HELP! The PFAL Class was stolen

[Dot Matrix]

This was from another thread where they are heavy into a snow discussion. I was so blown away by Evan's information, I did not want it to get lost in the "snow storm" So, I started this thread.

I thought this information might be helpful for those still in -- and for those of us that had trouble separating a great class we took from a bad man. Once you see PFAL was NOT VPW's class I think it will help set people free.

I will post some of what has been shared already. Anyone with information on Stiles or more on the originators of the class please enlighten us. Thank you.

Information:

Posted by Dot:

Here is a promise given to BG Leonard --

From Rev. Leonard's foreword to his book GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT:

"One day God spoke to me. "If thou wilt wait patiently before me, I will give thee the revelation concerning that which is written in my Word touching these things; the revelation my people need to bring them out of their chaos and confusion."

I believed God. For months I waited before His presence in solitude. During those wonderful days, He revealed the truth to me concerning the gifts of the Spirit. As He did, these things were proven by acting upon the knowledge thus received, and by examining the results in light of His Word."

Site:

http://ourworld.cs.com/LeonardBG/index.htm

While VPW was "borrowing" material do you think he borrowed the power of the promise. He heard this one and made up his?

Here is a description under one of his books, does the verbage sound all too familiar to you?

quote:

CHURCH GOVERNMENT co-authored by Rev. Evelyn Thiele-Leonard. A thorough and incisive study of the God-given ministries in the Church, those of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, offices and helps, sure to edify and exhort you to the fulfilling of your own God-ordained ministry.

And this:

quote:

POSITIVE PRAYER (co-authored by Rev. Evelyn Thiele-Leonard). Prayer must be positive in order to have results. This book not only teaches on positive prayer, but it also lifts your faith so that you can pray positively. Positive Prayer teaches you to commune with God with Holy Boldness, thus guaranteeing an answer to your prayers.

And this is their Foundational Book (similar?):

quote:

FOUNDATIONS (Co-authored by Rev. Evelyn Thiele-Leonard). Foundations is to the student of Holy Writ what a blueprint is to a construction engineer. It is a veritable slide-rule in the hands of the truth-seeker. It was with full realization of it?s importance, the necessity for it?s existence, and the scope of it?s inherent usefulness that the author, impelled as he was by God?s Spirit, gave birth to this book. We pray that it will be to you a guide of inestimable value in the realm of constructive and exhaustive investigation of divine revelation.

Slide rule to the seeker -- Hand in a glove.

These are just brief descriptions of some of Mr. Leonard's works. I just wanted to see how similar this stuff really is. I guess it can be argued "so what."

I thought it interesting as we are discussing the snow and the promise... I think there is bearing...

Here this is on an EW Bullinger site:

quote:

III. The One Great Requirement of the Word:?"Rightly Dividing" It.

iv. Rightly Dividing the Word as to its Dispensational Truth and Teaching.

This part of the great Requirement of the Word flows from, and, at the same time, depends upon a thorough understanding of the Times and Dispensations themselves.

When these are rightly divided then it will be easy for us to keep the truth pertaining to each quite distinct.

There are whole departments of Truth which belong exclusively to one or other of these Dispensations, and not to the rest.

If we take a truth which belongs to one Dispensation and interpret it of another it will lead not only to confusion in the mind, to discordance in the Word, and uncertainty as to the truth; but it will lead to disaster in the life. For, if the Word be not understood, there will be no enjoyment in the study of it; consequently, the reading of it will be neglected, and we shall cease to feed upon it; our spiritual strength will grow weak and we shall be unfit for God's service, beside being a misery to ourselves.

Not only, therefore, must we rightly divide the Word of truth as to its Times and Dispensations, but as to its Truth and Teaching also: we must learn to appropriate each truth to the particular Dispensation to which it belongs.

Unless we do this we shall not "grow in knowledge": for we are to increase in knowledge as well as in "grace" (2 Peter 3:18).

To do this we must empty ourselves of all Tradition. We must question all that we have thus received; and be prepared to unlearn what we have previously been taught by man if it does not recognize this great requirement of the Word of truth.

If we think we know, it will be impossible for us to learn. If a vessel be full it is impossible for its contents to be increased. We must make room for this blessed increase by continually replacing what we have learnt from man with what we learn from the Lord. And even if what we have learned from man does agree with the Word, then we must be prepared to learn it over again, direct from the Word, so that the Truth may hold us, instead of our holding the Truth.

There are six distinct departments in which the truth of the Word has to be rightly divided in order to obtain its Teaching in connection with the Times and Dispensations.*

* All this refers, of course, only to Interpretation, and not to Application. This will form a chapter by itself when we come to consider the "Words." We may apply all that is written so long as we do so in harmony with what is addressed especially TO us in this Dispensation. All was and is "written for our learning": all is FOR us. But not all is addressed or applies TO us. We must not apply what was true of one Dispensation to upset what is true of another Dispensation. * All this refers, of course, only to Interpretation, and not to Application. This will form a chapter by itself when we come to consider the "Words." We may apply all that is written so long as we do so in harmony with what is addressed especially TO us in this Dispensation. All was and is "written for our learning": all is FOR us. But not all is addressed or applies TO us. We must not apply what was true of one Dispensation to upset what is true of another Dispensation.

In order to keep this Dispensational truth and teaching rightly divided?

1. We must not take Truth belonging to ONE PART of a PAST Dispensation and read it into ANOTHER PART of the PAST.

The whole of the four Gospels belongs to the Old Dispensation; to the special period of Time during which the Kingdom was proclaimed and afterward rejected.

Truth pertaining to the proclamation period is not truth for the rejection period.

(a) For example, in Matthew 10:5, 6, we find the command, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

If the Word is not to be divided at all, rightly or wrongly, as some who oppose our teaching assert, then this command must be still binding on all the Lord's servants.

If it belongs to all persons, for all time, and for all times, then it is of universal interpretation. According to this, there ought to be no Missionary Societies for work among the Gentiles; but every Missionary Society should be only for the Jews.

But this is not quite the principle which pertains to and governs modern missionary operations.

Then there must be something wrong somewhere. Either this command remains in force and modern Missions set it at naught, and are carried on in defiance of it; or, there must be some explanation which shall exonerate such contumacy.

If it be said, in defence, that there are later commands, such as "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15); then this is to argue (1) that the Word of God either flatly contradicts itself as to the fundamental principle of the missionary work; or (2) that some division must be made between the two commands.

But this latter is all that we are contending for. Only, the division which we would make does not ignore either command, but gives each its own due and proper place, significance, and importance. It does not exalt one at the expense of the other, but assigns to each its own appropriate sphere.

The former command, "Go not," etc., was given in connection with the proclamation of the King and the kingdom: but, when both had been rejected, and the King was about to be crucified, then this command was no longer appropriate to the changed circumstances.

Another command could then be given, "Go ye," instead of "Go not."

Both were equally true. The one was true as to its special reference to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; the other is true as to its general reference to all. But both commands were given in the past Dispensation.

http://philologos.org/__eb-htetb/134.htm

Bullinger was after the First century so was Leonard and others. All the VPW proclaimations are lies. The cool info he spoke is only cool because it came from OTHER PEOPLE.

From Evan:

Dot, as regards where Wierwille got the novel idea to have his own unique revelation, you nailed it.

To Evan from Dot:

Funny, I could not sleep last night. So, for about 6/7 hours I pulled up stuff on cults and the anti-cults(good people).In just the little descriptions offered about Mr. Leonard's books there was a strong thread to the PFAL class we took. Then, the E W Bullinger thing was nearly exactly what was covered in the class... A few different words to protect him from a lawsuit --Look at this Bullinger quote in the light of VPW teaching us about the administrations of time:quote:

quote:

---

* All this refers, of course, only to Interpretation, and not to Application. This will form a chapter by itself when we come to consider the "Words." We may apply all that is written so long as we do so in harmony with what is addressed especially TO us in this Dispensation. All was and is "written for our learning": all is FOR us. But not all is addressed or applies TO us. We must not apply what was true of one Dispensation to upset what is true of another Dispensation.

---

But it is obvious VPW did not get this stuff from God as the first guy to get it since the First century which is implied in the promise that "it would be taught as it had not been taught since the First Century."And being as BG Leonard started his Holy Spirit Class with his promise from God it falls in line with VP having the need to also have a promise. And what about VP having forgot more about the Holy Spirit Field than you will ever know (I think was the quote after my 33 times in the PFAL class).

That is so arrogant as his Holy Spirit work consisted of "borrowing" all of BG Leonard's hard work, shuffling it around and inventing a few miracles to sell it....I know I, and others, have said "well, I am glad I at least took the class as I probably would not have taken it if it was not presented to me via VPW marketing skills." (The lemon to lemonade thinking)I dunno, I am STILL glad I did take the class.

Also, for die hard VP fans -- Look, if VPW kept it in his pants, and merely had said something like the following, I would still be in TWI enjoying ROA's each summer and also be a fan.

He could have began his class:

"Welcome. I am VPW and I have been searching for answers a long time. I was able to compile the following information from reading wonderful writings of a variety of God loving researchers and am humbled to bring you the information..."

But we all know what happened instead.

From Evan to Dot:

...I say this with the utmost respect for BG's memory, but BG's class was never destined to be offered on a large scale. Leonard was, and I say this affectionately, a bit of a crank. A humble man, a real servant, desiring no creature comforts, no recognition.

He was on a mission and was bent on fulfilling it. He was not oriented to disseminating his teachings on a wider basis, wouldn't know how if he wanted. but he was a magnificent teacher with amazing knowledge all over the map. A real rennaisence man.

But BG's real problem was Wierwille. You see, BG let Wierwille teach his class, which Wierwille did under the auspices of Leonard's ministry.

I even saw the pictures of those 2 classes in some of Leonard's 50's publications...pictures always represented to us as the first two "PFAL classes". This affected BG in an unfortunate way. He became overprotective of his works. He was darned if he's be ripped off again. Pity. I think it could have been revelatory had he simply let go and cast his body of work "on the waters" so to speak.

...All of this adds up for me. His snow job, his wholesale plaigarism, the whole sordid mess, casts such a pall over anything he did I fail to see the value in listening to one word of it. It's hopelessly tainted. PFAL is such an adulterated piece of crap compared to BG's work I think it's hopeless. It has the effect of making the true things VP said in his class untrue, so clouded is every truth with so many falsehoods...

[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on February 12, 2003 at 13:24.]

[TheEvan]

I'll hasten to add that Wierwille didn't get all of PFAL from Leonard. That's just where it started. Over the years he added (Bullinger and others) and changed it for his own reasons.

It makes me realize that Leonard's class had a profound impact on Wierwille. So profound, he decided to base an offshoot ministry on the concept, if not the exact content. The rip-off was so wholesale that he repeatedly omitted Leonard from references as to who he learned from. The only place you see it is in The Way Living in Love, wherein Wierwille gives the account of meeting Leonard & taking his class but in the end dismisses him with "he was great with experiences but not with the Word". He claims to have gone home & "put it all together with the Word" Yeah right.

I was dumbfounded, and more than a little distracted, when I heard BG use Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup & Henry Boloco in his illustrations. And I became convinced that some of Wierwille's strange pronunciations were not from his corner of rural Ohio...he actually copped them from BG. I mean, that's WIERD.

Maybe he smelled the potential following, fame, fortune when he saw BG's work. And being a lazy liar he took the shortest path to success in ministry...lying & stealing. What a legacy!

[Outin88!]

Yup, I've heard that VP copied much of B.G. Leonards class, although I've never taken B.G's class I've heard from people who have.

Dale S. a former limb coordinator and Rev did take B.G.'s class and reported in a tape he did called "Missing Pieces" that VPW even copied the charater names of Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup etc.

It's really pathetic, VPW could have at least changed those names.

But then again people copied him after he invented the hook shot!!!! ;)-->

[Mandii]

I'm not saying these orginated with Rev Clarence Larkin, but since he died in 1924, he had been teaching it before PFAL..check out the first three title..taken from link www.amagenddonbooks.com/larkin.html

RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD

Clarence Larkin, 1920

$22.95 Ships within

24 hours! Secure

Order Form

From the front cover: This book "Rightly Divides" the fundamentals in a series of contrasts, as "Law and Grace," "Faith and Works," "Standing and State," "Sin and Salvation," " Atonement and Redemption," etc. It contains the ream and meat of the Author's sermons and Bible lectures, for thirty years, and is illustrated with 55 charts and diagrams. The charts are clear and simple and adapted to Institute and Bible class work. 328 pages, hardback, illustrated.

[Raf]

While I wouldn't call this plagiarism, the parallels with Wierwille's writings are alarming.

[Nottawayfer]

Mandii,

Your link doesn't work. Could it be because armeggedon is spelled incorrectly? Heck, I don't even know how to spell armeggedon. I tried to do a google search, no luck finding it. Can you help? I would like to see this link. Thanks.

[Dot Matrix]

OH MY GAWD!

88 and Evan: He actually stole Maggie Mullins, Johnny Jumpup and Henry Baloka? (thanks guys for that insight)

What a severe A$$!

Mandi, I had trouble on the site as well, Thanks!

Raf : Good stuff proving again VPW was not taught the word as it had not been taught since the first century as -- there it was PRINTED.

Yes Evan - When I read EW's thing on "written for our learning - for us and stuff written to us..." Again, it prooves VPW was not taught by God as it had not been taught since the first Century....

Again:

quote:

------------------------------------

* All this refers, of course, only to Interpretation, and not to Application. This will form a chapter by itself when we come to consider the "Words." We may apply all that is written so long as we do so in harmony with what is addressed especially TO us in this Dispensation. All was and is "written for our learning": all is FOR us. But not all is addressed or applies TO us. We must not apply what was true of one Dispensation to upset what is true of another Dispensation.

---------------------------------

He just compiled other people's work!

And Evan thanks again for your sharing.

Dot Matrix

[Mandii]

*looks sheepish* I forgot the c before the larkin in the link

http://www.armageddonbooks.com/clarkin.html

[Steve Lortz]

As Popeye might say, "It's disgustipatin'!"

Love,

Steve

[troubledwine]

Guys check this out!

Evan Posted:

quote:

---

The only place you see it is in The Way Living in Love, wherein Wierwille gives the account of meeting Leonard & taking his class but in the end dismisses him with "he was great with experiences but not with the Word". He claims to have gone home & "put it all together with the Word" Yeah right.

---

Wow, do i have a quote for you:

quote:

---

Mrs Wierwille writes: B.G. Leonard built people's believing by his tremendous, God given ability as a teacher. On top of that, he was truly a one man show. He was so full of life that it was exciting just being around him. The deliverance that people received was right in the middle of the action of his ministering. We were given A GIANT STEP IN KNOWLEDGE by Brother Leonard, as we sometimes refferd to him. He explained the manifestations of the spirit to us, particularly focusing on word of knowledge word of wisdom and discerning of spirits, faith miracles and healing. (I think it is interesting that she says HEALING not gifts of healings here btw) by demonstrating scriptual accounts such as numbers 22 with balaam and the talking donkey, 2 kings 5 with naaman and elisha (we know where VPW got his cookies and tea example now) and many other accounts from the Old and New testaments...

Dr. spoke of learning about revelation: "Most of what I learned experientially about revelation, I learned the hard way. And it was mostly a miracle. Many of my early experiences were phenomena. Before B.G. Leonard, I had nobody to teach me as I'm teaching you and going to teach you. But God was teachinmg me that he was God and revelation was available. I cannot tell you how thankful I am to God for His love, mercy and grace. After God taught me a great deal about how revelation is given, as I had studied His word B.G. showed me in the Word how it worked.

---

as written on page 92 Born again to serve Dorothea Kipp Wierwille copywrite 1996 american christian press

Wow, talk about VPW being FULL OF HIMSELF when Elena interviewed him !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[WordWolf]

I'm with Dot Matrix.

HE...STOLE....MAGGIE MUGGINS? AND THE BOLOCCO

BROTHERS, HENRY AND HERMAN?????

(Johnny Jumpup is a flower, but, apparently,

its use as a name was the same source also.)

That's just obscene.

Anyone who reads thru EW Bullinger's

"How to Enjoy the Bible"

(and can stay awake thru it) will see that

whole sessions were ripped off of it.

(If anyone knows of an edition of that book that

doesn't have tiny print, I'd like to hear it.)

Similarly, EW's Companion Bible reiterates a

lot of his points.

I've also heard that J.E. Stiles' book(& class?)

have points that were ripped off in

"Recieving the Holy Spirit Today" (the white

book), which vpw supposedly developed entirely

on his own, not long after studying under

Stiles.

Some of the collaterals were ripped off

E.W. Kenyon's books.

It seems that, except for Clarence Larkin,

it was a standing policy of his to rip off

work from Christians who used initials and pass

it off as his own.

[oldiesman]

The first time I realized VPW didn't get the PFAL class by relevation was when I saw the 4 crucified in the Bullinger bible. But I never knew about all the things VPW learned from B.G. Leonard.

It sure looks like VPW wasn't the apostle we all thought he was. He certainly should have given B.G. Leonard more credit for his learning experiences, something like Mrs. Wierwille wrote only years and years before.

[Dot Matrix]

Thanks Mandi!

Steve- Popeye would have kicked VP's A$$!

Trou..wine WOW! And Wow again! I bet Mrs. W. was trying to let us/history know where this stuff came from. Like any good spouse I be she argued with her husband about "stealing" another man's/mens work!

Word wolf: Do you have any of Stiles stuff for comparison? I will look again but I did not see anything when I was hunting around the other night. And yeah, he did not even change the names of Maggie and friends -- how arrogant!

Olds: I wonder how many people knew how corrupt VPW lay at the root of his ministry and never said anything. I would have been protesting -- but VPW and them were my Dad's generation "the make your bed and lay in it -- take the lumps --cards fall where they may --"

thinking.

I am the next generation -- If you take my

sh it I am going to sue you, let everyone know, put a sign in my yard and you will be sorry generation.

HE was such an A$$!

Dot Matrix

[igotout]

This might shed light on some of the thinking and belief among the followers of The Way at the time in earlier years. In 1974 when I first took the PFAL class I remember being fascinated by the four crucified. Rev. Anderson (Limb leader) at break showed us the Bullinger bible article. But it was promoted as "See, here is another gentleman named E.W. Bullinger who also came to to the same conclusions as Dr. Wierwille." This amazed me because it was promoted as if these two men arrived at this conclusion independently of each other.

As I inquired further, some of the older grads explained to me that after the 1942 promise, "Dr." did lots of research. He apparently stumbled on Bullingers works and was amazed because it here was a man who came to the same conclusions on God's word that he did in his reasearch.

The story goes that "the Dr." stayed up all night reading Bullinger's works because he was so thrilled to find someone whose research lined up with his. What was a 20 year old to do...? I was hooked.

Job says "Oh, that mine enemies had written a book"

I say, "Oh, that mine enemies had been posted on the internet".

[Dot Matrix]

I got out

What a smooth way to cover his sins!

But still there is that God promise thing about being taught the word like it was not taught since the First Century -- and yet THERE IT WAS in print -- After the First Century pre-PFAL

All I can say is, "Hey VP, Liar Liar pants on Fire!!!!!

Oh, and do you really think before getting your DOCTORATE -- you would have never studied Bullinger?

Oh yes, VP got his degree from a mail in course and his Doctorate from what appears as the back of a house!

http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/quz_ipikepk.htm

Dot Matrix

[Raf]

Wierwille defender response:

The original work was not the individual teachings and doctrines. It was putting them all together so that it fit. Bullinger came close, but embraced the Trinity and rejected the manifestations.

Leonard got the manifestations right, but called them gifts and accepted the Trinity too.

The Jehovah's witnesses were right about the Trinity and death, but got a lot of other things wacky.

Wierwille was the only one to combine rejection of the Trinity, dispensationalism, denial of immediate life after death and the operation of the manifestations together under one doctrinal framework.

[Dot Matrix]

I can hear that coming from a cuople folks here.

There are people that do not want to believe VPW was a bad guy. To them it is like hearing your Father is a louse. So, hopefully they will not post so we can gather all we know about WHERE VP got the information.... It was not his own research.

And even if he did a patchwork class of other people's stuff -- He could have said "This class is compiled of other men's work...."

Dot Matrix

[FreshAir 99]

igotout,

Yeah........that's the slant that vp postured, as if his "research" was in alignment with Dr. E.W. Bullinger's work (totally independent of him).

Sheeeeeesh.......as a teenager, I too believed it. Oh, the foolishness and zeal of youth.

From what I remember, B.G. Leonard was rarely credited with any of vpw's learning. Perhaps, because vpw copied SO MUCH of it and didn't want to be exposed with fraudulent claims of "God teaching him (vpw) directly."

Of course, in the Founders' Room.......FOUNDER OF WHAT???????......in the Auditorium, there are eight or ten pictures of men on the east wall. Pictures include...... E.W. Bullinger, Starr Daily, Bishop KC Pillai, BG Leonard, Rufus Moseley, Glenn Clark (??) and Kenyon. And maybe a couple of others. At the very least, vpw had these pictures displayed to give a semblance of credit due.

If vpw would have been forthright about coming forward with this information and COMPILING THE PFAL CLASS FROM THESE MEN'S WORKS....then, to me, it wouldn't be as big a deal. BUT...... to pawn himself off like THE ONLY MAN OF GOD SINCE THE FIRST CENTURY TO HAVE SUCH TRUTH......it turns my stomach.

And finally, to even steal the names of MAGGIE MUGGINS, HENRY BOLOKO, AND JOHNNY JUMPUP.......well, that's just really low.

Uuuuuugh.

Fresh

[TheEvan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rafael 1969:

Wierwille defender response:

The original work was not the individual teachings and doctrines. It was putting them all together so that it fit. Bullinger came close, but embraced the Trinity and rejected the manifestations.

Leonard got the manifestations right, but called them gifts and accepted the Trinity too.

---

Okay, I can say this is wrong. Leonard did not teach the trinity. I'm not sure I can correctly articulate his belief of the Godhead, but it seems to me to be close to that of Oneness Pentecostals in concept, though not in practical application.

And though you are correct that Leonard calls them gifts (I'll side with him there), I believe Wierwille's distinction of gifts/manifestation is the result of his poor understanding of BG's teaching. And poor syntax, It was from Leonard he got 'in speaking in tongues what is the Gift? The Gift is your God-given ability to speak in tongues. What is the act (ie, manifestation)? Speaking in tongues.' This was copped from Leonard almost verbatim; I think Wierwille didn't understand the teaching correctly and put it out the format we see in PFAL.

[Raf]

Yeah, but the point is that Wierwille's apologists (all but Mike) don't care about the source of the individual teachings. The original work of Wierwille is putting it all together so that it fit. As long as they believe no one else combines grace, salvation by faith, denial of the trinity, denial of the pre-existence of Christ, manifestations not gifts, dispensationalism (with 7 administrations) and denial of immediate life after death, their minds are made up.

Pointing out the real origin of any one of those components isn't going to impress them, because it's not the components that impressed them in the first place. It's the collection.

Therefore, it is the ACCURACY of Wierwille's claims, not the origin of them, that must be discredited.

Discrediting the origin is just gravy. It's worthwhile if the person you're arguing with thinks Wierwille is some great researcher. We all know how I feel about plagiarism.

Think about how Smikeol responds to the plagiarism charge to understand where I'm coming from: God revealed it to Bullinger, who let his private interpretation get in the way. God revealed some of it to Leonard, Stiles, and these other men. They all let their PI get in the way. So when God revealed the same information to Wierwille, OF COURSE it looked like Wierwille was copying the other men. They were all copying God, the true author. The others just weren't as meek (HA!) as Wierwille. So when Wierwille writes it, it's pure Word of God. When the others write it, it's God's Word mixed with their own private interpretation.

Don't laugh. He really believes that.

What to do?

Challenge the origin, but recognize that's only a small part of the job. Challenging the accuracy is far more important.

[Dot Matrix]

Freshair -- AMEN!!!! AMEN!!!!

Evan- Cool, I am glad you know this stuff, it is really helpful in sorting out the lies! Thanks again for you kindness and bravery in sharing!

Dot Matrix

[FreshAir 99]

When vpw boasts in pfal that he did nothing but work the Word year after year to come up with his foundational class.......... it sure looks to be a bit of a s--t--r--e--t--c--h, don't ya think?

:P--> :P--> :P--> :P--> :P-->

Fresh

[TheEvan]

Rafael, what to do with Mikey? Nothing. Or perhaps long-term institutionalization.

BUT, since you brought it up, I think Leonard might fit the criteria you outlined:

"As long as they believe no one else combines grace, salvation by faith, denial of the trinity, denial of the pre-existence of Christ, manifestations not gifts, dispensationalism (with 7 administrations) and denial of immediate life after death, their minds are made up."

Leonard: grace-check

salvation by faith-check

denial of the trinity-check

denial of the pre-existence of Christ-check

manifestations not gifts-see above

dispensationalism-check...though I doubt its conception is as rigid as Wierwille's

denial of immediate life after death-check.

However, neither this, nor proving errors, nor raising one from the dead will convince Mikey. I vote institutionalization.

[Raf]

I'll agree with all your checks except one: denial of the trinity.

And that's only because according to your explanation, Leonard denies the trinity differently from Wierwille. Bottom line: Leonard believed Jesus is God. Wierwille did not. That's a huge difference, and enough to convince the average Wierwille apologist that Wierwille got a teensy bit closer to first century church-ism than Leonard.

Woah, hold it: Leonard denied the pre-existence of Christ?

Freshair: I could be a pain in the neck and try to argue with you, but since I agree with you, I won't bother. :)-->

[Dot Matrix]

I guess Leonard did NOT believe Jesus was God if he did not believe in the pre-existence of Christ.

Looking more and more like PFAL was primarily Leonard's class with a splash of Bullinger!

Dot Matrix