hers' the correct choice Mike:
1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Earl Burton handles this some in the Festschrift book they did for VPW in 1982, but it is a little too boring to keep me awake.
The way I handle this is I figure if the people who WROTE the scriptures were to divorce their own thinking from what God was telling them to write, then people who READ the scriptures are not to inject their private thoughts into it either.
It's almost a tautology.
It is also self evident. What good is it to read God's Word without getting HIS interpretation, and being side tracked by self generated ideas?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
It would help if you remembered WHICH tapes. I have heard similar things, but I can't remember where. The collaterals do not have any of these kinds of comments, though.
The reason I ask for your sources is because I like to check the context on things like that.
Someday we will have searchable transcripts for the SNT tapes, but that is a long process. I have friends working on it.
35 minutes ago, T-Bone said:
Don’t get me started on all the morally depraved implications of wierwille’s licentiousness that runs like a red-light-district thread throughoutPFALANDthe collaterals.
But hey,if you want to further derail your own thread– feel free to bring up a collateral topic and I bet I could easily correlate his twisted use of scripture and doubletalk to show you what I mean.
Yeah I show you by context that wierwille had debauchery coming out the wazoo!
Right off the bat in session 1 of PFAL, wierwille asks what's the greatest sin a person can commit, from which he launches into HIS OWN INTERPRETATION of Matthew 22 on the greatest commandment - wierwille says something along the lines "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please".
wierwille not only offered HIS OWN INTERPRETATION of Matthew 22 but essentially encouraged others to use the same self-referential interpretation - it's in the first part "as long as you love God and neighbor " - AS LONG AS YOU ASSUME YOU LOVE God and neighbor...a person can have the best of intentions but commit the worst acts...it is common knowledge to those who are not fooled by wierwille's duplicity, that one of his go-to lines to justify sexually molesting women was rationale to loosen them up spiritually - for their own good. that's some next level evil sick $hit !
Why can't this be said enough: That this wicked "ministry" needed a monograph written to address the issue of adultery, and that the paper caused such a sh¡t storm, should tell anyone all they need to know about the FOUNDATION of this "ministry."
Didn't victor paul wierwille need to loosen up LCM before putting oil on his head?
-----
I grew up in a home that some might call church lady-like. Sex was an unspoken issue. Not condemned, just repressed. My mother is a devout Christian, and she raised two boys rightly.
I explored sex and drugs with gleeful, unashamed fervor after I left home. I've NEVER been accused of being prude or pious. I have never been afraid of choking on the bone so that I might extract all the marrow.
Whether it is the Sunday school of my youth or just my empathic character, it doesn't really matter. I could never allow anyone to "teach" me that hurting another was ok because it's all about beleeef and rewards anyway, not demerits.
I'm of generation X. Now, I appreciate the sexual revolution (indeed, all the revolutions) of the 1960s and 70s, but... hippy shmippy... So what! It's no excuse for the hurt caused by this "ministry."
And it all goes back to that charlatan victor paul wierwille. All. Of. It.
Whats comical is a Christian ministry needed a "research paper" to figure out adultery was wrong...
Thou shalt not commit adultery is about as plain and simple as you can get. No research needed.
Geez where's that in-depth spiritual perception and awareness?
What is likely lacking is you witnessing all this pretty first hand, like I did.
What is obviously lacking in your knowledge of the Schoenheit Paper are the 14 punches after the simple doctrine. It is those 14 appendixes that torpedoed the ministry fatally in late 1986, as hey tried to suppress it all.
Those 14 appendixes, reasons, rationalizations were PICK-UP LINES that oodles of ministry leaders and non-leaders, male and female used to get laid in the 1970s and 80s.
It was the appendixes that were needed to squelch the TVTs that were running rampant through the ministry.
What is likely lacking is you witnessing all this pretty first hand, like I did.
No, that's not even remotely necessary. Ive never witnessed a muder either and I can say absolutely tha murder is wrong are so are murderers. Same with adulterers. No research needed and the fact that the truth of thour shalt not commit adultery caused so many people to run, hide, and cover shows just exactly what was going on. It was systemic adultery complete with wife swapping amongst the way corps and wierwille and martindale used others to arrange scenarios and procure victims that they could boink...no matter if the women were married or not. Thats disgusting and evil and you have spent how many years rationalizing that this behaviour that started with wierwille is somehow excusable because they talked about the bible with excitement....?
My 2 cents FWIW...... I think that entire rap about the drunk showing up at choich, whether invented or real, is part of a subtle thread which runs throughout piffle. It's like the red thread. What is it? An attempt by vic to pre-emptively mitigate the accusations which had been thrown at him effectively before this filming project in late 1967. Namely that, vic was a drunk and a "womanizer". These went as far back as Van Wert and were definitely part of why the UCC dangcanned him. They fired him and then he wrote his "resignation" letter in August, 1956 or 57.
Upon moving it all back to the family farm where he grew up in New Knoxville, the locals, who couldn't stand young vic when he lived among them, were not shaking their heads that the boy was fired by the Church for drinking and carousing with his young secretary Rhoda Beckett, a Mennonite from NY, along with others in his congregation. The "rumors" were quite effective because first of all, they were factual, and secondly, the NK residents were quite well aware of vic's varied peccadilloes while he terrorized the town's girls and bullied the boys. So, when he returned to the family farm after being fired by the UCC, H.E. bought up the shares of the other siblings, and he was back home facing the reputation he had made for himself as a young man in town and the rumors, which everyone knew were true, of why the church fired him. And so the feud was rekindled and continues today even though no wierwilles are left in twit.
Piffle was filmed in Dayton. The biggest fellowships were in Troy, Xenia, and several towns surrounding New Knoxville like Sidney and St. Mary's. Vic's church along with all the whispers about the fired UCC guy who had his own church now. The rumors never stopped and now followed him wherever he went. So, he constantly did everything he could to squelch, deny, and minimalize the rumors even in piffle. Examples? The drunk story. Vic was a boozer since high school. Everybody knew it. He'd get dangfaced and race his motorcycle all over the place doing "tricks" and scaring people. He was the prankster, practical joker who consistently ....ed people off. The NKers knew all this. So did Shelby and auglaize county sheriffs. So, the whole drunk story was throw in there not to teach grace but rather to obviate vic's "license to sin" practice of grace. How did he respond to the drunk guy incident? He became one! But, we don't need to confront him. We need to love and forgive him by god's grace just like vic
Did for the drunk and like Jesus does for you. "That's the living thing to do."
Then, in that section in Acts where he's "handling" Paul's thorn in the flesh. Remember? "Whaddya think his back looked
like? Whaddya think his back looked like? Why some even accused the great Apostle Paul of being a sex pervert! A sex pervert! Imagine that? Well I'd sure as heck would need to be absolutely sure I was right before I'd lay something like that at the feet of the greatest apostle in the first century church! That's riiight! A sex pervert! Lordy Pete!". Sound familiar? Interesting he'd throw that one specific charge in there that is NOT recorded anywhere in scripture. Again, a pre-emotive strike to obviate the other FACT about Vic that followed him his whole life. A drunken molester of women and a bully. And, the pre-emptive obviating was quite effective all through the 70's. But, then the facts caught up with them all, and down fell the cradle, baby and all. Vic was ALWAYS on alert. But the young jerks like da forehead, Beence finnegan, wrenn, lynn, and a bunch of other young turks were lazy. They had it handed to them and thought it was their right. Didn't take long before they all got caught and when the heat started turning on Vic, he retired and got outta dodge. And, when he died he left Geer behind to take it all back from the guys who screwed it all up......his oldest biological son Don, his best friend Howard, and his best student da forehead. He died a "winner" and took his balls to the grave with him. Which is why his son Don, at the end of a Yak Twig meeting in the motorcycle shed in 1986, tearfully screamed......"He's .... dead and still he tortures me from the grave!". Nice legacy.
My 2 cents FWIW...... I think that entire rap about the drunk showing up at choich, whether invented or real, is part of a subtle thread which runs throughout piffle. It's like the red thread. What is it? An attempt by vic to pre-emptively mitigate the accusations which had been thrown at him effectively before this filming project in late 1967. Namely that, vic was a drunk and a "womanizer". These went as far back as Van Wert and were definitely part of why the UCC dangcanned him. They fired him and then he wrote his "resignation" letter in August, 1956 or 57.
Upon moving it all back to the family farm where he grew up in New Knoxville, the locals, who couldn't stand young vic when he lived among them, were not shaking their heads that the boy was fired by the Church for drinking and carousing with his young secretary Rhoda Beckett, a Mennonite from NY, along with others in his congregation. The "rumors" were quite effective because first of all, they were factual, and secondly, the NK residents were quite well aware of vic's varied peccadilloes while he terrorized the town's girls and bullied the boys. So, when he returned to the family farm after being fired by the UCC, H.E. bought up the shares of the other siblings, and he was back home facing the reputation he had made for himself as a young man in town and the rumors, which everyone knew were true, of why the church fired him. And so the feud was rekindled and continues today even though no wierwilles are left in twit.
Piffle was filmed in Dayton. The biggest fellowships were in Troy, Xenia, and several towns surrounding New Knoxville like Sidney and St. Mary's. Vic's church along with all the whispers about the fired UCC guy who had his own church now. The rumors never stopped and now followed him wherever he went. So, he constantly did everything he could to squelch, deny, and minimalize the rumors even in piffle. Examples? The drunk story. Vic was a boozer since high school. Everybody knew it. He'd get dangfaced and race his motorcycle all over the place doing "tricks" and scaring people. He was the prankster, practical joker who consistently ....ed people off. The NKers knew all this. So did Shelby and auglaize county sheriffs. So, the whole drunk story was throw in there not to teach grace but rather to obviate vic's "license to sin" practice of grace. How did he respond to the drunk guy incident? He became one! But, we don't need to confront him. We need to love and forgive him by god's grace just like vic
Did for the drunk and like Jesus does for you. "That's the living thing to do."
Then, in that section in Acts where he's "handling" Paul's thorn in the flesh. Remember? "Whaddya think his back looked
like? Whaddya think his back looked like? Why some even accused the great Apostle Paul of being a sex pervert! A sex pervert! Imagine that? Well I'd sure as heck would need to be absolutely sure I was right before I'd lay something like that at the feet of the greatest apostle in the first century church! That's riiight! A sex pervert! Lordy Pete!". Sound familiar? Interesting he'd throw that one specific charge in there that is NOT recorded anywhere in scripture. Again, a pre-emotive strike to obviate the other FACT about Vic that followed him his whole life. A drunken molester of women and a bully. And, the pre-emptive obviating was quite effective all through the 70's. But, then the facts caught up with them all, and down fell the cradle, baby and all. Vic was ALWAYS on alert. But the young jerks like da forehead, Beence finnegan, wrenn, lynn, and a bunch of other young turks were lazy. They had it handed to them and thought it was their right. Didn't take long before they all got caught and when the heat started turning on Vic, he retired and got outta dodge. And, when he died he left Geer behind to take it all back from the guys who screwed it all up......his oldest biological son Don, his best friend Howard, and his best student da forehead. He died a "winner" and took his balls to the grave with him. Which is why his son Don, at the end of a Yak Twig meeting in the motorcycle shed in 1986, tearfully screamed......"He's .... dead and still he tortures me from the grave!". Nice legacy.
Ya, just the type of guy that I would want to teach me the Bible and how to live a Christian life...NOT!
What is likely lacking is you witnessing all this pretty first hand, like I did...What is obviously lacking in your knowledge of the Schoenheit Paper are the 14 punches after the simple doctrine. It is those 14 appendixes that torpedoed the ministry fatally in late 1986, as hey tried to suppress it all.
Those 14 appendixes, reasons, rationalizations were PICK-UP LINES that oodles of ministry leaders and non-leaders, male and female used to get laid in the 1970s and 80s. It was the appendixes that were needed to squelch the TVTs that were running rampant through the ministry...Yeah, the doctrine part is pretty simple.
What explanations do our minds wrestle with when we struggle to reconcile sinful behavior by leadership with what we consider biblical doctrine? And is it possible there is an unspoken double standard that leadership holds to? Some rule, principle or doctrine which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people.
And is it possible a whole church could have such lower moral standards than the secular world that it even freaks out unbelievers? Such was the case in 1 Corinthians 5 NIV . Paul observed the flagrant disregard for the moral standards of the Word of God - - and even the Gentiles! But for the Corinthian church, their immorality was probably considered part of a body of religious principles as promulgated by a church - - in other words, doctrine.
Doctrine – no matter how simple – is man-made. It is what people think how certain passages should be categorized together and what ideas are to be abstracted from that. doctrines could be right, partially right, a teensy weensy bit right or twisted, distorted, fictitious or flat out dead wrong.
Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina, meaning "teaching, instruction") is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system. The etymological Greek analogue is "catechism".
Often the word doctrine specifically suggests a body of religious principles as promulgated by a church. Doctrine may also refer to a principle of law, in the common-law traditions, established through a history of past decisions.
The word translated “doctrine” means “instruction, especially as it applies to lifestyle application.” In other words, doctrine is teaching imparted by an authoritative source. In the Bible, the word always refers to spiritually related fields of study. The Bible says of itself that it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). We are to be careful about what we believe and present as truth. First Timothy 4:16 says, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
Biblical doctrine helps us understand the will of God for our lives. Biblical doctrine teaches us the nature and the character of God (Psalm 90:2; 97:2; John 4:24), the path of salvation through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 10:9–10), instruction for the church (1 Corinthians 14:26; Titus 2:1–10), and God’s standard of holiness for our lives (1 Peter 1:14–17; 1 Corinthians 6:18–20). When we accept the Bible as God’s Word to us (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20–21), we have a solid foundation for our doctrine. There can be disagreement within the body of Christ over secondary points of doctrine, such as eschatology, church organization, or the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But truly biblical doctrine is that which incorporates the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and draws conclusions based on that which seems most closely aligned with the character of our unchanging God (Numbers 23:19; Hebrews 13:8).
However, the Bible is not always the foundation upon which people or churches build their doctrinal statements. Our sinful natures do not easily submit to God’s decrees, so we often pick and choose the parts of the Bible we are comfortable with and discard the rest. Or we replace what God says with a man-made doctrine or tradition. This is nothing new. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7, ESV; cf. Isaiah 29:13). False doctrine was rampant in New Testament times, and the Scriptures tell us it will continue (Matthew 7:15; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1). Second Timothy 4:3 says, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”
The Bible gives stern warning to those who would teach false or incomplete doctrine simply because it is more compatible with man’s ideas. First Timothy 6:3–4 says, “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.” The apostle Paul wrote harsh words about perverting the gospel with false doctrine: “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”(Galatians 1:7–9).
You refer to the 14 appendixes of Schoenheit’s Paper that torpedoed the ministry fatally in late 1986, as they tried to suppress it all. I think those 14 appendixes, reasons, rationalizations, whatever just barely showed there was some correlation between the antinomianism running rampant throughout the ministry and the deliberate omission of biblical morality in wierwille’s ‘doctrines’. This is NOTa question of what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg . It is simply that wierwille laid the groundwork driven by his own moral depravity.
What is the Bible?
I believe it is simply a theological message – concerning the metaphysical realm and perhaps the desires of a higher power. To use it in arguments over doctrinal squabbles trivializes the message. I am as guilty as anyone else on this point – maybe more so since one of my hobbies is systematic theology.
But the Bible is NOT a textbook of theology…or a user’s manual…or any other pet description we christen it with – it is what it is – there’s no changing it – we just have to accept it for what it is – a compilation of ancient documents that many considered inspired of God…should I criticize my cat for not being a dog? Darn - you mean the Bible is not a religious textbook? correct.
wierwille often talked about interpreting the Bible in context – but I’ve come to the realization he often filtered the Bible through some other context…But if you think about it – the context of the Bible is the languages and cultures that produced it…to ignore those is to proceed in a slipshod manner toward something foreign to the original intent of the Scriptures.
When I was in TWI – I assumed the purpose of Bible study was to affirm the creeds…beliefs…ideas as taught in PFAL.
Don’t get me wrong – creeds…doctrines have value in that they help us to focus on what’s important.
But again, I bring up the what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg conundrum – maybe we should not be so laser-focused on pet-doctrines we’re familiar with – instead, have more of an open-minded approach - and for starters just get the big picture - the overview.
It’s been some 37 years since I left TWI – at first I plunged into systematic and biblical theology, hermeneutics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy in general - and I still keep up on that stuff – but more importantly some things that coincided with those studies was a growing concern for developing a relationship – not with a book – but with a person, Jesus Christ!…needless to say, this approach gives me a strong sense of fulfillment - like this is what life is really all about - building relationships with God and people.
I was never interested in becoming a pseudo-Christian Bible scholar or snake oil salesman anyway.
In VPW's last teaching the AC is conspicuously missing from the list he tells us to master. This list is in that teaching twice, and twice the AC is missing.
By "collaterals" I mean the printed books and printed magazine articles of VPW. He called them the written materials that come with the class.
This is actually very telling. The class that teaches 6 out of the 9 “manifestations” brought up in PLAF is “conspicuously missing”.
So by your belief 2/3 of the “holy spirit” field is not necessary to master?
Written materials by VP include the work covered in penworks book as well as the “By the Way” articles which are a whole other category of material.
Or do you specifically limit that to “Studies in Abundant Living” hard cover books volume one thru five?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
358
229
215
220
Popular Days
Mar 4
144
May 2
83
Apr 29
77
Mar 5
70
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 358 posts
So_crates 229 posts
OldSkool 215 posts
Nathan_Jr 220 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2023
144 posts
May 2 2023
83 posts
Apr 29 2023
77 posts
Mar 5 2023
70 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
I believe that the real deal is possible and the path toward it is to address and correct all the doctrinal and practical error introduced by VPs box top doctorate research. isolation from other
chockfull
The Corps is a necessary cult element providing free labor at the expense of volunteers lives. Any imagery like the Marines promotes extremist behavior. No other Christian seminary or school use
Nathan_Jr
"Teaching" Romans to the Corps, Q&A: LCM: How much does your behavior that people do not see influence your example to them? VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will. LCM: You u
Posted Images
Mike
I have also told the story here several times how Schoenheit TWICE implied to me on the phone that no such bad influence made it into the collaterals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What's the alternative?
We should read the scriptures willy nilly ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No.
In VPW's last teaching the AC is conspicuously missing from the list he tells us to master. This list is in that teaching twice, and twice the AC is missing.
By "collaterals" I mean the printed books and printed magazine articles of VPW. He called them the written materials that come with the class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Did I suggest the scriptures should be read willy nilly?
I'm pretty sure I never said that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You are very wrong! It's not almost - it's not even close!!!
Tautology = the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession). SIMILAR: repetition, repetitiveness, repetitiousness, reiteration, a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words…in LOGIC a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
The passage merely states the ORIGIN of the prophecy - plain and simple. You are adding assumptions!
the point of genuine honest hermeneutics is to discover what the message meant to the original recipients - which most Bible scholars assume is how God wanted it to be interpreted. That necessitates expertise in the biblical languages / syntax and ancient biblical customs - and good old textual criticism as well...that was all ignored by wierwille's mindless and careless plagiarism which side-tracked PFAL students with his erroneous delusional ideas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It that is the only logical alternative, then you implied it.
So, I ask again in a different way, do you advocate doing the opposite of what VPW taught in PFAL on avoiding one's own private interpretation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Wrong again. We are fellow worker with God and God credits the authors such as Paul, Peter, etc and they certainly did put themselves into scripture, view points, manners of speaking, etc. You make it sound like you understand what it was like for them to receive inspiritation of God to write what they did...truth is none of us know what that was like.
1 Corinthians 7:6 is a shining example:
But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Of course he did, he couldn't discredit VPW, him and John Lynn founded CES using wierwille's theology with a few changes of course.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Whats comical is a Christian ministry needed a "research paper" to figure out adultery was wrong...
Thou shalt not commit adultery is about as plain and simple as you can get. No research needed.
Geez where's that in-depth spiritual perception and awareness?
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Don’t get me started on all the morally depraved implications of wierwille’s licentiousness that runs like a red-light-district thread throughout PFAL AND the collaterals.
But hey, if you want to further derail your own thread – feel free to bring up a collateral topic and I bet I could easily correlate his twisted use of scripture and doubletalk to show you what I mean.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Only 2 choices?
I never said or implied any such thing. Period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Something about your rationalization sounds soooooooo familiar:
10Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11“I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.
12Early in the morning Samuel got up and went to meet Saul, but he was told, “Saul has gone to Carmel. There he has set up a monument in his own honor and has turned and gone on down to Gilgal.”
13When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord’s instructions.”
14But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”
15Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”
16“Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”
“Tell me,” Saul replied.
17Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ 19Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”
20“But I did obey the Lord,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. 21The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal.”
22But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king.”
24Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them. 25Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord.”
26But Samuel said to him, “I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel!”
1 Samuel 15 NIV
perhaps you inadvertently provided a distraction to your people - instead of looking into the bigger picture of wierwille's erroneous theology - you offered a diversion to keep their minds busy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Don’t get me started on all the morally depraved implications of wierwille’s licentiousness that runs like a red-light-district thread throughout PFAL AND the collaterals.
But hey, if you want to further derail your own thread – feel free to bring up a collateral topic and I bet I could easily correlate his twisted use of scripture and doubletalk to show you what I mean.
Yeah I show you by context that wierwille had debauchery coming out the wazoo!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I don't think those are the only two choices, false choices at that. Definately don't do what VPW taught in PFAL on avoiding ones own private intrepretation...I don't know what the opposite would be, but lets not do that either...both choices suck.
How about just reading scripture with faith that God is perfectly capable of communicating himself in written form and just read whats written. The entire idea that we need to somehow work scripture back toi God's original intent is ludicrous and it sets the stage for wierwille telling us what God's original intent was and he was absolutely void of any authority to do so given his lifestyle as a drunken serial sexual predator who taught others' to be the same. He ws a wolf in sheeps clothing. Just read the Bible with confidence and trust in whats written without letting wierwille's fake theology throw you off base dude. I mean do you not believe the following? Hers' the correct choice Mike:
1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Right off the bat in session 1 of PFAL, wierwille asks what's the greatest sin a person can commit, from which he launches into HIS OWN INTERPRETATION of Matthew 22 on the greatest commandment - wierwille says something along the lines "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please".
wierwille not only offered HIS OWN INTERPRETATION of Matthew 22 but essentially encouraged others to use the same self-referential interpretation - it's in the first part "as long as you love God and neighbor " - AS LONG AS YOU ASSUME YOU LOVE God and neighbor...a person can have the best of intentions but commit the worst acts...it is common knowledge to those who are not fooled by wierwille's duplicity, that one of his go-to lines to justify sexually molesting women was rationale to loosen them up spiritually - for their own good. that's some next level evil sick $hit !
Edited by T-Boneclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Why can't this be said enough: That this wicked "ministry" needed a monograph written to address the issue of adultery, and that the paper caused such a sh¡t storm, should tell anyone all they need to know about the FOUNDATION of this "ministry."
Didn't victor paul wierwille need to loosen up LCM before putting oil on his head?
-----
I grew up in a home that some might call church lady-like. Sex was an unspoken issue. Not condemned, just repressed. My mother is a devout Christian, and she raised two boys rightly.
I explored sex and drugs with gleeful, unashamed fervor after I left home. I've NEVER been accused of being prude or pious. I have never been afraid of choking on the bone so that I might extract all the marrow.
Whether it is the Sunday school of my youth or just my empathic character, it doesn't really matter. I could never allow anyone to "teach" me that hurting another was ok because it's all about beleeef and rewards anyway, not demerits.
I'm of generation X. Now, I appreciate the sexual revolution (indeed, all the revolutions) of the 1960s and 70s, but... hippy shmippy... So what! It's no excuse for the hurt caused by this "ministry."
And it all goes back to that charlatan victor paul wierwille. All. Of. It.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What is likely lacking is you witnessing all this pretty first hand, like I did.
What is obviously lacking in your knowledge of the Schoenheit Paper are the 14 punches after the simple doctrine. It is those 14 appendixes that torpedoed the ministry fatally in late 1986, as hey tried to suppress it all.
Those 14 appendixes, reasons, rationalizations were PICK-UP LINES that oodles of ministry leaders and non-leaders, male and female used to get laid in the 1970s and 80s.
It was the appendixes that were needed to squelch the TVTs that were running rampant through the ministry.
Yeah, the doctrine part is pretty simple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And this is your go-to guy on the handling of the adultery paper?
DWBH has a thread on the subject. I'll hit the high points of his research.
The story about the alcoholic sets us up with how sorry we should feel for Saint Vic's alcoholism.
The story about thorns in the flesh sets us up for how if we're going to accuse Saint Vic of sexual wrongdoing we better have solid proof.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No, that's not even remotely necessary. Ive never witnessed a muder either and I can say absolutely tha murder is wrong are so are murderers. Same with adulterers. No research needed and the fact that the truth of thour shalt not commit adultery caused so many people to run, hide, and cover shows just exactly what was going on. It was systemic adultery complete with wife swapping amongst the way corps and wierwille and martindale used others to arrange scenarios and procure victims that they could boink...no matter if the women were married or not. Thats disgusting and evil and you have spent how many years rationalizing that this behaviour that started with wierwille is somehow excusable because they talked about the bible with excitement....?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I wish I had been paying better attention. This stuff is really complicated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ya, just the type of guy that I would want to teach me the Bible and how to live a Christian life...NOT!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
What explanations do our minds wrestle with when we struggle to reconcile sinful behavior by leadership with what we consider biblical doctrine? And is it possible there is an unspoken double standard that leadership holds to? Some rule, principle or doctrine which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people.
And is it possible a whole church could have such lower moral standards than the secular world that it even freaks out unbelievers? Such was the case in 1 Corinthians 5 NIV . Paul observed the flagrant disregard for the moral standards of the Word of God - - and even the Gentiles! But for the Corinthian church, their immorality was probably considered part of a body of religious principles as promulgated by a church - - in other words, doctrine.
Doctrine – no matter how simple – is man-made. It is what people think how certain passages should be categorized together and what ideas are to be abstracted from that. doctrines could be right, partially right, a teensy weensy bit right or twisted, distorted, fictitious or flat out dead wrong.
Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina, meaning "teaching, instruction") is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system. The etymological Greek analogue is "catechism".
Often the word doctrine specifically suggests a body of religious principles as promulgated by a church. Doctrine may also refer to a principle of law, in the common-law traditions, established through a history of past decisions.
From: Doctrine - Wikipedia
~ ~ ~ ~
The word translated “doctrine” means “instruction, especially as it applies to lifestyle application.” In other words, doctrine is teaching imparted by an authoritative source. In the Bible, the word always refers to spiritually related fields of study. The Bible says of itself that it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). We are to be careful about what we believe and present as truth. First Timothy 4:16 says, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
Biblical doctrine helps us understand the will of God for our lives. Biblical doctrine teaches us the nature and the character of God (Psalm 90:2; 97:2; John 4:24), the path of salvation through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 10:9–10), instruction for the church (1 Corinthians 14:26; Titus 2:1–10), and God’s standard of holiness for our lives (1 Peter 1:14–17; 1 Corinthians 6:18–20). When we accept the Bible as God’s Word to us (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20–21), we have a solid foundation for our doctrine. There can be disagreement within the body of Christ over secondary points of doctrine, such as eschatology, church organization, or the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But truly biblical doctrine is that which incorporates the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and draws conclusions based on that which seems most closely aligned with the character of our unchanging God (Numbers 23:19; Hebrews 13:8).
However, the Bible is not always the foundation upon which people or churches build their doctrinal statements. Our sinful natures do not easily submit to God’s decrees, so we often pick and choose the parts of the Bible we are comfortable with and discard the rest. Or we replace what God says with a man-made doctrine or tradition. This is nothing new. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7, ESV; cf. Isaiah 29:13). False doctrine was rampant in New Testament times, and the Scriptures tell us it will continue (Matthew 7:15; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1). Second Timothy 4:3 says, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”
The Bible gives stern warning to those who would teach false or incomplete doctrine simply because it is more compatible with man’s ideas. First Timothy 6:3–4 says, “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.” The apostle Paul wrote harsh words about perverting the gospel with false doctrine: “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”(Galatians 1:7–9).
from: What is doctrine? | GotQuestions.org
~ ~ ~ ~
You refer to the 14 appendixes of Schoenheit’s Paper that torpedoed the ministry fatally in late 1986, as they tried to suppress it all. I think those 14 appendixes, reasons, rationalizations, whatever just barely showed there was some correlation between the antinomianism running rampant throughout the ministry and the deliberate omission of biblical morality in wierwille’s ‘doctrines’. This is NOT a question of what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg . It is simply that wierwille laid the groundwork driven by his own moral depravity.
What is the Bible?
I believe it is simply a theological message – concerning the metaphysical realm and perhaps the desires of a higher power. To use it in arguments over doctrinal squabbles trivializes the message. I am as guilty as anyone else on this point – maybe more so since one of my hobbies is systematic theology.
But the Bible is NOT a textbook of theology…or a user’s manual…or any other pet description we christen it with – it is what it is – there’s no changing it – we just have to accept it for what it is – a compilation of ancient documents that many considered inspired of God…should I criticize my cat for not being a dog? Darn - you mean the Bible is not a religious textbook? correct.
wierwille often talked about interpreting the Bible in context – but I’ve come to the realization he often filtered the Bible through some other context…But if you think about it – the context of the Bible is the languages and cultures that produced it…to ignore those is to proceed in a slipshod manner toward something foreign to the original intent of the Scriptures.
When I was in TWI – I assumed the purpose of Bible study was to affirm the creeds…beliefs…ideas as taught in PFAL.
Don’t get me wrong – creeds…doctrines have value in that they help us to focus on what’s important.
But again, I bring up the what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg conundrum – maybe we should not be so laser-focused on pet-doctrines we’re familiar with – instead, have more of an open-minded approach - and for starters just get the big picture - the overview.
It’s been some 37 years since I left TWI – at first I plunged into systematic and biblical theology, hermeneutics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy in general - and I still keep up on that stuff – but more importantly some things that coincided with those studies was a growing concern for developing a relationship – not with a book – but with a person, Jesus Christ!…needless to say, this approach gives me a strong sense of fulfillment - like this is what life is really all about - building relationships with God and people.
I was never interested in becoming a pseudo-Christian Bible scholar or snake oil salesman anyway.
Edited by T-Bonetypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
This is actually very telling. The class that teaches 6 out of the 9 “manifestations” brought up in PLAF is “conspicuously missing”.
So by your belief 2/3 of the “holy spirit” field is not necessary to master?
Written materials by VP include the work covered in penworks book as well as the “By the Way” articles which are a whole other category of material.
Or do you specifically limit that to “Studies in Abundant Living” hard cover books volume one thru five?
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.