Hope: Thank's for backing me up that this was taught. Rafael, I don't know if it's in writing that he taught it. :(--> I never read those PFAL books anyway and threw most of them out a couple years ago. ( I know JCOPS wasn't a PFAL book)
But I KNOW this was taught over and over again. The offshoot I went to still taught this. They said this is why God loves to hears us sing cause angels can't etc.etc.etc. So it HAD to come down from somewhere at the top!
Don't more people remember this??????
PS Hope, that was exactly MY reasoning, they could talk, I just figured..as usual.. that there was something I wasn't getting. -->
...It's hard to be humble when you own a Rottweiler...
quote:"Angels can't sing. (I'm moving this from the other thread) The Way taught that angels can't sing. They said that song "hark the herald angels sing" was wrong cause of that..."
What I recall is the teaching that there is no record in the Bible of angels ever singing. VPW used this to conculde that angels don't sing.
What VPW did here is called an argument from silence. He reasons that because the Bible does not record an angel ever singing(true), that angles do not sing.
An argument from silence can, at best, add strength or evidence to an argument, but by itself proves nothing at all. It is an extremely weak argument.
For example, I could say that there is no record in the Bible of Jesus playing a musical instrument. But if I conclude that he did not or could not, based on silence alone, I could very likely be wrong. We need more evidence to conclude one way or another.
The fact is, without more than the scripture's silence, it is erroneous to conclude that angels can't or don't sing. They may or may not.
I no longer own a PFAL book, so I don't if this was in PFAL or not.
What say ye Rafael, error or not ?
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on January 28, 2003 at 19:35.]
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
38:5
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
38:6
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
38:7
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Do I need to get into the fact that the "morning stars" is another term for angels?
The argument is not from silence. It's from a failure to research. But unless there's a written quote of Wierwille saying "Angels don't sing," "angels can't sing," or "there's no record in the Bible where angels sing," then it's not an actual error. Find the quote and I'll add it to the list.
TW, great work on Genesis chapter 9. There is yet another reason the PFAL body-soul-spirit doctrine is erroneous. But only if you assume that the Bible is a higher standard of truth. Sadly, not all of us hold to that opinion.
And I apologize because I've forgotten who posted it , but someone said that there are more grads like Mike out there than we think. I would have to agree. Although I haven't met any who take it quite to this level of denial and self-delusion, there are many still bound by the conviction that VP really did teach a truth that had not been known since the first century.
I was quite dismayed when the Corps grad with whom we were fellowshipping when I first learned of these PFAL problems all but accused me of being devil-possessed because I dared to question the accuracy of The Class.
I think there are many grads, and many Way Corps who still hold Dr. Weirwille in extremely high regard and consider his teachings to be...sacred on some level, and certainly well worth their continued devotion and defense.
And in part, I understand that. Mike did make one valid point today. He touched on the one reason for his blind obssession with the orange tome. He said, "I prefer to work where I see God at work, and I SAW God at work in Dr's ministry in PFAL,...". Mike received benefits in his life after taking PFAL. I daresay we all did. (though Larry P may beg to differ)No matter what denomination we start in, I believe this is part of the Christian experience, part of what happens throughout the Church of the Body of Christ.
People get born again in Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, and Catholic services, even at snake handlers' tent revivals. Does this mean that a Catholic or Copperhead-grapplin' Christian can't learn more by a closer examination of the Scriptures?
Mike, would you tell a man who'd been saved or even physically healed in a tent revival that he shouldn't reconsider some of what he'd alreadly learned, just because he'd gotten some benefit from his religion? I doubt it. You would "witness " to him, telling him that there are more benefits, more truth, more joy, more peace available to him if he will only trust GOD to continue to bless him as he grows beyond his past experience. That's all we're asking you to do.
Consider that maybe GOD your heavenly Father is big enough to teach you and bless you even more as you trust him to show you how to walk beyond the confines of that tattered little orange book.
quote:When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Yes, morning stars could be very well be refering to angels. I did not consider this verse as specifically saying or recording that angels sing because some believe that "morning stars" in this verse is literal, refering to the stars at creation and the singing is figurative.
The word for sing in this verse is the Hebrew 'ranan', which is also translated 'rejoice' and 'shout out'. It does not necesarily connote melodious singing.
Melodious singing is usually represented by the Hebrew words shiyr or zamar.
Is Wierwille's claim in PFAL that "Iscariot" means "man of Iscar" an actual error? It seems like he changed it in Jesus Christ Our Passover to Ish Kerioth, man of Kerioth.
I do not believe that there is an "Iscar" in Judea
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Rafael Wrote: “Now, Mike, I'll agree with Mark on this: it's time to either apply your method to the errors we've identified, or stop interrupting the conversation.”
I agree. I’ve said my peace here.
I have been collecting data on a few AEs from this thread, but each one is only in the early stages of development. Who knows how fast any one will proceed.
Everyone here knows by now that it’s my policy to place the processing of these AEs (ACs from my perspective) way low on my priority list. All of life is punctuated with decisions as to what is NOT going to get done. Cranking away at these AEs, at the expense of the pure pleasure of reading PFAL, is folly in my book. There was a time when I did this kind of cranking, long before many of you ever took PFAL, but that’s over for me.
I can bow out (again) now, and thank everyone for tolerating my envelope pushing. We did get some things discussed and I’m thankful.
I’m moving on to other threads, but who knows when I’ll be called back.
Happy traaaaaaaaails to YOU!
Until we meeet AGAIN.
Happy traaaaaaaaails to YOU!
Keep smiling on till THEN.
Happy traaaaaaaaails to..... er
oops.. .... JerryB, I forgot you.
Let’s just do this quick as possible, and try to not respond so strongly that you drag me right back into the thread by my belt loops. Oky doky?
You wrote: “Mike, would you tell a man who'd been saved or even physically healed in a tent revival that he shouldn't reconsider some of what he'd already learned, just because he'd gotten some benefit from his religion? I doubt it. You would "witness " to him, telling him that there are more benefits, more truth, more joy, more peace available to him if he will only trust GOD to continue to bless him as he grows beyond his past experience. That's all we're asking you to do.”
I think I see the logic of your question. If I get this wrong, just e-mail me and we can hash it out without derailing the thread. Here’s what I see you are asking me.
First off, I agree with your premise. If the doors were open to witness to the man you open with, I would surely let him know that blessed as he was, there was still much more to receive IF HE WANTS IT. I would show him “all the things Jesus did and greater.” I would show him “nine manifestations available to all.” Maybe if condemnation was still a problem for him I’d show him some other things. And so on. Figuratively speaking, if I see he seems interested I whip out a green card and sign him up. In this scenario I am the WITNESSER and the man in your opening is the WITNESSEE.
Now, in the later part of your statement you analogously transfer this process, this scenario, which I agreed upon thusly: I become the man from your opening, the WITNESSEE, and you become WITNESSER.
Using your exact words now, with appropriate pronoun modification in CAPS:
You witness to me that if I abandon my loyalty or exclusivity to PFAL, and expand my horizons, “telling ME that there are more benefits, more truth, more joy, more peace available to ME if I will only trust God to continue to bless ME as I grows beyond MY past experience.”
So I hear you and am intrigued. I ask you what “more benefits etc.” will I get from abandoning PFAL? So far, I see PFAL as the best bet for learning “all the things Jesus did and greater” AND “nine manifestations available to all.” AND no condemnation AND many other things. What will I get that’s better than these things?
I’m pretty excited about what I’m learning about the “other” six manifestations in PFAL. Whenever I’ve checked out other places claiming to teach the power, they always prove to miss at least one to the big things I’ve already checked out in PFAL as truth.
Your ask me to drop a hot potato like PFAL, but WHAT comparable hot potato do you have to replace it? Hmmmmmmmm?
There isn’t a set of books like PFAL for learning the 9 manifestations in the whole world. I’ve been to many, many churches over the years. I know what they offer. How are you going to convince me to drop a good horse like PFAL and the power, and NOT offer me a CONVINCINGLY better horse?
Jerry, I’m afraid your analogy breaks down at this point. I can offer the man in your opening something specific that will be far better than his current situation, but you can’t offer me a similar specific FAR better deal than PFAL.
I certainly won’t abandon PFAL at your suggestion that SOMEWHERE out there, there has GOT to be better something far better than PFAL and the things Dr teaches. If you’re so sure that’s out there why don’t you have it yourself?
Jerry, I’m sorry I’ve decided not to sign your green card.
[This message was edited by Mike on January 30, 2003 at 22:32.]
Yes, morning stars could be very well be refering to angels. I did not consider this verse as specifically saying or recording that angels sing because some believe that "morning stars" in this verse is literal, refering to the stars at creation and the singing is figurative.
The word for sing in this verse is the Hebrew 'ranan', which is also translated 'rejoice' and 'shout out'. It does not necesarily connote melodious singing.
Melodious singing is usually represented by the Hebrew words shiyr or zamar.
Goey,
I think you certainly established that this is not an actual error. It's an interesting discussion, however tangential.
Wierwille writes on p. 212 that there's no scripture that states angels sing. He does not say "sing melodiously." He simply says "sing." In context, one COULD suggest that he MEANT "sing melodiously," but the fact is that he doesn't.
Further, there IS a scripture that says angels sing. There's no scripture that says, specifically, that angels sing melodiously. But there is a scripture that says angels sing.
Finally, the song "Hark The Herald Angels Sing" could very easily be using the word "sing" in the same manner as the verse in Job. It certainly fits with the context of the song.
So I think there's a case for interpretational error, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that Wierwille was right about melodious singing, IF that's what he meant.
Rottiegrrl: This subject really fit on both threads. Thanks for bringing it here. :)-->
I don't think Wierwille ever wrote that angels CAN'T sing. Why, that'd be stoopid.
Mike:
You will be able to do all nine manifestations, but you will never know that fornication and adultery are wrong, even in this present administration.
Fine, take yourrr precioussss.
You won't sign Jerry's green card. How classic. And hypocritical.
Folks, before replying to Mike, remember his stated M.O. Bear it in mind at all times...
quote:the right and proper procedure is to DODGE. Witness if possible, distract, challenge right back, but NEVER consider the error as an error.
The angels singing stuff is interesting, but trivial. I agree that is is not an actual error. But Wierwille does in fact use an argument from silence when he says that "no scripture says that angels sing". VPW used arguments from silence all the time to bloster his points.
You posted:
quote: Further, there IS a scripture that says angels sing. There's no scripture that says, specifically, that angels sing melodiously. But there is a scripture that says angels sing.
I hate to disagree, but No, there IS NOT - at least not in any major Bible version. There is no scripture that specifically says that angels sing. There is a scripture that says "morning stars" sing. Translating 'morning stars' to 'angels' is interpretational on your part. While it may be the case ( arguable), VPW was technically correct in his statement.
I agree that it would be stupid to surmise that angels can't sing. But actually, I think that this is exactly what VPW did. Why else would he even mention it and attempt to point out the "error" in a Christmas Hymn?
In Jesus Christ Our Passover, Wierwille writes that the Pentecost corresponds to the Feast of Weeks, and that the counting of the seven weeks begins on the Sunday following Passover (p. 388). He concludes that the 50th day will, naturally, always fall on a Sunday. Therefore, in his own words...
quote:The Judeans would count seven weeks or forty-nine days; then the next day, the fiftieth (which would always be a Sunday in our time reckoning), was Pentecost.
According to Wierwille, Pentecost should ALWAYS fall on a Sunday. (It's logical to conclude from this definition that Wierwille believed the Pentecost in Acts 2 fell on a Sunday).
Here's the catch. The Jews (JEWS JEWS JEWS) call Pentecost "Shavuot." It does NOT always fall on a Sunday. Either Wierwille was wrong, or history changed.
Wierwille HAD to begin the counting the first Sunday after Passover in order to have Pentecost fall on a Sunday. Tradition places Pentecost on a Sunday every year, and Wierwille, for whatever reason, did not question it. But he ran into trouble trying to count only 50 days between the Thursday of Passover and the Sunday of Pentecost. So he began the counting the day after the weekly sabbath following Passover.
I submit that the counting did NOT begin on the Sunday after Passover, that it began the day AFTER Passover. I submit that NOT EVERY Pentecost (on the Jewish calendar) falls on a Sunday. And I submit that the first Pentecost did not necessarily fall on a Sunday.
Further, I question whether there were 10 days between the ascension and Pentecost. I see nothing in the scripture that declares this outright.
These are presented as challenges and questions, not conclusions. I await your replies.
------------------------------------------------
This is an edit. I thought of deleting this post entirely, but thought it would be better to just post the answer which I just found (and in the process, show that I'm not unwilling to state that Wierwille was right about something).
Lev. 23:16 makes it clear that the counting of the weeks is to end on the day after the Sabbath. So my basic questions are answered, and my submissions refuted.
I still wonder why Jews today celebrate Shavuot on a specific date every year, rather than on a Sunday as the Bible specifically designates. That's not a PFAL error issue, but I'd still be interested in the answer.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 29, 2003 at 7:15.]
A brief "Mike" comment before launching into the meat of this post. As I was following up on some of the things troubledwine has posted, I came across the following paragraph (PFAL, p 230):
"For years I read around the Word of God with the writers of outside works being centers of reference for me. Soon I suffered from a common disease called mental confusion because equally great men regarding the same verse of Scripture would contradict each other. When I began to consider the process of learning, I finally came to the conclusion that instead of spending my life in confusion with men's opinions I would accept one center of reference for truth which was outside myself, and that was the Word of God."
Apparently Mike has decided to follow the example of his hero... only Mike has accepted the word of Wierwille rather than the Word of God as his center of reference.
Wierwille's paragraph reveals something interesting. He didn't judge the validity of a man's opinion by comparing that opinion with what's written in the Bible. He judged a man's opinion by the greatness of the man. Wierwille mistook eisegesis for exegesis. He mistook *his own* opinion, the opinion of a *man*, for the Word of God. His assessment of the validity of his own interpretations were not based on how well they accorded with what is written, but on his own assessment of his own greatness. By cutting himself off from all opinions except his own, Wierwille abandoned the kind of checks and balances against error that many people here at Greasespot are working to develop. Wierwille traded mental *confusion* for mental *delusion*, another common disease, and IMO, so has Mike.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
Some things have been simmering in my mind for about a year-and-a-half now, but troubledwine's posts questioning what Wierwille wrote about "made, formed, created" have brought my thinking to a boil. I couldn't get to sleep for half the night last night. I went to bed four times but I couldn't quiet my mind enough to go to sleep, even after eating a big batch of turkey lunchmeat for the L-tryptophane (sp?). I kept getting back up to search something out in the Bible, or PFAL, or "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" (RHST).
My gut feeling is that nearly the entire section of PFAL entitled "The New Birth" can be demonstrated to be an actual error, but not in accordance with the rules Rafael has set down for this thread. The whole issue hinges on the definition of "spirit", and I haven't been able to find any place in Wierwille's writings where he explicitly defined the word.
From some of the ways Wierwille used "spirit", it seems he viewed it in a Platonic sense as the substance of the ideal realm. I no longer regard that view to be biblical. I think the Bible uses "spirit" ("ruach" in the OT, "pneuma" in the NT) first, in its literal sense of "wind" or "air in motion", and second, in a figurative sense of "life", as evidenced by the air moving in and out of living things (animal, human, demon, angel, god). I base this opinion on the uses of "ruach" in Ezekiel 37.
On page 232 of PFAL Wierwille wrote, "Are those three words 'spirit,' 'soul' and 'body' synonymous? They are no more synonymous than are *created*, *formed* and *made*. *Body* means *body*, *soul* means *soul*, and *spirit* means *spirit*."
Wierwille's definitions of "body", "soul" and "spirit" are as purely circular as definitions can be. A circular definition is one that defines a word in terms of itself. Most circular definitions are disguised by using synonyms. It is not possible to create definitions more purely circular than those given here by Wierwille.
Circular definitions are not valid in logic, because they fail to "define" or "limit the meanings of" words, but circular definitions are very valuable in rhetoric (the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience), because they enable the speaker or writer to use a word any way he wants to, without the possibility of being pinned down to a specific meaning.
On pages 12-15 of RHST Wierwille defined "the Holy Spirit" as "God, THE GIVER"; and "holy spirit" as "power from on high"; but he still didn't define the word "spirit" itself.
As we saw from PFAL page 232, we can't say for sure what "body", "soul" and "spirit" meant to Wierwille, but we can be certain he said they meant different things. Yet on page 234 of RHST (5th edition) Wierwille wrote the following:
"Meaning soul life. The person himself, that which makes a man a living being; the natural life common to all man. It is also breath life (Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59). All men have 'soul life' which is *pneuma* or spirit, called 'the spirit of man,' but not all men have eternal life, *pneuma*, holy spirit." (RHST, Appendix II, "Usage of the Word *Pneuma* or *Pneuma Hagion", 3.)
In PFAL Wierwille denied the possibility that "spirit" and "soul" are synonyms. In RHST he used them as synonyms.
I think the implications of this actual error go far beyond those of any other error posted so far, in discrediting the validity of many things Wierwille taught in PFAL. So far in fact, that I think they go beyond the parameters of this thread.
If somebody else can point out a place where Wierwille explicitly defined the word "spirit", then I might have to say, "Never mind."
Thanks for entertaining this possible derailment, Rafael!
As I understand VPW's explanation in section you quoted in RTHST, it has to do with different usages of the term "spirit". As I am sure you know spirit - is 'pneuma' in Greek and 'ruwach' in Hebrew. Both of these words are used figuratively quite often - the literal meaning beiing 'wind'.
When VPW said that the "spirit of man" is his soul, he used "spirit" figuratively. If we replace 'spirit' with 'wind', it would say "the wind of man" is the soul". VPW is not using spirit and soul as synonyms here. He is actually attempting to use one term - "spirit", to explain the other - "soul", by employing a figure and to show a difference between the soul and the holy spirit - (little "h" little "s").
For example, I could say the spirit of a tree is it's sap. I am not using sap and spirit synonymously.
Anyway, that is how I understand what VPW was doing in RTHST - not that I agree with it.
Interesting post Steve. Goey, I think your point is valid...to a point. :-)
VP did list figures of speech as possible biblical usages of the word "pneuma" and the use of it referring to soul life would definitely fit there. So his use of the term spirit in reference to soul in RHST fits your parameters, in which case it's not an actual error.
But in PFAL, he spoke at some length about this in an attempt to explain, if not define spirit. He said, if I remember correctly [i'm at work now, so I can't check it right now] "All life is spirit." He then went on to quality that statement by saying that not all spirit life is eternal life. Remember, he compared it to love with the bunsen burner, hot love quip. You can't put love in a bunsen burner and get "hot love" (Freudian slip or harmless joke? You decide).
So, in Weirwille's thinking, the word spirit may refer to all of life because it exists beyond "the senses realm." So soul life and angels and cherubim and God hiimself are all different forms of spirit life. So, because he put explained soul life as a subset of spirit life, it may be fairly said that he did use the terms "soul" and "spirit" synonymously.
However, I tink in all fairness I'd have to call that a error of interpretation rather than an actual error.
Here's another one that was overlooked. I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle...
quote:This one is more of a question than a declaration of an actual error:
In Are the Dead Alive Now, Wierwille goes into detail about the vast distinction between a "resurrection" and a "rising." I always thought he was absolutely torturing the language when he said this, but never cared enough to venture into it any further. Any comments?
...
Jerry posted at about the same time I did, and I did not want people to miss his post, so I'm copying it...
quote:Interesting post Steve. Goey, I think your point is valid...to a point. :-)
VP did list figures of speech as possible biblical usages of the word "pneuma" and the use of it referring to soul life would definitely fit there. So his use of the term spirit in reference to soul in RHST fits your parameters, in which case it's not an actual error.
But in PFAL, he spoke at some length about this in an attempt to explain, if not define spirit. He said, if I remember correctly [i'm at work now, so I can't check it right now] "All life is spirit." He then went on to quality that statement by saying that not all spirit life is eternal life. Remember, he compared it to love with the bunsen burner, hot love quip. You can't put love in a bunsen burner and get "hot love" (Freudian slip or harmless joke? You decide).
So, in Weirwille's thinking, the word spirit may refer to all of life because it exists beyond "the senses realm." So soul life and angels and cherubim and God hiimself are all different forms of spirit life. So, because he put explained soul life as a subset of spirit life, it may be fairly said that he did use the terms "soul" and "spirit" synonymously.
However, I tink in all fairness I'd have to call that a error of interpretation rather than an actual error.
Rafael - You wrote, "I'm not ignoring your post. I'm just overwhelmed by it."
I'm overwhelmed by it, too. That's why I brought it up here. I know I ain't gonna find any instant answer on this one. That's also why I'm questioning how appropriate it is for this particular thread.
Everybody else, even Mike - Can any of you remember or find any place in Wierwille's writings where he gives an explicit, non-circular definition of the simple word "spirit"?
I think it interesting that you asked me a question about how growing beyond PFAL has blessed my life, but rather than wait for my answer, you rejected the possibility that I had one and closed the subject. On the one hand I'd say that's been typical of your interaction here, but I'm at least encouraged that you asked.
For the benefit of lurkers who may also be interested in the benefits of growing beyond a man-made doctrine, I'll post my response here, with apologies to Rafael, Steve, Goey, Troubledwine, & co.
I'll also try to honor your request and contact you by e-mail for a more detailed answer and perhaps an extended dialogue.
************* Those of you interested only in doctrinal stuff,f read no further *************
During all of the years I was devoted to Dr.'s doctrines, I remained unsuccessful at work, financially strapped, always in debt, moving from one job to another, and barely tolerating my marriage to a lovely good-hearted woman. She didn't share my zeal for "The Word", so obviously she was beneath me. Or so I thought; and so I was encouraged to think by my TWI leadership. In short, I thought I had all the answers, but I was failing the litmus test of session one. I failed to manifest a more abundant life. Partly because of this failure to master the basics of providing for my own, I never won any co-workers to the my way of thinking. I always had an explanation for every aspect of life and never shied away from sharing my beliefs and opinions. Sometimes I was tolerated as being weird, sometimes I was embarrassed when my Weirwillian perspectives proved to be ridiculously wrong. Because I was a decent person and God was gracious in my immaturity, there were always people who helped me and gave me opportunities, but I could never bring them to fruition.
I rationalized that it was more than made up for by my "spiritual abundance" and the result of my high ethical standards. Nevertheless, we were very unhappy and at times, very poor.
Since having abandoned the confines of 1)PFAL and 2)the idea that ANY book has all the answers [more on that in a moment], my life has blossomed in all categories. I am now the vice presient and general manager of a rapidly growing company. Oddly enough, I didn't have to abandon my ethical standards. There really are people out there who've never heard of The Way Ministry who strive to be honest, fair, AND prosperous. We now live in a fairly new house that is what we dreamed of in vain for years under the yoke of TWI. Our children actually have full rewarding social lives, unbridled by the fear relationships with "unbelievers". My respect for and relationship with my wife is better than ever and continually improving, my peace of mind is the best it's ever been and, best of all, I have learned to actually trust God to take care of us based on His grace and mercy.
I have also learned more than ever the importance of wisdom and obedience. Somehow the Way fostered a kind of cavalier attitude about basic obedience to God's will. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seemed as if we were taught to expect God's best whether we did his will or not; just because we were the elite, the Way believers. Actually, as I think about it, I CAN put my finger on it. A Corps guy on "Hoho relo" once shared a story with me about his lashing out at a Corps buddy on a work project. His supervisor looked on and, at the end of his tirade said, "That's right. Give em hell Dave. Cause you don't get nothin from God by being good." The basic lesson was that righteousness, honesty, integrity, temperance, all of the virtues that most Christians strive for, were relatively unimportant if you had 'big believing'.
That kind of elitism destroys one's integrity, corrodes relationships, and defeats success and prosperity by eroding one's sense of personal responsibility. Mine is being rebuilt with the loving help of God and of my Lord Jesus Christ. Am I now the perfect Christian? Heck no, but I'm moving in the right direction and I'm not deceiving myself anymore about it.
Finally, I have learned, many times over, that the world doesn't turn on my understanding of life and living. I have accepted the fact that the Bible contains many apparent contradictions, difficult verses, and doesn't have all the answers. It's not supposed to. No book, man-made or God-breathed does, because God didn't send His only begotten Son to live and die for us so we could keep our noses in a book and rely on our understanding of some words on a page. That's carnal Pharisaism. Walking by the senses; leaning to your own understanding. It is the antithesis of walking in the spirit, trusting God and emulating Our Lord.
Jesus didn't have all the answers. He did what God, the Holy Spirit told him to do, as God told him to do it. We're supposed to do likewise.
You speak of having a book that teaches all about the manifestations and "the power". People don't get spiritual power from books Mike. They receive it from God by Jesus Christ as someone ministers it to them. If I may paraphrase the Apostle Paul, He who ministereth to you the spirit, doeth he it by the words in a book, or by the hearing of faith? .
So I submit that leaving PFAL behind will enable you to prosper more, be more at peace, interact more with your fellow man, have better intimate relationships, and have a richer relationship with God your Heavenly Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ (remember Him?) based on obedience, trust, and faith. Justas importantly, you may be released from the subtle but incredible stress of having to feel like you have aaalllll the answers. That's what it's done for me.
And you don't have to give up being a witness for God. Just last week, one of our managers came to my office and said that he was talking with some of our other employees about faith in God and the reliability of Christianity. He told them he sometimes has doubts, but he reasoned. "Jerry's a pretty smart guy and he has faith. So it must be a good thing." He told the the story of the conversation and said. "So in a way, my eternal destiny is dependent on you." Then, smiling, he added "No pressure."
In all the years I pretended to have allllll the answers, I didn't have that kind of effect on a co-worker. Now, by letting go of the pretense of omniscience, I have am a witness people can relate to, respect, and accept.
I'd say I finally have what over 12 years of PFAL-think failed to produce: a more abundant life.
[sorry about the long OT post; brevity isn't my forte}
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
RottieGrrrl
Hope: Thank's for backing me up that this was taught. Rafael, I don't know if it's in writing that he taught it.
:(--> I never read those PFAL books anyway and threw most of them out a couple years ago. ( I know JCOPS wasn't a PFAL book)
But I KNOW this was taught over and over again. The offshoot I went to still taught this. They said this is why God loves to hears us sing cause angels can't etc.etc.etc. So it HAD to come down from somewhere at the top!
Don't more people remember this??????
PS Hope, that was exactly MY reasoning, they could talk, I just figured..as usual.. that there was something I wasn't getting.
-->
...It's hard to be humble when you own a Rottweiler...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Rottie,
What I recall is the teaching that there is no record in the Bible of angels ever singing. VPW used this to conculde that angels don't sing.
What VPW did here is called an argument from silence. He reasons that because the Bible does not record an angel ever singing(true), that angles do not sing.
An argument from silence can, at best, add strength or evidence to an argument, but by itself proves nothing at all. It is an extremely weak argument.
For example, I could say that there is no record in the Bible of Jesus playing a musical instrument. But if I conclude that he did not or could not, based on silence alone, I could very likely be wrong. We need more evidence to conclude one way or another.
The fact is, without more than the scripture's silence, it is erroneous to conclude that angels can't or don't sing. They may or may not.
I no longer own a PFAL book, so I don't if this was in PFAL or not.
What say ye Rafael, error or not ?
Goey
[This message was edited by Goey on January 28, 2003 at 19:35.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
The time I went to Bob was during an AC special in around '96 or '97. It was being taught at the time, so that's what made me bring it up.
It had been taught for years. I know it's in a class somewhere - maybe the intermediate, regarding the prophesy in Luke.
Hope R. color>size>face>
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints - the sinners are much more fun... Billy Joel size>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Goey thank you thank you thank you! And that is a GREAT point you make about the musical instrument thing.
...It's hard to be humble when you own a Rottweiler...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
And Hope thank you.
PS Goey, Rafael says Job 38:7 mentions angels singing.
...It's hard to be humble when you own a Rottweiler...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
From the book of Job:
Do I need to get into the fact that the "morning stars" is another term for angels?
The argument is not from silence. It's from a failure to research. But unless there's a written quote of Wierwille saying "Angels don't sing," "angels can't sing," or "there's no record in the Bible where angels sing," then it's not an actual error. Find the quote and I'll add it to the list.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Thanks for the kind words Rafael.
Zix, I think you nailed it. Mr Fletcher indeed!
And that picture of Gollum/Smegel is a HOOT!!
TW, great work on Genesis chapter 9. There is yet another reason the PFAL body-soul-spirit doctrine is erroneous. But only if you assume that the Bible is a higher standard of truth. Sadly, not all of us hold to that opinion.
And I apologize because I've forgotten who posted it , but someone said that there are more grads like Mike out there than we think. I would have to agree. Although I haven't met any who take it quite to this level of denial and self-delusion, there are many still bound by the conviction that VP really did teach a truth that had not been known since the first century.
I was quite dismayed when the Corps grad with whom we were fellowshipping when I first learned of these PFAL problems all but accused me of being devil-possessed because I dared to question the accuracy of The Class.
I think there are many grads, and many Way Corps who still hold Dr. Weirwille in extremely high regard and consider his teachings to be...sacred on some level, and certainly well worth their continued devotion and defense.
And in part, I understand that. Mike did make one valid point today. He touched on the one reason for his blind obssession with the orange tome. He said, "I prefer to work where I see God at work, and I SAW God at work in Dr's ministry in PFAL,...". Mike received benefits in his life after taking PFAL. I daresay we all did. (though Larry P may beg to differ)No matter what denomination we start in, I believe this is part of the Christian experience, part of what happens throughout the Church of the Body of Christ.
People get born again in Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, and Catholic services, even at snake handlers' tent revivals. Does this mean that a Catholic or Copperhead-grapplin' Christian can't learn more by a closer examination of the Scriptures?
Mike, would you tell a man who'd been saved or even physically healed in a tent revival that he shouldn't reconsider some of what he'd alreadly learned, just because he'd gotten some benefit from his religion? I doubt it. You would "witness " to him, telling him that there are more benefits, more truth, more joy, more peace available to him if he will only trust GOD to continue to bless him as he grows beyond his past experience. That's all we're asking you to do.
Consider that maybe GOD your heavenly Father is big enough to teach you and bless you even more as you trust him to show you how to walk beyond the confines of that tattered little orange book.
Peace
JerryB
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Rottie,
Job 38:7
Yes, morning stars could be very well be refering to angels. I did not consider this verse as specifically saying or recording that angels sing because some believe that "morning stars" in this verse is literal, refering to the stars at creation and the singing is figurative.
The word for sing in this verse is the Hebrew 'ranan', which is also translated 'rejoice' and 'shout out'. It does not necesarily connote melodious singing.
Melodious singing is usually represented by the Hebrew words shiyr or zamar.
Goey
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I stand corrected... for the moment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Is Wierwille's claim in PFAL that "Iscariot" means "man of Iscar" an actual error? It seems like he changed it in Jesus Christ Our Passover to Ish Kerioth, man of Kerioth.
I do not believe that there is an "Iscar" in Judea
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael Wrote: “Now, Mike, I'll agree with Mark on this: it's time to either apply your method to the errors we've identified, or stop interrupting the conversation.”
I agree. I’ve said my peace here.
I have been collecting data on a few AEs from this thread, but each one is only in the early stages of development. Who knows how fast any one will proceed.
Everyone here knows by now that it’s my policy to place the processing of these AEs (ACs from my perspective) way low on my priority list. All of life is punctuated with decisions as to what is NOT going to get done. Cranking away at these AEs, at the expense of the pure pleasure of reading PFAL, is folly in my book. There was a time when I did this kind of cranking, long before many of you ever took PFAL, but that’s over for me.
I can bow out (again) now, and thank everyone for tolerating my envelope pushing. We did get some things discussed and I’m thankful.
I’m moving on to other threads, but who knows when I’ll be called back.
Happy traaaaaaaaails to YOU!
Until we meeet AGAIN.
Happy traaaaaaaaails to YOU!
Keep smiling on till THEN.
Happy traaaaaaaaails to..... er
oops.. .... JerryB, I forgot you.
Let’s just do this quick as possible, and try to not respond so strongly that you drag me right back into the thread by my belt loops. Oky doky?
You wrote: “Mike, would you tell a man who'd been saved or even physically healed in a tent revival that he shouldn't reconsider some of what he'd already learned, just because he'd gotten some benefit from his religion? I doubt it. You would "witness " to him, telling him that there are more benefits, more truth, more joy, more peace available to him if he will only trust GOD to continue to bless him as he grows beyond his past experience. That's all we're asking you to do.”
I think I see the logic of your question. If I get this wrong, just e-mail me and we can hash it out without derailing the thread. Here’s what I see you are asking me.
First off, I agree with your premise. If the doors were open to witness to the man you open with, I would surely let him know that blessed as he was, there was still much more to receive IF HE WANTS IT. I would show him “all the things Jesus did and greater.” I would show him “nine manifestations available to all.” Maybe if condemnation was still a problem for him I’d show him some other things. And so on. Figuratively speaking, if I see he seems interested I whip out a green card and sign him up. In this scenario I am the WITNESSER and the man in your opening is the WITNESSEE.
Now, in the later part of your statement you analogously transfer this process, this scenario, which I agreed upon thusly: I become the man from your opening, the WITNESSEE, and you become WITNESSER.
Using your exact words now, with appropriate pronoun modification in CAPS:
You witness to me that if I abandon my loyalty or exclusivity to PFAL, and expand my horizons, “telling ME that there are more benefits, more truth, more joy, more peace available to ME if I will only trust God to continue to bless ME as I grows beyond MY past experience.”
So I hear you and am intrigued. I ask you what “more benefits etc.” will I get from abandoning PFAL? So far, I see PFAL as the best bet for learning “all the things Jesus did and greater” AND “nine manifestations available to all.” AND no condemnation AND many other things. What will I get that’s better than these things?
I’m pretty excited about what I’m learning about the “other” six manifestations in PFAL. Whenever I’ve checked out other places claiming to teach the power, they always prove to miss at least one to the big things I’ve already checked out in PFAL as truth.
Your ask me to drop a hot potato like PFAL, but WHAT comparable hot potato do you have to replace it? Hmmmmmmmm?
There isn’t a set of books like PFAL for learning the 9 manifestations in the whole world. I’ve been to many, many churches over the years. I know what they offer. How are you going to convince me to drop a good horse like PFAL and the power, and NOT offer me a CONVINCINGLY better horse?
Jerry, I’m afraid your analogy breaks down at this point. I can offer the man in your opening something specific that will be far better than his current situation, but you can’t offer me a similar specific FAR better deal than PFAL.
I certainly won’t abandon PFAL at your suggestion that SOMEWHERE out there, there has GOT to be better something far better than PFAL and the things Dr teaches. If you’re so sure that’s out there why don’t you have it yourself?
Jerry, I’m sorry I’ve decided not to sign your green card.
[This message was edited by Mike on January 30, 2003 at 22:32.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Goey,
I think you certainly established that this is not an actual error. It's an interesting discussion, however tangential.
Wierwille writes on p. 212 that there's no scripture that states angels sing. He does not say "sing melodiously." He simply says "sing." In context, one COULD suggest that he MEANT "sing melodiously," but the fact is that he doesn't.
Further, there IS a scripture that says angels sing. There's no scripture that says, specifically, that angels sing melodiously. But there is a scripture that says angels sing.
Finally, the song "Hark The Herald Angels Sing" could very easily be using the word "sing" in the same manner as the verse in Job. It certainly fits with the context of the song.
So I think there's a case for interpretational error, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that Wierwille was right about melodious singing, IF that's what he meant.
Rottiegrrl: This subject really fit on both threads. Thanks for bringing it here.
:)-->
I don't think Wierwille ever wrote that angels CAN'T sing. Why, that'd be stoopid.
Mike:
You will be able to do all nine manifestations, but you will never know that fornication and adultery are wrong, even in this present administration.
Fine, take yourrr precioussss.
You won't sign Jerry's green card. How classic. And hypocritical.
Folks, before replying to Mike, remember his stated M.O. Bear it in mind at all times...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Rafael,
The angels singing stuff is interesting, but trivial. I agree that is is not an actual error. But Wierwille does in fact use an argument from silence when he says that "no scripture says that angels sing". VPW used arguments from silence all the time to bloster his points.
You posted:
I hate to disagree, but No, there IS NOT - at least not in any major Bible version. There is no scripture that specifically says that angels sing. There is a scripture that says "morning stars" sing. Translating 'morning stars' to 'angels' is interpretational on your part. While it may be the case ( arguable), VPW was technically correct in his statement.
I agree that it would be stupid to surmise that angels can't sing. But actually, I think that this is exactly what VPW did. Why else would he even mention it and attempt to point out the "error" in a Christmas Hymn?
Goey
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actual Error?
Here's a great opportunity for a bit of research.
In Jesus Christ Our Passover, Wierwille writes that the Pentecost corresponds to the Feast of Weeks, and that the counting of the seven weeks begins on the Sunday following Passover (p. 388). He concludes that the 50th day will, naturally, always fall on a Sunday. Therefore, in his own words...
According to Wierwille, Pentecost should ALWAYS fall on a Sunday. (It's logical to conclude from this definition that Wierwille believed the Pentecost in Acts 2 fell on a Sunday).
Here's the catch. The Jews (JEWS JEWS JEWS) call Pentecost "Shavuot." It does NOT always fall on a Sunday. Either Wierwille was wrong, or history changed.
Wierwille HAD to begin the counting the first Sunday after Passover in order to have Pentecost fall on a Sunday. Tradition places Pentecost on a Sunday every year, and Wierwille, for whatever reason, did not question it. But he ran into trouble trying to count only 50 days between the Thursday of Passover and the Sunday of Pentecost. So he began the counting the day after the weekly sabbath following Passover.
I submit that the counting did NOT begin on the Sunday after Passover, that it began the day AFTER Passover. I submit that NOT EVERY Pentecost (on the Jewish calendar) falls on a Sunday. And I submit that the first Pentecost did not necessarily fall on a Sunday.
Further, I question whether there were 10 days between the ascension and Pentecost. I see nothing in the scripture that declares this outright.
These are presented as challenges and questions, not conclusions. I await your replies.
------------------------------------------------
This is an edit. I thought of deleting this post entirely, but thought it would be better to just post the answer which I just found (and in the process, show that I'm not unwilling to state that Wierwille was right about something).
Lev. 23:16 makes it clear that the counting of the weeks is to end on the day after the Sabbath. So my basic questions are answered, and my submissions refuted.
I still wonder why Jews today celebrate Shavuot on a specific date every year, rather than on a Sunday as the Bible specifically designates. That's not a PFAL error issue, but I'd still be interested in the answer.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 29, 2003 at 7:15.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Gee thanks, Rafael. I had just proved you right, too.
:)-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You proved me right and I proved me wrong?
How rich!
:)-->
Does anyone know why or how Shavuot got changed from always being on a Sunday to being on a specific date every year?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
A brief "Mike" comment before launching into the meat of this post. As I was following up on some of the things troubledwine has posted, I came across the following paragraph (PFAL, p 230):
"For years I read around the Word of God with the writers of outside works being centers of reference for me. Soon I suffered from a common disease called mental confusion because equally great men regarding the same verse of Scripture would contradict each other. When I began to consider the process of learning, I finally came to the conclusion that instead of spending my life in confusion with men's opinions I would accept one center of reference for truth which was outside myself, and that was the Word of God."
Apparently Mike has decided to follow the example of his hero... only Mike has accepted the word of Wierwille rather than the Word of God as his center of reference.
Wierwille's paragraph reveals something interesting. He didn't judge the validity of a man's opinion by comparing that opinion with what's written in the Bible. He judged a man's opinion by the greatness of the man. Wierwille mistook eisegesis for exegesis. He mistook *his own* opinion, the opinion of a *man*, for the Word of God. His assessment of the validity of his own interpretations were not based on how well they accorded with what is written, but on his own assessment of his own greatness. By cutting himself off from all opinions except his own, Wierwille abandoned the kind of checks and balances against error that many people here at Greasespot are working to develop. Wierwille traded mental *confusion* for mental *delusion*, another common disease, and IMO, so has Mike.
Now back to our regularly scheduled program.
Some things have been simmering in my mind for about a year-and-a-half now, but troubledwine's posts questioning what Wierwille wrote about "made, formed, created" have brought my thinking to a boil. I couldn't get to sleep for half the night last night. I went to bed four times but I couldn't quiet my mind enough to go to sleep, even after eating a big batch of turkey lunchmeat for the L-tryptophane (sp?). I kept getting back up to search something out in the Bible, or PFAL, or "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" (RHST).
My gut feeling is that nearly the entire section of PFAL entitled "The New Birth" can be demonstrated to be an actual error, but not in accordance with the rules Rafael has set down for this thread. The whole issue hinges on the definition of "spirit", and I haven't been able to find any place in Wierwille's writings where he explicitly defined the word.
From some of the ways Wierwille used "spirit", it seems he viewed it in a Platonic sense as the substance of the ideal realm. I no longer regard that view to be biblical. I think the Bible uses "spirit" ("ruach" in the OT, "pneuma" in the NT) first, in its literal sense of "wind" or "air in motion", and second, in a figurative sense of "life", as evidenced by the air moving in and out of living things (animal, human, demon, angel, god). I base this opinion on the uses of "ruach" in Ezekiel 37.
On page 232 of PFAL Wierwille wrote, "Are those three words 'spirit,' 'soul' and 'body' synonymous? They are no more synonymous than are *created*, *formed* and *made*. *Body* means *body*, *soul* means *soul*, and *spirit* means *spirit*."
Wierwille's definitions of "body", "soul" and "spirit" are as purely circular as definitions can be. A circular definition is one that defines a word in terms of itself. Most circular definitions are disguised by using synonyms. It is not possible to create definitions more purely circular than those given here by Wierwille.
Circular definitions are not valid in logic, because they fail to "define" or "limit the meanings of" words, but circular definitions are very valuable in rhetoric (the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience), because they enable the speaker or writer to use a word any way he wants to, without the possibility of being pinned down to a specific meaning.
On pages 12-15 of RHST Wierwille defined "the Holy Spirit" as "God, THE GIVER"; and "holy spirit" as "power from on high"; but he still didn't define the word "spirit" itself.
As we saw from PFAL page 232, we can't say for sure what "body", "soul" and "spirit" meant to Wierwille, but we can be certain he said they meant different things. Yet on page 234 of RHST (5th edition) Wierwille wrote the following:
"Meaning soul life. The person himself, that which makes a man a living being; the natural life common to all man. It is also breath life (Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59). All men have 'soul life' which is *pneuma* or spirit, called 'the spirit of man,' but not all men have eternal life, *pneuma*, holy spirit." (RHST, Appendix II, "Usage of the Word *Pneuma* or *Pneuma Hagion", 3.)
In PFAL Wierwille denied the possibility that "spirit" and "soul" are synonyms. In RHST he used them as synonyms.
I think the implications of this actual error go far beyond those of any other error posted so far, in discrediting the validity of many things Wierwille taught in PFAL. So far in fact, that I think they go beyond the parameters of this thread.
If somebody else can point out a place where Wierwille explicitly defined the word "spirit", then I might have to say, "Never mind."
Thanks for entertaining this possible derailment, Rafael!
Love,
Stev
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Steve,
This is a very interesting topic.
As I understand VPW's explanation in section you quoted in RTHST, it has to do with different usages of the term "spirit". As I am sure you know spirit - is 'pneuma' in Greek and 'ruwach' in Hebrew. Both of these words are used figuratively quite often - the literal meaning beiing 'wind'.
When VPW said that the "spirit of man" is his soul, he used "spirit" figuratively. If we replace 'spirit' with 'wind', it would say "the wind of man" is the soul". VPW is not using spirit and soul as synonyms here. He is actually attempting to use one term - "spirit", to explain the other - "soul", by employing a figure and to show a difference between the soul and the holy spirit - (little "h" little "s").
For example, I could say the spirit of a tree is it's sap. I am not using sap and spirit synonymously.
Anyway, that is how I understand what VPW was doing in RTHST - not that I agree with it.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Hey raf,
I think I got your answer concerning Shavuot, but it's way too long and boring to post here? You wanna I should email you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ex10: Please do.
rafael@livingepistlessociety.org
Steve:
I'm not ignoring your post. I'm just overwhelmed by it. I'm not sure it's a derailment, but at the very least it is a fascinating discussion.
Rafael
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Interesting post Steve. Goey, I think your point is valid...to a point. :-)
VP did list figures of speech as possible biblical usages of the word "pneuma" and the use of it referring to soul life would definitely fit there. So his use of the term spirit in reference to soul in RHST fits your parameters, in which case it's not an actual error.
But in PFAL, he spoke at some length about this in an attempt to explain, if not define spirit. He said, if I remember correctly [i'm at work now, so I can't check it right now] "All life is spirit." He then went on to quality that statement by saying that not all spirit life is eternal life. Remember, he compared it to love with the bunsen burner, hot love quip. You can't put love in a bunsen burner and get "hot love" (Freudian slip or harmless joke? You decide).
So, in Weirwille's thinking, the word spirit may refer to all of life because it exists beyond "the senses realm." So soul life and angels and cherubim and God hiimself are all different forms of spirit life. So, because he put explained soul life as a subset of spirit life, it may be fairly said that he did use the terms "soul" and "spirit" synonymously.
However, I tink in all fairness I'd have to call that a error of interpretation rather than an actual error.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Here's another one that was overlooked. I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle...
...
Jerry posted at about the same time I did, and I did not want people to miss his post, so I'm copying it...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Rafael - You wrote, "I'm not ignoring your post. I'm just overwhelmed by it."
I'm overwhelmed by it, too. That's why I brought it up here. I know I ain't gonna find any instant answer on this one. That's also why I'm questioning how appropriate it is for this particular thread.
Everybody else, even Mike - Can any of you remember or find any place in Wierwille's writings where he gives an explicit, non-circular definition of the simple word "spirit"?
Love,
Steve
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Mike.
I think it interesting that you asked me a question about how growing beyond PFAL has blessed my life, but rather than wait for my answer, you rejected the possibility that I had one and closed the subject. On the one hand I'd say that's been typical of your interaction here, but I'm at least encouraged that you asked.
For the benefit of lurkers who may also be interested in the benefits of growing beyond a man-made doctrine, I'll post my response here, with apologies to Rafael, Steve, Goey, Troubledwine, & co.
I'll also try to honor your request and contact you by e-mail for a more detailed answer and perhaps an extended dialogue.
************* Those of you interested only in doctrinal stuff,f read no further *************
During all of the years I was devoted to Dr.'s doctrines, I remained unsuccessful at work, financially strapped, always in debt, moving from one job to another, and barely tolerating my marriage to a lovely good-hearted woman. She didn't share my zeal for "The Word", so obviously she was beneath me. Or so I thought; and so I was encouraged to think by my TWI leadership. In short, I thought I had all the answers, but I was failing the litmus test of session one. I failed to manifest a more abundant life. Partly because of this failure to master the basics of providing for my own, I never won any co-workers to the my way of thinking. I always had an explanation for every aspect of life and never shied away from sharing my beliefs and opinions. Sometimes I was tolerated as being weird, sometimes I was embarrassed when my Weirwillian perspectives proved to be ridiculously wrong. Because I was a decent person and God was gracious in my immaturity, there were always people who helped me and gave me opportunities, but I could never bring them to fruition.
I rationalized that it was more than made up for by my "spiritual abundance" and the result of my high ethical standards. Nevertheless, we were very unhappy and at times, very poor.
Since having abandoned the confines of 1)PFAL and 2)the idea that ANY book has all the answers [more on that in a moment], my life has blossomed in all categories. I am now the vice presient and general manager of a rapidly growing company. Oddly enough, I didn't have to abandon my ethical standards. There really are people out there who've never heard of The Way Ministry who strive to be honest, fair, AND prosperous. We now live in a fairly new house that is what we dreamed of in vain for years under the yoke of TWI. Our children actually have full rewarding social lives, unbridled by the fear relationships with "unbelievers". My respect for and relationship with my wife is better than ever and continually improving, my peace of mind is the best it's ever been and, best of all, I have learned to actually trust God to take care of us based on His grace and mercy.
I have also learned more than ever the importance of wisdom and obedience. Somehow the Way fostered a kind of cavalier attitude about basic obedience to God's will. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seemed as if we were taught to expect God's best whether we did his will or not; just because we were the elite, the Way believers. Actually, as I think about it, I CAN put my finger on it. A Corps guy on "Hoho relo" once shared a story with me about his lashing out at a Corps buddy on a work project. His supervisor looked on and, at the end of his tirade said, "That's right. Give em hell Dave. Cause you don't get nothin from God by being good." The basic lesson was that righteousness, honesty, integrity, temperance, all of the virtues that most Christians strive for, were relatively unimportant if you had 'big believing'.
That kind of elitism destroys one's integrity, corrodes relationships, and defeats success and prosperity by eroding one's sense of personal responsibility. Mine is being rebuilt with the loving help of God and of my Lord Jesus Christ. Am I now the perfect Christian? Heck no, but I'm moving in the right direction and I'm not deceiving myself anymore about it.
Finally, I have learned, many times over, that the world doesn't turn on my understanding of life and living. I have accepted the fact that the Bible contains many apparent contradictions, difficult verses, and doesn't have all the answers. It's not supposed to. No book, man-made or God-breathed does, because God didn't send His only begotten Son to live and die for us so we could keep our noses in a book and rely on our understanding of some words on a page. That's carnal Pharisaism. Walking by the senses; leaning to your own understanding. It is the antithesis of walking in the spirit, trusting God and emulating Our Lord.
Jesus didn't have all the answers. He did what God, the Holy Spirit told him to do, as God told him to do it. We're supposed to do likewise.
You speak of having a book that teaches all about the manifestations and "the power". People don't get spiritual power from books Mike. They receive it from God by Jesus Christ as someone ministers it to them. If I may paraphrase the Apostle Paul, He who ministereth to you the spirit, doeth he it by the words in a book, or by the hearing of faith? .
So I submit that leaving PFAL behind will enable you to prosper more, be more at peace, interact more with your fellow man, have better intimate relationships, and have a richer relationship with God your Heavenly Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ (remember Him?) based on obedience, trust, and faith. Justas importantly, you may be released from the subtle but incredible stress of having to feel like you have aaalllll the answers. That's what it's done for me.
And you don't have to give up being a witness for God. Just last week, one of our managers came to my office and said that he was talking with some of our other employees about faith in God and the reliability of Christianity. He told them he sometimes has doubts, but he reasoned. "Jerry's a pretty smart guy and he has faith. So it must be a good thing." He told the the story of the conversation and said. "So in a way, my eternal destiny is dependent on you." Then, smiling, he added "No pressure."
In all the years I pretended to have allllll the answers, I didn't have that kind of effect on a co-worker. Now, by letting go of the pretense of omniscience, I have am a witness people can relate to, respect, and accept.
I'd say I finally have what over 12 years of PFAL-think failed to produce: a more abundant life.
[sorry about the long OT post; brevity isn't my forte}
Peace
JerryB
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.