You are right about at least one thing in this discussion. I do have a lot of confidence in my ability to read and understand the scriptures. You see Mike, I believe that this ability of comprehension is a gift from God through Jesus Christ and the holy spirit which he gave. I also have confidence in other people's ability to understand God's word through the holy spirit. You on the other hand seem to have great faith in a 1942 snow storm which history seems to show never actually happened. The scriptures back my faith. The same scriptures are oppossed to yours.
You know Mike when it comes right down to it your religion is not much different that the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and Muslums. All of these religions were started by the experiential signs of their founders. You have showed your true colors and honestly your conclusion does not surprise me.
Matt 16:1-4
16:1 The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.
2 He replied, "When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' 3 and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.
NIV
Jonah, who was in the belly of a whale and presumed to be dead, typifies Jesus Christ's death and then resurrection.
Oakspear- Greetings from the land of surf & sunshine. I appreciate your responses. You are honest. I was ex -commed from TWI in the late 80's. personal choice . It's very obvious you have serious issues with TWI- maybe you are right. Personally , I have always tried to seperate the Word that I was taught from the rest of the crap that occured.( and in agreement, there was plenty of it) I have noticed though that by working what I was taught through the previously mentioned principals that I have "seen " some very incredible insights. You don't seem to agree, well OK. I want the Word rightly divided. I did make a major commitment to God & his Word at one time in my life and I do not want to lose sight of that commitment. That is why I decided to stick to that Word and see if it is really so. God Bless
cya, your reply to Oakspear, though blessedly nice in tone (which I highly value, btw) invites no real discussion, and in a way browbeats. How? Because you say you decided to stick with "the Word". Implicit in this phrase is the Word of Way.
You see, I decided to stick with "the Word" too and I came up with entirely different conclusions. I won't go into them here. I could summarize by saying that, in the main, Wierwille was Overwhelmingly Wrong.
By the standard of your statement I didn't stick with the Word. Which gets my back up, just as it would yours if I accused you of ignoring the Word in favor of WierwilleŸ
“My problem is that a vision does little to verify a discussion with the Almighty, but since we're parsing words here, if one were to give VPW EVERY SINGLE benefit of the doubt, one would have to leave room for the "vision interpretation."
What's funny is, why didn't anyone (Mike) mention this before?â€
Rafael, my physical inability to answer all questions, and in an immediate fashion, may appear like a logical inability to answer. I have physical limitations of time and energy, and you know it, so why do you ask that question?
I agree with you that a vision does little to verify a discussion with the Almighty.
MY problem is that a substantiating weather report ALSO would do little to verify a discussion with the Almighty.
I do now, finally after much delay, give Dr every benefit of the doubt, but I don’t do so by nit picking about trivialities like weather reports. My way of giving him every benefit of the doubt is to OBEY his final instructions, especially if the adversary saw so fit to hide them form ALL of us. For each different splinter group (twi-2 included), and for many different individuals the adversary has supplied a tailored excuse to help us all disregard Dr’s instructions to master the PFAL books. That is what this thread originated to expose. I think I have succeeded in that point.
You and I are doing things in the opposite order. You want all the trivial details to line up perfectly in your sight and THEN you’ll believe and start mastering. I am suggesting that you try it reversed. FIRST master the books, and then these details will start lining up all, and eventually will vanish as we work them properly. These are two vastly different strategies. It reminds me greatly of Jesus’ conversation with Thomas.
I do agree with you on the possibility of the vision. I also do agree with you that this has not the proof-weight desire. But unlike you, I also feel that a substantiating 60 year old weather report would also fail to yield the weight of proof I would want to base my life on.
I looked at your top ten apparent contradictions in PFAL, and almost all are quite familiar to me. I disagree with how you handle them. As I master the books I see these items begin to wither. It takes time, as we were taught. It takes being aware of the many keys Dr gave us in the class, and applying them very diligently. I don’t believe you have properly worked these items, so they remain contradictions in your mind and in the minds of other non-masters.
In another post I showed you a few principles that I am currently applying to the “all without distinction†problem. I did not give an exhaustive listing of the principles a PFAL master would be aware of. Until you master PFAL and utilize all these principles you do not have the ammunition to shoot down these contradictions, and they will continue to appear as actual.
For example, let me lay out a few more principles. You mentioned that PFAL page 65 contradicts JCNG page 94 and you left it at that. Did you know that the phrase “all with distinction†also appears in Vol. IV GMWD page 241? Did you include it in your analysis?
If we do not include every place where the topic at hand comes up, our research is incomplete. If we conclude something is an “actual error†but failed to include all items worthy of scrutiny, then the error is in our conclusion. It’s only an apparent error still.
Just in case you DID see the page 241 occurrence, hold on to your hat. There’s still more. This next item is an example of what I mentioned in an earlier post as a SLIGHT handicap relatively recent grads may suffer. I can not blame you for not having been around earlier, so I wont. By working together as a body this kind of minor handicap is easily overcome.
At PFAL ’77 this “all†problem came up. Ever since I first took the class I was somewhat pained by the “all without distinction†phrase in the class video and book at the time. It seemed strained or something. I could see how a slight stretch in language would render the “all without distinction†intelligible, HOWEVER at the time I favored the phrase “all WITH distinction†as much clearer. So did a lot of other people. When the PFAL ’77 class approached this point in the syllabus, I listened very attentively to see how Dr would handle it.
Now here’s where I too have a slight handicap: my memory. Tapes of PFAL’77 seem to have disappeared and I have not been able to refresh my memory of that exact point in the class, EVEN THOUGH I feel my memory of it feels perfect. I’ve seen much scientific discussion regarding memory problems from my previously mentioned exposure to a bunch of brain scientists. It’s not a medical problem for me in any way (yet), but I don’t trust my own memory much anyway, nor any one else’s, and that’s one reason I rely on the tape/print record. Here, with the PFAL ’77 occurrence of the “all problem†I don’t have access to the record.
At the time of the class I was very alert and interested in this one thing, so I think what I remember is pretty good. Maybe someone out there remembers it too and can help verify.
When Dr got to this part in the class he said: “all.............WITH distinction.†There was a huge pause before the word “with,†and then a very deliberate pronunciation of the rest of the phrase.†So, to a non-mastering student such as myself, I “concluded†that Dr had corrected an error in the PFAL book. I was ecstatic! I was very much opposed to thinking of these books as God-breathed then, and I wanted to see an error correction.
There’s still more, but let’s tally the results:
PFAL book – all withOUT distinction
JCNG book – all with distinction
GMWD book – all with distinction
PFAL’77 class- all with distinction
Kinda looks like the PFAL book loses, doesn’t it? I try to remember that appearances can be deceiving, sometimes VERY deceiving. Well, to an obedient mastering student it is NOT OVER. There’s still more.
A few of Dr’s books went through formal edition changes. The PFAL book did not. There were, however many different “printings†of that book., and there are several changes made in that book in one or more of the printings. A “printing†can be like an edition change except the changes don’t affect pagination, and they involve only a few words.
The PFAL book went through several printings before Dr died where a few things were changed. For instance on page 4, on the bottom line, the second word was changed from “His†to “God’s†and the word “Jew†was changed to “Judean†throughout. What’s interesting, and still a mystery to me, is that unlike the PFAL’77 change, and unlike the wording in GMWD and JCNG, the “all without distinction†on PFAL page 65 was NOT changed. Why?
There was the opportunity to change it, but it was not. Many people knew of the “problem†but it was left there unchanged in the PFAL book. This is why I look at things like the “in fact†tip off in JCNG which I mentioned in an earlier post, and several others I mentioned, and several others I did not mention. I want to know why this “error†was deliberately left in there.
Rafael, I went through all this to demonstrate how I feel these apparent contradictions you’ve collected are not well worked yet. I am NOT a master of this material, but I do recognize the great need to refrain from jumping to the conclusion that they are actual errors. We have a lot of work to do.
I have found that as I do this work, apparent errors EVENTUALLY vanish. I don’t think all the work is done yet for your list. They look obvious as errors to you, but your knowledge of the subject, and your mastery of the books in general is incomplete. It does not matter to me ANY MORE how obvious they look. Appearances are deceiving. I used to think “error†but not any more. I’ve seen too may apparent errors in my mind vanish as I obey God and the spokesman He selected to teach us. I refuse to be talked out of it again.
My own inadequacies in mastering the material forbid me to trust my own feeling when I see these apparent errors. I have seen so many human errors committed by absolutely all us PFAL non-master students, whether we be Corps, clergy, or PhD’s. The leadership that ran things after Dr stepped down have totally proven themselves to be incompetent non-masters of PFAL to me. This includes all the splinter groups and twi. They have proven to be totally disobedient to their teacher. Their handling of nearly everything that went on since 1982 has been so botched that I can only conclude that they all are amateurs LIKE ME at handling spiritual matters, or worse than me, they are reprobate.
Until you get serious about mastering those books I believe you too are a mere amateur at understanding what God taught Dr and Dr taught us. I don’t care how many apparent errors you compile. You haven’t earned that kind of respect from me that Dr did. ALL of Dr’s leaders have thrown away the respect I once had for them. I’m sticking with the books. As I find more answers to these things I will share them with people who can receive them, people who are meekly mastering PFAL.
It's very obvious you have serious issues with TWI- maybe you are right.
It's obvious because I said I have isues!
quote:Personally , I have always tried to seperate the Word that I was taught from the rest of the crap that occured.( and in agreement, there was plenty of it)
As have most of us here, including myself
quote:I have noticed though that by working what I was taught through the previously mentioned principals that I have "seen " some very incredible insights. You don't seem to agree, well OK.
What you have seen is your business, I don't disagree with what you have seen. In fact, I have seen incredible insights as well. In fact, it was by using the "previously mentioned principles" that I discovered error in what is and was taught in TWI.
quote: I want the Word rightly divided. I did make a major commitment to God & his Word at one time in my life and I do not want to lose sight of that commitment. That is why I decided to stick to that Word and see if it is really so.
Yeah, me too, believe it or not. I just came to different conclusions than you did
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
quote:I looked at your top ten apparent contradictions in PFAL, and almost all are quite familiar to me. I disagree with how you handle them. As I master the books I see these items begin to wither. It takes time, as we were taught. It takes being aware of the many keys Dr gave us in the class, and applying them very diligently. I don’t believe you have properly worked these items, so they remain contradictions in your mind and in the minds of other non-masters.
Oh, for heaven's sake, put up or shut up. Go to that thread and refute those points with the truth. It's very easy to state in another thread that I'm wrong, but go over to THAT thread and refute the actual points with actual facts. I defy you to refute ONE point I raised. ONE.
You repeatedly state that a substantiating weather report would not be sufficient proof that Wierwille was telling the truth. I submit that a CONTRADICTORY weather report would be sufficient proof that Wierwille was lying.
Further, you had PLENTY of time to post several responses to my comments about the snowstorm. That you chose not to do so tells me that you thought there was an actual snowstorm, not a vision. Well, I can't read your mind, but I openly wonder about that one.
You continue to mention the "in fact" statement in Jesus Christ is not God. There is no "in fact" statement in Jesus Christ is Not God, not in the relevant page, not in the page before, not in the page after. What are you talking about?
Cast down the idol, Mike. PFAL is the flawed work of a flawed man. Get over it.
P.S. If they changed the wording of PFAL from Jew to Judean, then did they change the Word of God?
Why do you persist in trying to carry on a debate with revrun Mike?
You guys sound like that Monty Python skit where Michael Palin pays for an argument, and makes brilliant points, and all he gets in response is "No it isn't" and "Yes it is" and "Time's up!".
Remember, in the words of docvic - "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
These threads are akin to trying to debate with one of those streetcorner nutjob preachers, only this forum is giving said nutjob some validation.
He is here to preach at all of us, not to listen to anything anyone has to say.
Of course, you guys look like you are having a lot of fun doing what you are doing, and I cannot fault you for that. But be not deceived, you will make no headway with such an one as this.
quote:The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of Godlives and abides forever. It endures. It stands. Let's see this from John 5:39. "Search the scriptures..." It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or VP Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, "Search the scriptures..." because all scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed.
What does Wierwille mean by "the Word of God?" Well, in the passage above, he's clearly equating the Word of God with "the scriptures." We also know from PFAL Chapter One verse One that "The Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God." Thus, by checking in the verse and in previous usage, and knowing that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other, we can state with certainty the following:
The Bible = The Word of God = The Scriptures.
We will also note that Wierwille specifically differentiates his own writings from the Word of God. He lumps his work in the same category as the work of other ministers, past and present, in comparison with the Word of God, which he holds up on a pedestal.
So, according to Wierwille, his writings are NOT to be taken as "God-breathed" by comparison to the Bible.
So what of his statement "not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed?" Does that mean, as some meek masters have said, that SOME of what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed?
Let's see how Wierwille defines it:
quote:The greatness of this is that every time that a believer speaks the accuracy of God's Word, he is like a man of God. When you speak the accuracy of God's Word, you are as a man of God. When we speak His Word, we are speaking as though God Himself were speaking.
PFAL, p. 89
So, we know that God's Word is the Bible. The accuracy of the Bible is another way of saying a proper understanding of the Bible. When you speak with a proper understanding of the Bible, what you speak is just as though God Himself were speaking it. On this we can all agree.
So, taking the two passages together, we may reasonably conclude that Wierwille felt his writings, when they agreed with the Bible, were as valuable as the Bible (to which I say, no duh). Logic dictates that when Wierwille's writings disagreed with the Bible, they would NOT be as valuable as the Bible. Weirwille himself left this possibility open by noting that NOT EVERYTHING HE WRITES is God-breathed.
On the contrary, according to Wierwille, ALL of the Bible is God-breathed.
One may reasonably conclude, therefore, that PFAL is God-breathed ONLY insofar as it agrees with the Bible, ALL of which is God-breathed. If and when PFAL disagrees with the Bible, the Bible is always given pre-eminence (how can it be otherwise)?
The Bible is pre-eminent.
Wierwille's writings are no more authoritative than the works of Luther, Aristotle, Kant, Billy Graham or Oral Roberts. WIERWILLE HIMSELF SAID SO.
Mike, you have perverted the words of Wierwille, and dismissed the Word of God. You measure the Bible against the standard of PFAL, when you should be measuring PFAL against the standard of the Bible.
That Wierwille did not see his book as "The Word of God," or as the equivalent of "God-breathed scripture" is evidenced by the fact YOU brought up, which is that PFAL went through several printings and that changes were made. Wierwille taught that if you change one word of the Word of God, then you no longer have God's Word. You accuse him of tampering with God's Word by fiddling with PFAL.
I know this won't change your mind, as you have already stated, quite plainly, that no amount of evidence will persuade you to pull your head out of the sand. That's your choice, but don't expect a bunch of us to stick our heads in the sand with you and call it light.
I am certain that Mike's mind won't be changed. He said that he is not considering our words because is mind is already made up.
You're right, this "debate" is fun! And it points out to bystanders the illogic of Mike's stance on one hand and the logic and consistancy of what Rafael and Goey and others are saying on the other hand.
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
Well, I just woke up and am off to work soon. I only saw the above posts as much as can be seen by counting how many PgDn’s are required to fly through them. Rafael, you picture was recognizable in the blur, and I apologize greatly for not responding just now. I’m still interested in a phone conversation that may cut through a lot of heart issues, thus expediting our logic issues. I really do admire your tenacity. If you’re interested, please e-mail me.
With my present work schedule at maximum, and about 10 e-mails in line that deserve thoughtful responses, I can predict that my accumulated backlog of work for post responses will only grow larger as the days roll on. There are still posts from 4 days ago I want to respond to. So far it feels like I’m back in college and taking a double load of English composition classes. Remember? I said that English Comp was my weak suit? Well now I have a term paper due every day!
This is a little like a Twilight Zone episode I find myself in, one of the humorous ones. An old friend calls these things “twilight zonettes.†It is fun, but I’m beginning to feel like my biological PgDn key is stuck on repeat.
Soooo, it looks like you folks are on you own in the forums for a while. I know that my silence may look like resignation to defeat for those who savor a cheap victory, but time will tell.
I need to shift to e-mail responding for a while to clear that backlog. If I do any more posting in the next week it may only be sporadic pick-and-choose responses. You can bet my desire to respond to ALL is as great as my confidence in handling past posts.
For those of you who can’t relate to that I’ll translate: You can bet my desire to respond to ALL is as great as my ARROGANCE in handling past posts.
My business has a predictable lull approaching in the next months, so I’ll be back in force soon. Save some popcorn.
quote:One may reasonably conclude, therefore, that PFAL is God-breathed ONLY insofar as it agrees with the Bible, ALL of which is God-breathed. If and when PFAL disagrees with the Bible, the Bible is always given pre-eminence (how can it be otherwise)?
So true. So true.
If memory serves, didn't VPW say this in a different way, in PFAL? something like "when the Word is rightly-divided, you have the word of truth ... and when the Word is wrongly-divided, you have error?
Personally, I'm willing to believe that some of PFAL has been wrongly-divided. Hey Wierwille was human after all...
Great Caesar’s Ghost! Rafael, you’re a cruel taskmaster. You wrote: “Further, you had PLENTY of time to post several responses to my comments...â€
You can’t read my mind, as you admitted, BUT you ALSO can’t read my schedule. Can’t you give me any alternative to (a) put up and (b) shut up?
Don’t you remember how Dr taught us that sometimes a thorny verse may be on his desk for 15 years before it gets resolved? Your impatience is the cause for you to jump to concussions. (sp intentional) I’m real happy with the MASSIVE fit I see in the PFAL books as I endeavor to master them. The puny list of apparent errors is not going to sink my artios ship. I’m used to bow spray, which is all that list is.
I am NOT a master yet. It may take years. You can resort to inaccurate ridicule all you want, but remember you are doingn it before the whole world. Accurate ridicule is a little different.
OK, I saw something I need to correct. (first mistake I made all millenium)
Rafael, you wrote “You continue to mention the "in fact" statement in Jesus Christ is not God. There is no "in fact" statement in Jesus Christ is Not God, not in the relevant page, not in the page before, not in the page after. What are you talking about?â€
Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse MEEE!!!
I should have written “THE fact†instead of “IN fact†which is smack dab in the middle of page 94. Maybe you were looking with shillt colored glasses.
This is a great demonstration of how someone bent on destroying can’t appreciate what’s being built. Again, and from my old hippie background, I can’t help but remind you “The Whole World Is Watching!â€
Now, what was I saying about not posting...? Maybe I should stop READING the forums for a while too?
ps Rafael, I hope you got my tongue in cheek opening of this post. It was just for you, but you may be too young to recognize it. “Great Caesar’s Ghost!†was the favorite expletive of Perry White, the editor of the “Daily Planet†and Clark Kent’s boss in Superman. I would SOOOO like to get on your good side, and be buddies. We can agree to disagree can’t we? Please e-mail me with your phone number, or receive mine. I’d like us to be able to converse without the harsh ASCII limitations and internet flaming atmosphere.
[This message was edited by Mike on January 03, 2003 at 9:21.]
[This message was edited by Mike on January 03, 2003 at 9:29.]
[This message was edited by Mike on January 03, 2003 at 20:49.]
Steve Lortz wrote: "Mike - My question is this: do you believe that everything Wierwille committed to paper in the PFAL and collateral books is God-breathed?"
YES! But I don't yet regard that simple "yes" as the ultimate answer. It's the best I have now, though. The reason it's not that simple with the books is because we have proofreaders' oversights and other such minor middlemen (even non-grad printers) that require us look a little deeper IN A SMALL NUMBER OF MINOR CASES to see what Dr put down on his paper. The paper you have in your hands is ever so SLIGHTLY different.
Dr wrote in page 34 of "The New Dynamic Church" that if we renew our minds then we will see that every word he wrote TO US (PFAL students) is true. When that page 34 statement is rightly divided (I'm still working on that) you will find your ultimate answer there.
In some previous writings I have mentioned page 83 in the PFAL book and a "Thus saith the Lord" statement hidden in some slightly complex grammar. This is my attempt to explain that grammar, and thus reveal what's been on that page all this time.
My goal is to produce a paraphrase equivalent of a sentence on that page. Also, I am particularly focused on attempting to fully incorporate the use of the word “necessarily†that appears in the original sentence. The sentence is:
“Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.â€
Just for simplicity, let’s temporarily remove the word "necessarily" and see what happens. Now we have:
“Not all that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.â€
The sentence almost seems to still say the same thing. It's almost like nothing was altered, but don't believe it. Soon we'll see why "necessarily" was in there.
Practically speaking, if I eat NOT ALL of a pie, then there’s SOME pie left for you. In the sentence under study the phrase "not all" implies "some." Mathematically speaking, the phrase “not all†is equivalent to “some or possibly none.†So, substituting the phrase “some or none†for the phrase “not all†in the sentence we then have:
“Some (or possibly none) that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.â€
This then can be separated out to two possible sentences:
“Some that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.â€
“None that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.â€
Now let’s restore the word "necessarily"
“Some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.â€
“None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.â€
The second sentence is rather strained grammar and logic. It also radically contradicts what Dr. wrote on page 34 of the Green Book: “...you will find that every word I have written to you is true.†I believe for these and other reasons it must be rejected in favor of the first sentence.
The first sentence fits (and the second does not) with all that we spiritually sensed when we first took the class. Likewise the first fits with the 1942 audible promise from God. And it fits with the last night of the class when Dr. said:
“...if you're in this class, you've heard the Word, you've
believed God's Word, God is always faithful. And nobody ever
misses, if you'll do exactly what I tell you to do, right
down to the minute detail.
It's like, in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember
where the Apostle Paul said: ‘I thank my God, that, when you
received the Word of God which you heard of us, you received it
not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God.’
Now, if you'll be as honest with God as that Word of God says,
you too can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the
power of God. But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille
talking, you'll never get it. But if you know that what I am
saying -- it's V.P. Wierwille saying it, but these are words
which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is utilizing and speaking
to you through my ministry and my life, then you too will
manifest forth the greatness of the power of God.â€
So, in a nutshell: the use of the word “necessarily†eliminates the possibility of “none†of Dr’s writings being God-breathed. Recently I came up with a paraphrase of the original page 83 sentence that incorporates this perspective.
The context of page 83 is God-breathed words are trustworthy; man-breathed words are not. We know that Jesus Christ said that he did not speak forth HIS OWN untrustworthy, man-breathed words, although he was tempted to. He only spoke forth the words his Father told him to speak. He was the only one to achieve this TOTAL purity of all words issued.
Here's the paraphrase:
“Even MY own writings... (and I was commissioned by God’s
audible voice in 1942 to bring forth God-taught explanations
of the Bible, and because of that SOME of my writings are not
really my own, but are REALLY God-breathed)... but even MY own
writings, when they’re merely my own, are not trustworthy like
God's are.â€
The word “necessarily†implies the contents of the above parenthesis. The original sentence on page 83 says that even someone who is given the job, by God, to teach the Word “like it hasn't been known since the first century†is going to have words, his own words, that fall short of the perfection of God.
Therefore, because not all, but just SOME of what Dr. Wierwille wrote is NECESSARILY God-breathed, the next step is identifying WHICH of his writings ARE God-breathed.
Hint: Dr’s Last/Lost Teaching contains the MOST IMPORTANT thing he could want to tell us.
I concluded that you had plenty of time to respond to my snowstorm questions based on the FACT that you DID respond, at length, on that very issue, with great fanfare, to Lifted's post on the same subject. I also based it on the fact that you've been looking over this INTENSELy for 27 years. I would think you, of all people, would recall the exact wording of VPW's conversation with God. It is, after all, the basis of your ridiculous claims.
Wierwille's statement in The New Dynamic Church was specifically applicable to the subject on which he was teaching at the time. For you to apply it to everything else he wrote is failing to read it in its context.
As I do not have the PFAL or JCNG books in front of me, I cannot see the "fact" quote you cite.
The FACT is, it's irrelevant to the definitions at hand:
"all WITHOUT distinction means all within a certain category."
"all WITH distinction means all within a certain category."
One of those statements MUST be false. Period. They cannot BOTH be true. They are polar opposites. Further, they are GENERAL statements of basic definitions. They do not change with circumstances.
So take another 27 years if you want.
I've always been absurdly easy to find, Mike. Feel free to write or call. Do a little research: take your mind off things.
P.S. Your logic regarding "necessarily" is tortured. You are deliberately removing Wierwille's sentence from its context, in which he CLEARLY exalts the Word of God above his own writings. Further, when he DOES make a claim that his words have as much authority as God's Word, he does it in a way that makes it CLEAR that there's nothing special about it: he says the same thing about YOU (the reader, whoever that may be). It is not a unique claim of divine authority. It is a general claim that when you're in line with the Bible, you're in line with God.
Oldies:
I am glad you can see that there ARE flaws in PFAL. No one is asking you to discard it all, and I hope people don't think that's what I'm trying to say.
I respect PFAL enough to apply its principles to its doctrine. When and where the doctrine falls short (and I believe it does), I praise the principles and let go of the doctrine. Examples would distract from this thread, but I believe my record of posting here proves what I've said.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 03, 2003 at 9:54.]
Mike: You do know that American Christian Press was wholly owned and operated by The Way International, don't you? It was entirely PFAL-grads, from proofreaders to printers.
Look, I'm not a rabid anti-Wierwillite. I think his original goal was admirable--to get to a greater understanding of the Bible by placing the scriptures above the traditions of the Church. BUT, since the Bible we do have today does really have apparent contradictions due to holes in our understanding, anything anyone comes up with to fill in those holes has to be as consistent as the rest of the Word in order to even be a candidate for the truth. Dr. Wierwille filled in some of those holes with demonstrably false doctrines, hidden amongst the more reasonable and probably-true bits.
It is those false doctrines that were directly responsible for the decline of TWI over his lifetime, and the utter failure of it after his death. Chief among them is his easily-disprovable views on adultery and sex in general. VPW might not have laid the label of "sex pervert" at the apostle Paul's feet for his thorn in the flesh, but there are several corroborating accounts from the victims that support laying that label at Dr. Wierwille's feet.
How could a man of God betray his wife and family like that? A moment of weakness might be understandable, but to systematize error and entrench it as doctrine is the work of the Adversary. To be unrepentant of it, even on his death bed? To teach it to his successors such that there have been multiple lawsuits brought forth over it?
Remember too that Dr. Wierwille died from cancer. It was his own teaching in the Advanced Class that cancer is always a devil spirit. Yet, despite the evident sexual abuse, not one of the Board of Trustees apparently cast the devil spirits out of him, nor did he apparently believe God to rid himself of it. Who knows when he was first possessed by it? Which books hadn't he written at that time?
By the very logic Dr. Wierwille presented in his PFAL class, nothing he said should be considered sacrosanct. All the error in the modern Bible came from well-meaning scribes who were secretly possessed of devil spirits, right? Guess who you can add to the list...
Not that you should be ashamed, even Paul the Apostle thought he was right when all the prophecies said "don't go to Jerusalem." Remember what happened to him in his pride, though.
Supposing for a moment that some of Dr. Wierwille's teachings were indeed God-breathed, and some were not, then what does that say of the teachings he agreed with enough to publish that came from other authors? If they were the ones who received God-breathed truth, and God confirmed them to be true to VPW, then we have God-breathed doctrine all over the place, and not just from one man. We should immediately read all works by:
B.G. Leonard
J.E. Stiles
George Lamsa
Ernest Martin
And a host of others of VPW's sources for his books. God is breathing on quite a few it would seem.
What happens when they contradict Wierwille, then? If, as Rafael has shown, that not ALL of VPW's work can be considered God-breathed, who then is qualified to privately interpret which bits are theopneustos and which bits are devilish error? By not reading the others, we could be missing out on even more God-breathed epistles to the believers.
If the others weren't God-breathed, but merely good guesses, how could we tell? Wierwille thought they were good enough to mix in with his God-breathed stuff, and God apparently didn't breathe to him otherwise, so what other conclusion can we draw but that they must have been God-breathed too?
This is a great demonstration of how someone bent on destroying can’t appreciate what’s being built. Again, and from my old hippie background, I can’t help but remind you “The Whole World Is Watching!â€
Another blind and false accusation. I am not, as you say, "bent on destroying." I reject your false accusation as the ranting of a man who has declared to us all that he has no interest in actual evidence.
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go to the Grease Spot Cafe forum thread with link posted below. It discusses some of the errors in PFAL, the bible class that you think is God-Breathed. Incidentally, I don't ever recall Victor Wierwille making that claim. Even he did not exalt his biblical writings above the scriptures.
On pages 217 and 218 of PFAL, in a chapter entitled "To Whom The Word Is Written", Wierwille wrote the following:
"Romans 8 says that nothing can separate me from the love of God; and yet three chapters later, Romans 11 says that if I don't continue in His goodness, I am going to be cut off. What's going on? Look to see to whom each passage is written.
"Romans 9:3:
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
"Who were Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh? Verse 4 says, 'Who are Israelites....' To whom is it addressed? Verse 4 says to the Israelites, the Judeans. Paul continued talking to Israel. Paul wrote in chapter 10 verse 1, 'Brethren, my hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.' This is still addressed to Israel. In chapter 11, verse 1, he says, 'I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.' Paul was still writing to Israel. But in verse 13 Paul changed to the Gentiles in his speech."
"...What does it mean for a Gentile to continue in His goodness?... Unless the Gentile continues in His goodness by making the confession of Romans 10:9, '...thou [Gentiles] also shalt be cut off.'..."
Let's take this section of PFAL apart to see what it says in detail:
1. - "Who were Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh? Verse 4 says, 'Who are Israelites....' To whom is it addressed? Verse 4 says to the Israelites, the Judeans."
Does verse 4 really say this section of scripture is addressed to the Israelites?
Romans 9:4 "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;"
No, it does not. It says that a lot of other things pertain to Israel, but it gives no indication that Paul is addressing Judeans at this point. It is *about* Israel, but not addressed *to* Israel.
2. - "Paul wrote in chapter 10 verse 1, 'Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.' This is still addressed to Israel."
Now a person might try to make a case that the "brethren" of Romans 10:1 are Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh", and therefore this section would be addressed to Israel. However, if that were the case, then Paul would have written, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for YOU is that YOU might be saved." In this verse Paul used "brethren" as he so often did, to indicate his fellow Christians. The "brethren" of Romans 10:1 are "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints".
3. - On page 212 of PFAL Wierwille wrote, "These two prepositions, *for* and *to*, make the critical difference between truth and error when it comes to rightly dividing the Word of God." However, in his analysis of Romans 10:1 Wierwille totally ignores the sense of these prepositions in the phrase "my heart's desire and prayer TO God FOR Israel". Romans 10:1 is NOT "still addressed to Israel."
4. - "In chapter 11, verse 1, he says, 'I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.' Paul was still writing to Israel."
Paul was still writing to Israel? Just read what's written... Paul was not addressing any remarks to Israel. He was using *himself* as an example to show that God had *not* cast Israel away!
5. - "But in verse 13 Paul changed to the Gentiles in his speech." Wierwille would have us to believe these are the Gentiles of Galatians 3:28, but Romans 11:17 and 24 indicate that these Gentiles had already been grafted into the olive tree, and that the root of the olive tree bore them. Verse 20 says that these Gentiles stand by faith. The Gentiles of this section are believers who came to Christ from Gentile backgrounds, not the raw Gentiles of Galatians 3:28.
6. - "...What does it mean for a Gentile to continue in his goodness?... Unless the Gentile continues in His goodness by making the confession of Romans 10:9, '... thou [Gentiles] also shalt be cut off.'..." Didn't Wierwille just say that Romans 9:4-11:12 is addressed to Israel? Doesn't Romans 10:9 fall within that section? How can a Gentile apply a verse that's supposedly addressed *to* Israel?
Within a very short span, only a little over *one page* in a book of 370, mostly within one paragraph, Wierwille managed to contradict what's actually written in the Word at least four times, and himself at least twice. These are not *apparent* contradictions. They are *real*. These are not the typos of heathen printers, nor are they honest mistakes.
When Wierwille wrote, "...verse 4 says to the Israelites... ...Paul continued talking to Israel... ...This is still addressed to Israel... ...Paul was still writing to Israel" and when Wierwille implied that the Gentiles of Romans 11 were the same as the Gentiles of Galatians 3:28, he was deliberately lying.
The reason he was lying was because he knew, that if we read Romans 11 as it was known in the first century, his definition of the church would collapse, and along with it, much of the rest of his theology, like a house of cards; his definition of the mystery, his scheme of administrations, his definition of salvation, his definition of holy spirit, his practice of grace as a license to sin.
Supposedly, back in 1942 God promised Wierwille that He would teach him the Word as it had not been known since the first century if he, Wierwille, would teach it to others. At one point, Mike, you wrote that you believe the first part of that promise because of what Wierwille taught you. I submit that what we learned from Wierwille was not "the Word as it had not been known since the first century", but rather a "Word" that was concocted by John Darby in the mid-nineteenth century.
At some point in one of these threads someone quoted Jeremiah 17:5&6. Let's look at those verses again.
Jeremiah 17:5 "Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.
6 "For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited."
I submit that much of the devastation and ruination that came upon those of us involved with TWI was not the result of the devil trying to suppress the truth, nor of failure to become meek masters of the collateral reading, but rather the result of this curse.
"Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man who trusteth in man [instead of trusting God, we trusted Wierwille and the other "Trustees"], and maketh flesh his arm [instead of walking in the spirit, we relied on meetings, classes, nametags, advances, conferences, keys, principles, guidelines, blue forms, trainings, general's suggestions, quotas, ministry calendars, micro-managed personal schedules, protocols, etc., ad nauseam], and whose heart departeth from the Lord [instead of looking to our Lord Jesus Christ, *we* got *our* needs and *our* wants met through the power of *our* believing, while TWI's absent Christ sat idly on the right hand of God smoking $50 cigars]."
About five years ago I publicly and specifically repented of doing these foolish (Galatians 3:1) things. Since then, I have tried the best I know how to turn my heart back to the Lord. My life has never been better.
You may not understand or appreciate or agree with the things I have written, Mike. But there may come a time when you recognize the curse. If that happens, remember that repentance is the way to recover the mercy and the grace that God extends to us through Jesus Christ our Lord!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
58
236
44
53
Popular Days
Dec 29
100
Mar 8
77
Jan 5
74
Dec 27
59
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 58 posts
Mike 236 posts
Tom Strange 44 posts
OldSkool 53 posts
Popular Days
Dec 29 2022
100 posts
Mar 8 2004
77 posts
Jan 5 2003
74 posts
Dec 27 2002
59 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Great posts Rocky & Waysider ! Sometimes wierwille apologetics make me think of an Old Testament passage: 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and
Bolshevik
He tells them to be joyful. Doesn't explain how. The Word says be joyful *POOF* you are now joyful. Like when claiming verses. Craftily disconnects the motive from the action. . . .
WordWolf
Yes. BTW, anyone who wants a quick summary of the main points of that entire transcript, it's simple. I said it before: "Serving people is important for Christians. Therefore, master
Posted Images
GarthP2000
Raf,
"You and I gotta hang out and grab a beer one night."
Only make sure that he's 'prosperous' enough to buy you a beer.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OCD #1
well, good!
;)-->
bet you're more peaceful
rock on!
i got hooked on "i'm with stupid" from Static X
killer song....details alot of my past relationship
it's all about the accusing types
Static-X/I'm With Stupid
great pains
i've gone to gang slang
i've gone to lame brain
looking for gold i
i have become someone else
outside stepping to inside
stepping to my side
stepping i wade through ....
he's a loser
he's a loser, she said
i am mine, i am mine
i am mine, i am mine
i am mine, i
i can't become someone else
he's a loser
he's a loser, she said
he's a loser
he's a loser, she said
"shall i grab my shovel"
"Yes, it was very stupid"
"So I grabbed a rope and I hogtied him"
-------------------------------------------
that song changed my life, set me free ...of sorts
musicians kick preacher butt! anyday!
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
The Snow Storm Theology
Hi Mike:
You are right about at least one thing in this discussion. I do have a lot of confidence in my ability to read and understand the scriptures. You see Mike, I believe that this ability of comprehension is a gift from God through Jesus Christ and the holy spirit which he gave. I also have confidence in other people's ability to understand God's word through the holy spirit. You on the other hand seem to have great faith in a 1942 snow storm which history seems to show never actually happened. The scriptures back my faith. The same scriptures are oppossed to yours.
You know Mike when it comes right down to it your religion is not much different that the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and Muslums. All of these religions were started by the experiential signs of their founders. You have showed your true colors and honestly your conclusion does not surprise me.
Matt 16:1-4
16:1 The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.
2 He replied, "When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' 3 and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. 4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.
NIV
Jonah, who was in the belly of a whale and presumed to be dead, typifies Jesus Christ's death and then resurrection.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
cyasurfin
Oakspear- Greetings from the land of surf & sunshine. I appreciate your responses. You are honest. I was ex -commed from TWI in the late 80's. personal choice . It's very obvious you have serious issues with TWI- maybe you are right. Personally , I have always tried to seperate the Word that I was taught from the rest of the crap that occured.( and in agreement, there was plenty of it) I have noticed though that by working what I was taught through the previously mentioned principals that I have "seen " some very incredible insights. You don't seem to agree, well OK. I want the Word rightly divided. I did make a major commitment to God & his Word at one time in my life and I do not want to lose sight of that commitment. That is why I decided to stick to that Word and see if it is really so. God Bless
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
cya, your reply to Oakspear, though blessedly nice in tone (which I highly value, btw) invites no real discussion, and in a way browbeats. How? Because you say you decided to stick with "the Word". Implicit in this phrase is the Word of Way.
You see, I decided to stick with "the Word" too and I came up with entirely different conclusions. I won't go into them here. I could summarize by saying that, in the main, Wierwille was Overwhelmingly Wrong.
By the standard of your statement I didn't stick with the Word. Which gets my back up, just as it would yours if I accused you of ignoring the Word in favor of WierwilleŸ
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael wrote above:
“My problem is that a vision does little to verify a discussion with the Almighty, but since we're parsing words here, if one were to give VPW EVERY SINGLE benefit of the doubt, one would have to leave room for the "vision interpretation."
What's funny is, why didn't anyone (Mike) mention this before?â€
Rafael, my physical inability to answer all questions, and in an immediate fashion, may appear like a logical inability to answer. I have physical limitations of time and energy, and you know it, so why do you ask that question?
I agree with you that a vision does little to verify a discussion with the Almighty.
MY problem is that a substantiating weather report ALSO would do little to verify a discussion with the Almighty.
I do now, finally after much delay, give Dr every benefit of the doubt, but I don’t do so by nit picking about trivialities like weather reports. My way of giving him every benefit of the doubt is to OBEY his final instructions, especially if the adversary saw so fit to hide them form ALL of us. For each different splinter group (twi-2 included), and for many different individuals the adversary has supplied a tailored excuse to help us all disregard Dr’s instructions to master the PFAL books. That is what this thread originated to expose. I think I have succeeded in that point.
You and I are doing things in the opposite order. You want all the trivial details to line up perfectly in your sight and THEN you’ll believe and start mastering. I am suggesting that you try it reversed. FIRST master the books, and then these details will start lining up all, and eventually will vanish as we work them properly. These are two vastly different strategies. It reminds me greatly of Jesus’ conversation with Thomas.
I do agree with you on the possibility of the vision. I also do agree with you that this has not the proof-weight desire. But unlike you, I also feel that a substantiating 60 year old weather report would also fail to yield the weight of proof I would want to base my life on.
I looked at your top ten apparent contradictions in PFAL, and almost all are quite familiar to me. I disagree with how you handle them. As I master the books I see these items begin to wither. It takes time, as we were taught. It takes being aware of the many keys Dr gave us in the class, and applying them very diligently. I don’t believe you have properly worked these items, so they remain contradictions in your mind and in the minds of other non-masters.
In another post I showed you a few principles that I am currently applying to the “all without distinction†problem. I did not give an exhaustive listing of the principles a PFAL master would be aware of. Until you master PFAL and utilize all these principles you do not have the ammunition to shoot down these contradictions, and they will continue to appear as actual.
For example, let me lay out a few more principles. You mentioned that PFAL page 65 contradicts JCNG page 94 and you left it at that. Did you know that the phrase “all with distinction†also appears in Vol. IV GMWD page 241? Did you include it in your analysis?
If we do not include every place where the topic at hand comes up, our research is incomplete. If we conclude something is an “actual error†but failed to include all items worthy of scrutiny, then the error is in our conclusion. It’s only an apparent error still.
Just in case you DID see the page 241 occurrence, hold on to your hat. There’s still more. This next item is an example of what I mentioned in an earlier post as a SLIGHT handicap relatively recent grads may suffer. I can not blame you for not having been around earlier, so I wont. By working together as a body this kind of minor handicap is easily overcome.
At PFAL ’77 this “all†problem came up. Ever since I first took the class I was somewhat pained by the “all without distinction†phrase in the class video and book at the time. It seemed strained or something. I could see how a slight stretch in language would render the “all without distinction†intelligible, HOWEVER at the time I favored the phrase “all WITH distinction†as much clearer. So did a lot of other people. When the PFAL ’77 class approached this point in the syllabus, I listened very attentively to see how Dr would handle it.
Now here’s where I too have a slight handicap: my memory. Tapes of PFAL’77 seem to have disappeared and I have not been able to refresh my memory of that exact point in the class, EVEN THOUGH I feel my memory of it feels perfect. I’ve seen much scientific discussion regarding memory problems from my previously mentioned exposure to a bunch of brain scientists. It’s not a medical problem for me in any way (yet), but I don’t trust my own memory much anyway, nor any one else’s, and that’s one reason I rely on the tape/print record. Here, with the PFAL ’77 occurrence of the “all problem†I don’t have access to the record.
At the time of the class I was very alert and interested in this one thing, so I think what I remember is pretty good. Maybe someone out there remembers it too and can help verify.
When Dr got to this part in the class he said: “all.............WITH distinction.†There was a huge pause before the word “with,†and then a very deliberate pronunciation of the rest of the phrase.†So, to a non-mastering student such as myself, I “concluded†that Dr had corrected an error in the PFAL book. I was ecstatic! I was very much opposed to thinking of these books as God-breathed then, and I wanted to see an error correction.
There’s still more, but let’s tally the results:
PFAL book – all withOUT distinction
JCNG book – all with distinction
GMWD book – all with distinction
PFAL’77 class- all with distinction
Kinda looks like the PFAL book loses, doesn’t it? I try to remember that appearances can be deceiving, sometimes VERY deceiving. Well, to an obedient mastering student it is NOT OVER. There’s still more.
A few of Dr’s books went through formal edition changes. The PFAL book did not. There were, however many different “printings†of that book., and there are several changes made in that book in one or more of the printings. A “printing†can be like an edition change except the changes don’t affect pagination, and they involve only a few words.
The PFAL book went through several printings before Dr died where a few things were changed. For instance on page 4, on the bottom line, the second word was changed from “His†to “God’s†and the word “Jew†was changed to “Judean†throughout. What’s interesting, and still a mystery to me, is that unlike the PFAL’77 change, and unlike the wording in GMWD and JCNG, the “all without distinction†on PFAL page 65 was NOT changed. Why?
There was the opportunity to change it, but it was not. Many people knew of the “problem†but it was left there unchanged in the PFAL book. This is why I look at things like the “in fact†tip off in JCNG which I mentioned in an earlier post, and several others I mentioned, and several others I did not mention. I want to know why this “error†was deliberately left in there.
Rafael, I went through all this to demonstrate how I feel these apparent contradictions you’ve collected are not well worked yet. I am NOT a master of this material, but I do recognize the great need to refrain from jumping to the conclusion that they are actual errors. We have a lot of work to do.
I have found that as I do this work, apparent errors EVENTUALLY vanish. I don’t think all the work is done yet for your list. They look obvious as errors to you, but your knowledge of the subject, and your mastery of the books in general is incomplete. It does not matter to me ANY MORE how obvious they look. Appearances are deceiving. I used to think “error†but not any more. I’ve seen too may apparent errors in my mind vanish as I obey God and the spokesman He selected to teach us. I refuse to be talked out of it again.
My own inadequacies in mastering the material forbid me to trust my own feeling when I see these apparent errors. I have seen so many human errors committed by absolutely all us PFAL non-master students, whether we be Corps, clergy, or PhD’s. The leadership that ran things after Dr stepped down have totally proven themselves to be incompetent non-masters of PFAL to me. This includes all the splinter groups and twi. They have proven to be totally disobedient to their teacher. Their handling of nearly everything that went on since 1982 has been so botched that I can only conclude that they all are amateurs LIKE ME at handling spiritual matters, or worse than me, they are reprobate.
Until you get serious about mastering those books I believe you too are a mere amateur at understanding what God taught Dr and Dr taught us. I don’t care how many apparent errors you compile. You haven’t earned that kind of respect from me that Dr did. ALL of Dr’s leaders have thrown away the respect I once had for them. I’m sticking with the books. As I find more answers to these things I will share them with people who can receive them, people who are meekly mastering PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fortunateone
The words of VPW near death still sounded much
like a multilevel marketman pitching his product.
The only redeeming value of the pitch was for service like Jesus Christ.
Like VPW always said "decerning truth from error
is our task."
FORTUNATEONE to be out of TWI
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Dear Meek Master Mike:
Oh, for heaven's sake, put up or shut up. Go to that thread and refute those points with the truth. It's very easy to state in another thread that I'm wrong, but go over to THAT thread and refute the actual points with actual facts. I defy you to refute ONE point I raised. ONE.
You repeatedly state that a substantiating weather report would not be sufficient proof that Wierwille was telling the truth. I submit that a CONTRADICTORY weather report would be sufficient proof that Wierwille was lying.
Further, you had PLENTY of time to post several responses to my comments about the snowstorm. That you chose not to do so tells me that you thought there was an actual snowstorm, not a vision. Well, I can't read your mind, but I openly wonder about that one.
You continue to mention the "in fact" statement in Jesus Christ is not God. There is no "in fact" statement in Jesus Christ is Not God, not in the relevant page, not in the page before, not in the page after. What are you talking about?
Cast down the idol, Mike. PFAL is the flawed work of a flawed man. Get over it.
P.S. If they changed the wording of PFAL from Jew to Judean, then did they change the Word of God?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Raf, Oakspear, et al -
Why do you persist in trying to carry on a debate with revrun Mike?
You guys sound like that Monty Python skit where Michael Palin pays for an argument, and makes brilliant points, and all he gets in response is "No it isn't" and "Yes it is" and "Time's up!".
Remember, in the words of docvic - "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
These threads are akin to trying to debate with one of those streetcorner nutjob preachers, only this forum is giving said nutjob some validation.
He is here to preach at all of us, not to listen to anything anyone has to say.
Of course, you guys look like you are having a lot of fun doing what you are doing, and I cannot fault you for that. But be not deceived, you will make no headway with such an one as this.
Regards,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What does Wierwille mean by "the Word of God?" Well, in the passage above, he's clearly equating the Word of God with "the scriptures." We also know from PFAL Chapter One verse One that "The Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God." Thus, by checking in the verse and in previous usage, and knowing that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other, we can state with certainty the following:
The Bible = The Word of God = The Scriptures.
We will also note that Wierwille specifically differentiates his own writings from the Word of God. He lumps his work in the same category as the work of other ministers, past and present, in comparison with the Word of God, which he holds up on a pedestal.
So, according to Wierwille, his writings are NOT to be taken as "God-breathed" by comparison to the Bible.
So what of his statement "not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed?" Does that mean, as some meek masters have said, that SOME of what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed?
Let's see how Wierwille defines it:
PFAL, p. 89
So, we know that God's Word is the Bible. The accuracy of the Bible is another way of saying a proper understanding of the Bible. When you speak with a proper understanding of the Bible, what you speak is just as though God Himself were speaking it. On this we can all agree.
So, taking the two passages together, we may reasonably conclude that Wierwille felt his writings, when they agreed with the Bible, were as valuable as the Bible (to which I say, no duh). Logic dictates that when Wierwille's writings disagreed with the Bible, they would NOT be as valuable as the Bible. Weirwille himself left this possibility open by noting that NOT EVERYTHING HE WRITES is God-breathed.
On the contrary, according to Wierwille, ALL of the Bible is God-breathed.
One may reasonably conclude, therefore, that PFAL is God-breathed ONLY insofar as it agrees with the Bible, ALL of which is God-breathed. If and when PFAL disagrees with the Bible, the Bible is always given pre-eminence (how can it be otherwise)?
The Bible is pre-eminent.
Wierwille's writings are no more authoritative than the works of Luther, Aristotle, Kant, Billy Graham or Oral Roberts. WIERWILLE HIMSELF SAID SO.
Mike, you have perverted the words of Wierwille, and dismissed the Word of God. You measure the Bible against the standard of PFAL, when you should be measuring PFAL against the standard of the Bible.
That Wierwille did not see his book as "The Word of God," or as the equivalent of "God-breathed scripture" is evidenced by the fact YOU brought up, which is that PFAL went through several printings and that changes were made. Wierwille taught that if you change one word of the Word of God, then you no longer have God's Word. You accuse him of tampering with God's Word by fiddling with PFAL.
I know this won't change your mind, as you have already stated, quite plainly, that no amount of evidence will persuade you to pull your head out of the sand. That's your choice, but don't expect a bunch of us to stick our heads in the sand with you and call it light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Steve!:
I am certain that Mike's mind won't be changed. He said that he is not considering our words because is mind is already made up.
You're right, this "debate" is fun! And it points out to bystanders the illogic of Mike's stance on one hand and the logic and consistancy of what Rafael and Goey and others are saying on the other hand.
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, I just woke up and am off to work soon. I only saw the above posts as much as can be seen by counting how many PgDn’s are required to fly through them. Rafael, you picture was recognizable in the blur, and I apologize greatly for not responding just now. I’m still interested in a phone conversation that may cut through a lot of heart issues, thus expediting our logic issues. I really do admire your tenacity. If you’re interested, please e-mail me.
With my present work schedule at maximum, and about 10 e-mails in line that deserve thoughtful responses, I can predict that my accumulated backlog of work for post responses will only grow larger as the days roll on. There are still posts from 4 days ago I want to respond to. So far it feels like I’m back in college and taking a double load of English composition classes. Remember? I said that English Comp was my weak suit? Well now I have a term paper due every day!
This is a little like a Twilight Zone episode I find myself in, one of the humorous ones. An old friend calls these things “twilight zonettes.†It is fun, but I’m beginning to feel like my biological PgDn key is stuck on repeat.
Soooo, it looks like you folks are on you own in the forums for a while. I know that my silence may look like resignation to defeat for those who savor a cheap victory, but time will tell.
I need to shift to e-mail responding for a while to clear that backlog. If I do any more posting in the next week it may only be sporadic pick-and-choose responses. You can bet my desire to respond to ALL is as great as my confidence in handling past posts.
For those of you who can’t relate to that I’ll translate: You can bet my desire to respond to ALL is as great as my ARROGANCE in handling past posts.
My business has a predictable lull approaching in the next months, so I’ll be back in force soon. Save some popcorn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
So true. So true.
If memory serves, didn't VPW say this in a different way, in PFAL? something like "when the Word is rightly-divided, you have the word of truth ... and when the Word is wrongly-divided, you have error?
Personally, I'm willing to believe that some of PFAL has been wrongly-divided. Hey Wierwille was human after all...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike - My question is this: do you believe that everything Wierwille committed to paper in the PFAL and collateral books is God-breathed?
We can save discussion until your schedule allows, but I *would* like a "yes" or "no" answer to serve until then.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sporadic Post #1
Great Caesar’s Ghost! Rafael, you’re a cruel taskmaster. You wrote: “Further, you had PLENTY of time to post several responses to my comments...â€
You can’t read my mind, as you admitted, BUT you ALSO can’t read my schedule. Can’t you give me any alternative to (a) put up and (b) shut up?
Don’t you remember how Dr taught us that sometimes a thorny verse may be on his desk for 15 years before it gets resolved? Your impatience is the cause for you to jump to concussions. (sp intentional) I’m real happy with the MASSIVE fit I see in the PFAL books as I endeavor to master them. The puny list of apparent errors is not going to sink my artios ship. I’m used to bow spray, which is all that list is.
I am NOT a master yet. It may take years. You can resort to inaccurate ridicule all you want, but remember you are doingn it before the whole world. Accurate ridicule is a little different.
OK, I saw something I need to correct. (first mistake I made all millenium)
Rafael, you wrote “You continue to mention the "in fact" statement in Jesus Christ is not God. There is no "in fact" statement in Jesus Christ is Not God, not in the relevant page, not in the page before, not in the page after. What are you talking about?â€
Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse MEEE!!!
I should have written “THE fact†instead of “IN fact†which is smack dab in the middle of page 94. Maybe you were looking with shillt colored glasses.
This is a great demonstration of how someone bent on destroying can’t appreciate what’s being built. Again, and from my old hippie background, I can’t help but remind you “The Whole World Is Watching!â€
Now, what was I saying about not posting...? Maybe I should stop READING the forums for a while too?
ps Rafael, I hope you got my tongue in cheek opening of this post. It was just for you, but you may be too young to recognize it. “Great Caesar’s Ghost!†was the favorite expletive of Perry White, the editor of the “Daily Planet†and Clark Kent’s boss in Superman. I would SOOOO like to get on your good side, and be buddies. We can agree to disagree can’t we? Please e-mail me with your phone number, or receive mine. I’d like us to be able to converse without the harsh ASCII limitations and internet flaming atmosphere.
[This message was edited by Mike on January 03, 2003 at 9:21.]
[This message was edited by Mike on January 03, 2003 at 9:29.]
[This message was edited by Mike on January 03, 2003 at 20:49.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve Lortz wrote: "Mike - My question is this: do you believe that everything Wierwille committed to paper in the PFAL and collateral books is God-breathed?"
YES! But I don't yet regard that simple "yes" as the ultimate answer. It's the best I have now, though. The reason it's not that simple with the books is because we have proofreaders' oversights and other such minor middlemen (even non-grad printers) that require us look a little deeper IN A SMALL NUMBER OF MINOR CASES to see what Dr put down on his paper. The paper you have in your hands is ever so SLIGHTLY different.
Dr wrote in page 34 of "The New Dynamic Church" that if we renew our minds then we will see that every word he wrote TO US (PFAL students) is true. When that page 34 statement is rightly divided (I'm still working on that) you will find your ultimate answer there.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael, here is a paste of an older e-mail I’ve sent to friends responding to SOME of a post of yours above. Then I’m leaving for work.
****************************************************************
In some previous writings I have mentioned page 83 in the PFAL book and a "Thus saith the Lord" statement hidden in some slightly complex grammar. This is my attempt to explain that grammar, and thus reveal what's been on that page all this time.
My goal is to produce a paraphrase equivalent of a sentence on that page. Also, I am particularly focused on attempting to fully incorporate the use of the word “necessarily†that appears in the original sentence. The sentence is:
“Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.â€
Just for simplicity, let’s temporarily remove the word "necessarily" and see what happens. Now we have:
“Not all that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.â€
The sentence almost seems to still say the same thing. It's almost like nothing was altered, but don't believe it. Soon we'll see why "necessarily" was in there.
Practically speaking, if I eat NOT ALL of a pie, then there’s SOME pie left for you. In the sentence under study the phrase "not all" implies "some." Mathematically speaking, the phrase “not all†is equivalent to “some or possibly none.†So, substituting the phrase “some or none†for the phrase “not all†in the sentence we then have:
“Some (or possibly none) that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.â€
This then can be separated out to two possible sentences:
“Some that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.â€
“None that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.â€
Now let’s restore the word "necessarily"
“Some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.â€
“None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.â€
The second sentence is rather strained grammar and logic. It also radically contradicts what Dr. wrote on page 34 of the Green Book: “...you will find that every word I have written to you is true.†I believe for these and other reasons it must be rejected in favor of the first sentence.
The first sentence fits (and the second does not) with all that we spiritually sensed when we first took the class. Likewise the first fits with the 1942 audible promise from God. And it fits with the last night of the class when Dr. said:
“...if you're in this class, you've heard the Word, you've
believed God's Word, God is always faithful. And nobody ever
misses, if you'll do exactly what I tell you to do, right
down to the minute detail.
It's like, in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember
where the Apostle Paul said: ‘I thank my God, that, when you
received the Word of God which you heard of us, you received it
not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God.’
Now, if you'll be as honest with God as that Word of God says,
you too can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the
power of God. But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille
talking, you'll never get it. But if you know that what I am
saying -- it's V.P. Wierwille saying it, but these are words
which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is utilizing and speaking
to you through my ministry and my life, then you too will
manifest forth the greatness of the power of God.â€
So, in a nutshell: the use of the word “necessarily†eliminates the possibility of “none†of Dr’s writings being God-breathed. Recently I came up with a paraphrase of the original page 83 sentence that incorporates this perspective.
The context of page 83 is God-breathed words are trustworthy; man-breathed words are not. We know that Jesus Christ said that he did not speak forth HIS OWN untrustworthy, man-breathed words, although he was tempted to. He only spoke forth the words his Father told him to speak. He was the only one to achieve this TOTAL purity of all words issued.
Here's the paraphrase:
“Even MY own writings... (and I was commissioned by God’s
audible voice in 1942 to bring forth God-taught explanations
of the Bible, and because of that SOME of my writings are not
really my own, but are REALLY God-breathed)... but even MY own
writings, when they’re merely my own, are not trustworthy like
God's are.â€
The word “necessarily†implies the contents of the above parenthesis. The original sentence on page 83 says that even someone who is given the job, by God, to teach the Word “like it hasn't been known since the first century†is going to have words, his own words, that fall short of the perfection of God.
Therefore, because not all, but just SOME of what Dr. Wierwille wrote is NECESSARILY God-breathed, the next step is identifying WHICH of his writings ARE God-breathed.
Hint: Dr’s Last/Lost Teaching contains the MOST IMPORTANT thing he could want to tell us.
God bless you.
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
I concluded that you had plenty of time to respond to my snowstorm questions based on the FACT that you DID respond, at length, on that very issue, with great fanfare, to Lifted's post on the same subject. I also based it on the fact that you've been looking over this INTENSELy for 27 years. I would think you, of all people, would recall the exact wording of VPW's conversation with God. It is, after all, the basis of your ridiculous claims.
Wierwille's statement in The New Dynamic Church was specifically applicable to the subject on which he was teaching at the time. For you to apply it to everything else he wrote is failing to read it in its context.
As I do not have the PFAL or JCNG books in front of me, I cannot see the "fact" quote you cite.
The FACT is, it's irrelevant to the definitions at hand:
"all WITHOUT distinction means all within a certain category."
"all WITH distinction means all within a certain category."
One of those statements MUST be false. Period. They cannot BOTH be true. They are polar opposites. Further, they are GENERAL statements of basic definitions. They do not change with circumstances.
So take another 27 years if you want.
I've always been absurdly easy to find, Mike. Feel free to write or call. Do a little research: take your mind off things.
P.S. Your logic regarding "necessarily" is tortured. You are deliberately removing Wierwille's sentence from its context, in which he CLEARLY exalts the Word of God above his own writings. Further, when he DOES make a claim that his words have as much authority as God's Word, he does it in a way that makes it CLEAR that there's nothing special about it: he says the same thing about YOU (the reader, whoever that may be). It is not a unique claim of divine authority. It is a general claim that when you're in line with the Bible, you're in line with God.
Oldies:
I am glad you can see that there ARE flaws in PFAL. No one is asking you to discard it all, and I hope people don't think that's what I'm trying to say.
I respect PFAL enough to apply its principles to its doctrine. When and where the doctrine falls short (and I believe it does), I praise the principles and let go of the doctrine. Examples would distract from this thread, but I believe my record of posting here proves what I've said.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 03, 2003 at 9:54.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Mike: You do know that American Christian Press was wholly owned and operated by The Way International, don't you? It was entirely PFAL-grads, from proofreaders to printers.
Look, I'm not a rabid anti-Wierwillite. I think his original goal was admirable--to get to a greater understanding of the Bible by placing the scriptures above the traditions of the Church. BUT, since the Bible we do have today does really have apparent contradictions due to holes in our understanding, anything anyone comes up with to fill in those holes has to be as consistent as the rest of the Word in order to even be a candidate for the truth. Dr. Wierwille filled in some of those holes with demonstrably false doctrines, hidden amongst the more reasonable and probably-true bits.
It is those false doctrines that were directly responsible for the decline of TWI over his lifetime, and the utter failure of it after his death. Chief among them is his easily-disprovable views on adultery and sex in general. VPW might not have laid the label of "sex pervert" at the apostle Paul's feet for his thorn in the flesh, but there are several corroborating accounts from the victims that support laying that label at Dr. Wierwille's feet.
How could a man of God betray his wife and family like that? A moment of weakness might be understandable, but to systematize error and entrench it as doctrine is the work of the Adversary. To be unrepentant of it, even on his death bed? To teach it to his successors such that there have been multiple lawsuits brought forth over it?
Remember too that Dr. Wierwille died from cancer. It was his own teaching in the Advanced Class that cancer is always a devil spirit. Yet, despite the evident sexual abuse, not one of the Board of Trustees apparently cast the devil spirits out of him, nor did he apparently believe God to rid himself of it. Who knows when he was first possessed by it? Which books hadn't he written at that time?
By the very logic Dr. Wierwille presented in his PFAL class, nothing he said should be considered sacrosanct. All the error in the modern Bible came from well-meaning scribes who were secretly possessed of devil spirits, right? Guess who you can add to the list...
Not that you should be ashamed, even Paul the Apostle thought he was right when all the prophecies said "don't go to Jerusalem." Remember what happened to him in his pride, though.
Believe God rather than man.
God bless,
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Supposing for a moment that some of Dr. Wierwille's teachings were indeed God-breathed, and some were not, then what does that say of the teachings he agreed with enough to publish that came from other authors? If they were the ones who received God-breathed truth, and God confirmed them to be true to VPW, then we have God-breathed doctrine all over the place, and not just from one man. We should immediately read all works by:
B.G. Leonard
J.E. Stiles
George Lamsa
Ernest Martin
And a host of others of VPW's sources for his books. God is breathing on quite a few it would seem.
What happens when they contradict Wierwille, then? If, as Rafael has shown, that not ALL of VPW's work can be considered God-breathed, who then is qualified to privately interpret which bits are theopneustos and which bits are devilish error? By not reading the others, we could be missing out on even more God-breathed epistles to the believers.
If the others weren't God-breathed, but merely good guesses, how could we tell? Wierwille thought they were good enough to mix in with his God-breathed stuff, and God apparently didn't breathe to him otherwise, so what other conclusion can we draw but that they must have been God-breathed too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Another blind and false accusation. I am not, as you say, "bent on destroying." I reject your false accusation as the ranting of a man who has declared to us all that he has no interest in actual evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Hi Mike:
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go to the Grease Spot Cafe forum thread with link posted below. It discusses some of the errors in PFAL, the bible class that you think is God-Breathed. Incidentally, I don't ever recall Victor Wierwille making that claim. Even he did not exalt his biblical writings above the scriptures.
http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc...42&m=2726097291
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
On pages 217 and 218 of PFAL, in a chapter entitled "To Whom The Word Is Written", Wierwille wrote the following:
"Romans 8 says that nothing can separate me from the love of God; and yet three chapters later, Romans 11 says that if I don't continue in His goodness, I am going to be cut off. What's going on? Look to see to whom each passage is written.
"Romans 9:3:
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
"Who were Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh? Verse 4 says, 'Who are Israelites....' To whom is it addressed? Verse 4 says to the Israelites, the Judeans. Paul continued talking to Israel. Paul wrote in chapter 10 verse 1, 'Brethren, my hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.' This is still addressed to Israel. In chapter 11, verse 1, he says, 'I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.' Paul was still writing to Israel. But in verse 13 Paul changed to the Gentiles in his speech."
"...What does it mean for a Gentile to continue in His goodness?... Unless the Gentile continues in His goodness by making the confession of Romans 10:9, '...thou [Gentiles] also shalt be cut off.'..."
Let's take this section of PFAL apart to see what it says in detail:
1. - "Who were Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh? Verse 4 says, 'Who are Israelites....' To whom is it addressed? Verse 4 says to the Israelites, the Judeans."
Does verse 4 really say this section of scripture is addressed to the Israelites?
Romans 9:4 "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;"
No, it does not. It says that a lot of other things pertain to Israel, but it gives no indication that Paul is addressing Judeans at this point. It is *about* Israel, but not addressed *to* Israel.
2. - "Paul wrote in chapter 10 verse 1, 'Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.' This is still addressed to Israel."
Now a person might try to make a case that the "brethren" of Romans 10:1 are Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh", and therefore this section would be addressed to Israel. However, if that were the case, then Paul would have written, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for YOU is that YOU might be saved." In this verse Paul used "brethren" as he so often did, to indicate his fellow Christians. The "brethren" of Romans 10:1 are "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints".
3. - On page 212 of PFAL Wierwille wrote, "These two prepositions, *for* and *to*, make the critical difference between truth and error when it comes to rightly dividing the Word of God." However, in his analysis of Romans 10:1 Wierwille totally ignores the sense of these prepositions in the phrase "my heart's desire and prayer TO God FOR Israel". Romans 10:1 is NOT "still addressed to Israel."
4. - "In chapter 11, verse 1, he says, 'I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.' Paul was still writing to Israel."
Paul was still writing to Israel? Just read what's written... Paul was not addressing any remarks to Israel. He was using *himself* as an example to show that God had *not* cast Israel away!
5. - "But in verse 13 Paul changed to the Gentiles in his speech." Wierwille would have us to believe these are the Gentiles of Galatians 3:28, but Romans 11:17 and 24 indicate that these Gentiles had already been grafted into the olive tree, and that the root of the olive tree bore them. Verse 20 says that these Gentiles stand by faith. The Gentiles of this section are believers who came to Christ from Gentile backgrounds, not the raw Gentiles of Galatians 3:28.
6. - "...What does it mean for a Gentile to continue in his goodness?... Unless the Gentile continues in His goodness by making the confession of Romans 10:9, '... thou [Gentiles] also shalt be cut off.'..." Didn't Wierwille just say that Romans 9:4-11:12 is addressed to Israel? Doesn't Romans 10:9 fall within that section? How can a Gentile apply a verse that's supposedly addressed *to* Israel?
Within a very short span, only a little over *one page* in a book of 370, mostly within one paragraph, Wierwille managed to contradict what's actually written in the Word at least four times, and himself at least twice. These are not *apparent* contradictions. They are *real*. These are not the typos of heathen printers, nor are they honest mistakes.
When Wierwille wrote, "...verse 4 says to the Israelites... ...Paul continued talking to Israel... ...This is still addressed to Israel... ...Paul was still writing to Israel" and when Wierwille implied that the Gentiles of Romans 11 were the same as the Gentiles of Galatians 3:28, he was deliberately lying.
The reason he was lying was because he knew, that if we read Romans 11 as it was known in the first century, his definition of the church would collapse, and along with it, much of the rest of his theology, like a house of cards; his definition of the mystery, his scheme of administrations, his definition of salvation, his definition of holy spirit, his practice of grace as a license to sin.
Supposedly, back in 1942 God promised Wierwille that He would teach him the Word as it had not been known since the first century if he, Wierwille, would teach it to others. At one point, Mike, you wrote that you believe the first part of that promise because of what Wierwille taught you. I submit that what we learned from Wierwille was not "the Word as it had not been known since the first century", but rather a "Word" that was concocted by John Darby in the mid-nineteenth century.
At some point in one of these threads someone quoted Jeremiah 17:5&6. Let's look at those verses again.
Jeremiah 17:5 "Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.
6 "For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited."
I submit that much of the devastation and ruination that came upon those of us involved with TWI was not the result of the devil trying to suppress the truth, nor of failure to become meek masters of the collateral reading, but rather the result of this curse.
"Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man who trusteth in man [instead of trusting God, we trusted Wierwille and the other "Trustees"], and maketh flesh his arm [instead of walking in the spirit, we relied on meetings, classes, nametags, advances, conferences, keys, principles, guidelines, blue forms, trainings, general's suggestions, quotas, ministry calendars, micro-managed personal schedules, protocols, etc., ad nauseam], and whose heart departeth from the Lord [instead of looking to our Lord Jesus Christ, *we* got *our* needs and *our* wants met through the power of *our* believing, while TWI's absent Christ sat idly on the right hand of God smoking $50 cigars]."
About five years ago I publicly and specifically repented of doing these foolish (Galatians 3:1) things. Since then, I have tried the best I know how to turn my heart back to the Lord. My life has never been better.
You may not understand or appreciate or agree with the things I have written, Mike. But there may come a time when you recognize the curse. If that happens, remember that repentance is the way to recover the mercy and the grace that God extends to us through Jesus Christ our Lord!
Love,
Steve
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.