There are some here on GS who rip PFAL apart (all of it, without distinction ), who will deny that there is any redeeming qualities to it or truth in it.
Raf, however, isn't one of them.
The "Actual Errors" thread (which I am proud to have been a contributor) was not about trashing PFAL, but demonstrating that PFAL was not perfect.
There have been many stimulating discussions about PFAL and other Wierwille publications over the years, but these Mike-centered "discussions" get bogged down over whether PFAL is without error, and over Mike's methodology.
Mike, this isn't a defense of you, by the way!
You might get more of PFAL's message out there if you concentrated on the message itself, rather than focussing on whether it was perfect or not. After all, very few will accept your premise that PFAL is without error, but most will accept that some, or most of PFAL is helpful, or true, or godly, etc. In fact, most of your more vociferous critics actually agree with some or most of PFAL.
For instance, most would agree that PFAL was their first introduction to considering the bible as something that could be studied and understood.
dmiller, you wrote: “Well, I THOUGHT it worked well at one time. Time proved it different.”
The problem with your statement here is that there are two "ITs" for two different times, with a gradual change over between them.
“It worked well at one time” because there were lots of leadership-type people (not necessary Corps) on the field with a recent fresh exposure to the books.
No - he THOUGHT it worked well at one time. He had the OPINION it worked.
Later, more evidence came in, and he examined things more closely-
scanning where once he skimmed. :)
Then it was PROVED (put to proof and found wanting) to be error.
I’ve always, since the day I took the class, assumed that the 3000 volume timing was 1942 or shortly thereafter when he switched from trusting academic teachers to trusting God’s direct intervention and revelation as his teacher BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE IT FIT.
Well -- I do remember a corps guy up here (back in 79 or 80 - thereabouts) commenting on this.
He said "docvic might have tossed out all those books he talks about,
but he sure has a lot of them left in his library now!"
I dunno. I guess I still discount the fact that he *read the bible only*.
And it shows in his works --- since so much of other folks stuff is there prominently.
And then, couple that with your quote from one of the way books where docvic
says his work was not his own, but putting in the pfal format was his work.
Well -- I can agree with that last statement.
But I don't see him as reading the bible ONLY to get the pfal format he did. :)
And neither did that corps guy from 25 years ago (or so).
IMO --- if he did indeed thow out books, it was *cleaning the pantry*,
No one who had direct, extensive contact with Wierwille agrees with the proposition that his written works were God-breathed. Not one.
Imagine if NONE of the 12 apostles considered Jesus the Messiah, ever. Not when they were with him, not the night of the crucifixion, and not after. Imagine, the only person who made the claim was Simon the Sorceror. Imagine the 12 heard this theory and said, "No, Jesus never claimed it. The proposition goes against what he taught." It would certainly lead me to question whether Jesus ever claimed it.
According to eyewitness testimony on this site, Wierwille himself specifically discounted Mike's thesis. That more evidence is needed is stubbornness of the highest level. Steadfastness? Or seared conscience?
I wonder just how well you knew Dr. I mean I was invited with a bunch of other Corps folk to his home - we had barbeque, each had a sample ( small) of moonshine ( real) and then Mrs Weirwille gave us a tour of the home. he had a library filled with books. And Not just Pfal series books or study materials. I mean BOOKS and books and books!
He was also always talking about things he had read.
perhaps books had been discarded - but the important books - Kenyon's, Bullinger's, Stiles' they were kept and utilized to put the class together. I'm not sure what the timeline matters..
I think we all would have really left sooner if he hadn't read so many books - at the time we all admired VPW's wanting to stay informed and the desire to keep searching.
Mike have you ever considered putting this much effort into researching the Bible? I mean we were always taught to go with the many clear verses.....why hunt down verses in controversy when there are so many that you can get so much from? Could be soul-healing stuff...
I know that you believe that Dr's directive to master the class is what should be driving you - but consider that God Himself wants you out living a life that glorifies him and heals you - not pinning down every word spoken and written and taped by what is at best a fallen prophet
(teacher really,) then getting run through the mill for it. We arent' even asked by Jesus to do that. He chided the pharisees for getting too much into the fine minute nit picky details of the law while forsaking major matters of life that God wants us to live. ( Again if there were ever anyone who's every word should have been written down and analyzed it would have been God's only begotten - and yet God sought economy.) You are in the process of searching over 30 years worth of writings and tapes?????? whew!
...but I could not quote you The Word. I had not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word- its integrity, its meaning, its words.
I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook.
A reasonable person's reading of these two statements would lead one to believe that he had spent an unspecified amount of time reading what other people said about the bible, "reading around the Word", and that at another unspecified time he decided to throw out all of his commentaries and start fresh, having determined that he could find out what the will of God was by simply reading the bible. A reasonable person would then assume that his conclusions that we now have are the result of the fresh start that took place after the books were thrown out and he had gone back to the bible, and excluded things that he had learned before the trip to the dump.
Assuming that he wasn't lying, one way that I can reconcile the preceeding statements with
Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped
is to assume that when he says "I learned wherever I could", he is talking about considering the viewpoints of others, but that his own research, arrived at independently, would determine whether a doctrine was true or not.
If this is what he did, then there would be little problem. He hears about, or reads about something that he had not considered before, gets out his bible, researches the subject, comes to a conclusion based solely on what the bible tells him, and then decides to include the doctrine, based 100% on his own independent study, and in his own words; or he decides to not include it, again based on his own research. Claiming that something wasn't original just means that someone else had come up with it before he did, not that he was admitting that he copied it wholesale.
BUT
This isn't exactly what happened.
Wierwille strongly implies that he reached many of the same conclusions as Bullinger, before he had ever heard of Bullinger. However, it is obvious that Wierwille quotes Bullinger without understanding the point Bullinger is making in several places.
Wierwille's books contain passages that are virtually word-for-word copies of other authors. If he was learning from these authors and then independently working 'The Word', then it is extremely unlikely that the wording would be so close.
Wierwille saying "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original" is his way of saying that he was not teaching some new, off-the-wall heresy. "Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work" is his way of claiming that no one else was as smart as he was, to fit all the different pieces of the bible together into a coherent, fits-like-a-hand-in-a-glove package, not that he had taken a piece of Stiles, and a piece of Leonard and a piece of Bullinger and stitched the all together. Even in that seemingly humble statement he was still exalting himself.
WW & CM: So you guys did biblical research to disprove my point? Ironic.
Not ironic to most people.
See, Neither CM nor WW ever claimed they didn't believe the Bible.
Neither claimed they dismissed all information that vpw said just because
vpw said it. We rejected the stance that
"BECAUSE vpw said it, it is automatically gospel."
So, we examine each thing individually. If it stands on its own merits,
it stands. If it falls on its own merits, it falls. The things that stand on their
own merits are no guarantee that the things that failed suddenly did
NOT fail, nor that unexamined items suddenly get a free pass.
I don't know how much looking up one verse in the Greek counts as
"Biblical research", though. As it was, I had my Ricker-Berry handy,
so if YOU had asked what it had said, I would have just grabbed it and
posted it, too. Did it disprove your point? Did it support your point?
Whatever.
Now, now: give the devil his due.
Seriously, if an error doesn't belong on the list, then take it off the list. Removals only increase the integrity of the items that remain. I don't care if Mike caught it (he never will), or if we stumble on it (this is, what, the second time that's happened?) or if we discount it by research (most discussed errors never made the list because they were discounted by research or decidedly subject to interpretation). This was a relatively simple one that slipped by because I looked at a lexicon and not an interlinear. C'est la guerre.
We meant different things.
I meant "take it off the list, but WE get credit for taking it off the list,
because WE looked at it, examined it, and found it didn't belong there."
So, it comes off the list, but the WHY I quibbled on.
In post #138 of this thread you quoted me thusly: “...BUT, Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements still do NOT prove that PFAL is indeed God-breathed.”
You responded with: “Please note he said this. The next time he contradicts this, I'm bringing it back.”
I protest!
Not only will I not contradict this, but I have OFTEN said this in the past.
WHY haven’t you noticed that fact?
WHY didn’t you say the same in the past?
GADS! How COULD I ever think that anyone saying anything makes it so?
I ask again, why do you portray this as the first occurrence of my acknowledgment of such a simple thing?
***
I mentioned that Dr made many “thus saith the lord” statements and you responded with:
“Most will notice that Mike NEVER produces these "thus saith the lord" statements, but instead expects us to believe he's representing the text fairly.”
You’re somewhat right. I have produced a few, three I think, but I have never produced anything close to the huge list of them I have claimed. Want to know why? Because, strangely, no one has ever challenged me to. This is the first. I’ve literally been waiting for this for over three years.
As I’ve mentioned before recently, last year in a Private Topic thread (in the old GSC software) I marveled at how long I’ve waited to be asked to produce this long list I’ve claimed existed from day one of my posting. On that PT I wrote up 22 such “thus saith” statements. I have claimed to have found 90, but sometimes include the caveat that a bunch of that 90 are extremely subtle. I may never have the time to write up all such subtle entries on my list, but I had no trouble writing up 22 and I see another 20 easily being within my schedule constraints to produce here.
Maybe soon I’ll post the 22 and a few others.
I’m now waiting on this thread calming down or maybe getting a fresh thread just for that subtopic.
***
I had stated that “the purpose of the PFAL book is not TOTALLY revealed in that book's beginning pages. ... I insist on ALL of the passages of PFAL on a give topic be brought to the table, not just selected ones.”
Then you responded with (my bold fonts) : “...If there was an additional meaning, [A] It must be stated as clearly [ B] It must not contradict this as the CONTENTS and DESIGN. [C] It must not contradict what this is NOT-it is not a substitute for Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.”
(please pardon my format tweak to avoid invoking unwanted smiley faces)
You changed something here in item [C].
Dr wrote: “The contents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21
WW wrote that the contents therein are: “not a substitute for Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
That’s different.
Item is ok, but I also object to item [A]. Who sez it must be stated clearly? And clearly TO WHOM? And for that matter, who sez it must be done in that same place? The other purposes of the book may be indicated elsewhere, at least in my book they may.
***
I wrote: “Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements show that these OLGs’ PFAL mastery was insufficient, as per Dr’s final instructions, to catch this “thus saith” nuance in written PFAL.”
You responded: “Again, not one instance is given, just this mysterious ‘there's a whole lot of them’.”
Yeah, ain’t the mystery delicious? And add to it the fact that this post of yours is the FIRST in three years to finally demand me to produce my list of these statements.
I once noticed here that I had posted SIX times (without scare quotes) that we grads were “gathered together” into the PFAL class, and it wasn’t until the seventh time of doing so that anyone said something about it. It was excathedra who spoke up noticing it.
I also noticed that in my first year of posting I threw it out on the table that I believe there has been some sort of administration change and no one picked up on it at all. It was weird. I’d post a strong hint or short explicit statement and it would sail right past everyone, and not even commented on, as if it were taboo or something.
I got the impression that people were afraid to bring these things up. Actually the “gathered together” part was probably just from people skimming my posts looking for the standard things to freak out on, and they just overlooked the “gathered together” spots. But my “thus saith” claims and my new administration claims were much more out in the open, yet ignored.
***
You wrote regarding these “thus saith” claims that: “THERE IS NO "INTERNAL CLAIM WITHIN PFAL THAT IT IS THE WORD OF GOD. There is a bald claim from Mike that there IS one, but any supposed support for this claim melts in the morning sun.”
Well we may have a lot of fun when I bring the statements forth.
***
At the next point in your post #138 you completely missed something by splitting up a sentence of mine and then claiming a contradiction on my part. I will mend the sentence you violated, with the admission that my grammar was a little awkward to the point of leading you astray, so I’ll mend that too.
I had written that the mere existence of the “thus saith” statements was “still no proof of God-breathed PFAL here.
Then I switched to discuss the fact that many grads here did not recognize these “thus saith” statements or that they cannot remember them.
In my mended sentence I say this:
If it’s the case, that we grads missed the CLAIM of God-breathedness within PFAL, then HOW MANY OTHER THINGS WERE MISSED?
I had added to “if it’s the case” the phrase “and I think I have shown that it is.”
I do. I think I’ve shown that it is the case that most grads missed these “God-breathed” claims of Dr’s.
You jumped the gun, not reading my entire sentence; you were thirsting to find a contradiction of mine.
You made a false find.
You wrote: “Amazing how he can't see his own sentences, back to back, completely contradict each other. Mike's message, attempting to claim what it attempts to claim, of course contains many internal contradictions, but usually not back-to-back in successive sentences.”
I see you jumping the gun all the time on my posts. You don’t read the whole thing, I think, before you start making you comments. You don’t get the gist and then comment, you linearly track along looking for contradictions, not seeking complete comprehension first.
I’ve noticed that many posters can fall into this trap of plodding through a commentary of someone’s post, and missing what’s said in that post. It’s like they are distracted by their own premature writing, when they should be reading to the end to get the full meaning before initiating the commentary process. This is like not waiting when reading PFAL for ALL the locations of a topic of focus to be found, and jumping off prematurely at only ONE such location.
We were taught that ALL the locations of a particular topic must be embraced before a text is understood.
Instead of being so driven to exhaustively debunk nearly everything I say, why not patiently read for comprehension what I say and we can have a much deeper conversation that what I am writing about now.
Do you think I want to spend a lot of time correcting my awkward grammar or your impatient flying off at the handle when you THINK you’ve nailed me in a contradiction? I don’t.
I don’t want to talk about what we talk about, and then go on to talking about or talking about what we talked about.
I want to discuss the contents of PFAL.
In my pre-reading of this page in the thread, I saw that someone asks that we do just that: discuss the contents of PFAL. Let’s do it, ok?
Do you see how your “discovery” of back to back contradictory sentences here is a false find?
Do you see how you misunderstood my admittedly awkward grammar and falsely accused me of contradicting myself by jumping the gun?
***
Wow! I’m done with post 138 in my attempt to imitate your exhaustive commentary style. It’s going to have to do a lot of raining in Southern California for me to catch up. Oh well, maybe our tone will shift to more discussion of the contents instead of commenting on what and how we’re commenting on each other.
Socks, I finally remember which teaching it was the inspired the questioned I asked about suffering....
(Eureka!! she says proudly.) ok, I admit this probably has nothing to do with nothing, but I'll "share" it anyway.
It was the teaching LCM did on "Stephen, Both Barrels Blazing." Summer of 78, in the BRC. LCM taught it, but VPW was there. As I recall, the reason LCM gave for Stephen's being stoned to death was that "his believing failed." HELLO? WHAT?? was what my little pea brain was screaming. :blink:
Sorry for the interruption in ya'lls conversation.
There was more to that tape's explanation of Stephen's death, though, I think.
I remember being taught in years prior to that, regarding the beating two leaders (Peter and John?) got shortly after the Pentecost record. (I’m racing to post this adjacently, and not looking it up.), that they hadn’t gotten up to that level of believing yet, that they were growing still.
Why couldn’t that be the case for Stephen too?
I’ve seen things in life that I am good at dealing with and maintaining my positive attitude and believing, and then there are things I’m terrible at keeping a stiff upper lip for.
I can see that possibility for Stephen.
Joseph, in prison, was able to correctly prophesy the future twice, yet he was still in his prison for two more years before finally rising up to believe in THAT category.
Ditto for Abraham. It took time for him to believe all the way to receiving.
Paul was in prison when he wrote Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians.
Stephen had the believing to read them the riot act and place something in Saul’s ears that had to have had an effect. Stephen planted, I can’t see any record of it being watered, but I do see it being harvested by the road to Damascus.
***
Like every man of God Stephen reached the end of SOMETHING and the adversary finished him off. Maybe it was he was tired of the fight, even wining the fight day after day, only to see the fight needs to be fought again the next day, and the next, and he got tired.
Maybe his believing that God would give him more energy to face another day ran out. There are lots of types of believing, believing in different categories differs for people, as I wrote above.
All of God’s men died eventually. Everybody runs out of believing, eventually, or has, until now.
***
Sometimes it’s not the “Fraidy Cat” type of believing deficit that can hurt, but the weariness type I just mentioned, or another is the “not taught enough” type of believing deficit. We can only believe what we are taught.
It’s the normal human condition to have believing deficits, it should never be a shameful thing, or worse yet, a fearful thing in itself. We should learn to accept and deal with our believing deficits like we learn to ride a bike. It’s fun! We can help each other, too, not shame each other.
I’ve seen the terrible distortions that the TVTs produced as grads discouraged each other in the learning of believing. The way the PFAL incident of the mother who lost her little boy was distorted in our minds, by re-hashing it from the verbal record only, was devastating to many grads, especially grads who came in later and never heard the preTVT explanations that I heard in the early 70’s.
I thought Craig’s Stephen teaching was good in 1978, because I had all this explained to me then by sharp leadership in the early 70’s, because I had a nonTVT background in it.
I can see how by the later 70’s things were not so comfortable and efficient for grads who heard Craig’s teaching with a TVT background.
***
The TVTs started in the mid 70’s and Dr reproved them in the Corps Ephesians teachings with a strong hint to master RHST, later released in Univ of Live Eph #17.
This was pretty well ignored by ALL the Corps, and I know this because Dr says so in the 1979 AC quote I quote so often here. He says there that ALL the AC grads (that includes all the Corps that heard the Ephesians tapes) had fallen FAR short of their mastery of RHST. It’s in segment #5 of that ’79 AC, and if anyone can’t remember my posting of it, say so, and I’ll re-post it... for the umpteenth time!
***
So I can bet that Craig’s tape was fine for people who had a solid background in hearing about the law of believing. I loved that teaching and concentrated on what Craig revealed to me about Saul being in the audience. That’s the highlight I remember of that tape after all these years.
Somebody want to listen to it and prove me wrong? It won’t be the first time my memory degraded if I’m wrong about that tape, and I often like to confront my memory when I do forget. It reminds me of the great need for me to not rely on my memory of what’s in written PFAL, but to open the books (often) and read what’s written.
You wrote: “You are in the process of searching over 30 years worth of writings and tapes?????? whew!”
Oh, no. I don’t include the tapes.
In 1998, when a man first showed me Dr’s Last/Lost teaching, I started putting aside my exhaustive tape research to concentrate on the neglected books.
I was a total tape freak in the ministry, saturating my life with tape exposure. In elementary school I was fascinated with the electronics of how tape recorders worked. When first into the Word I was a button pusher and AV-man for many classes, then worked at HQ in Tape Duplicating, then the field again working the tapes. I had a big collection of tapes.
It took me a while to de-emphasize the tapes in my life, but the tapes DO serve some good purposes. In the process I did hear many of them and use quotes from many of them here when the topic is ministry history.
In my job I am able to listen to a lot of tapes, but even there I listen to Dr’s tapes less and less all the time.
***
Oddly enough, in the late 80’s I heard that one of the main reason’s Chris Geer could be trusted as Dr’s replacement was because he had MASTERED all of Dr’s SNS tape collection.
But now I see that Dr was always pointing to the written.
“It is written” is the ultimate standard, and was the Corps motto.
***
Don’t sweat it for me, doojable.
It’s a very manageable short stack of books and a much shorter stack of magazine articles, and they are FULL of light.
AND these books are very easy to read and comprehend. They aren't stuffy and academic in their language. They aren’t cluttered with tangential distractions, such as footnotes and a huge number of supportive references.
***
You wrote: "We arent' even asked by Jesus to do that. He chided the pharisees for getting too much into the fine minute nit picky details of the law while forsaking major matters of life that God wants us to live."
I agree with you here.
I do get bogged down HERE in minutia, but I’d rather get into the meat. I’d like to get into quoting sections of the collaterals for discussion, not this run-around of attacks on me, focus on ministry history, and focus on personalities.
But that’s coming, I hope.
I agree that these things need to be applied to life, not just to the GSC Canon. This is one reason I step away sometimes, or don't try to be exhaustive in my responses. I can only imitate WW for so long and I run out of time or said imitation interferes with said living of life.
***
There may be some other things in your post I’d like to respond to but I’m out of time just now.
In post #138 of this thread you quoted me thusly: “...BUT, Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements still do NOT prove that PFAL is indeed God-breathed.”
You responded with: “Please note he said this. The next time he contradicts this, I'm bringing it back.”
I protest!
Not only will I not contradict this, but I have OFTEN said this in the past.
[Maybe. Got an example?
You HAVE used these sort of thing as justification for saying that vpw
said pfal is God-breathed, which, from you, is nearly the same point.]
WHY haven’t you noticed that fact?
[Maybe because you've said almost the opposite many times,
and you may or may not have said this before.
Given your record of rewriting our discussions, I'll believe it right
after I read the linked post.]
WHY didn’t you say the same in the past?
[see above.]
GADS! How COULD I ever think that anyone saying anything makes it so?
[Ok, you asked for it.
You've said before that "Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman.
JC is very interested in PFAL. He told me so."
In response to this, I've asked about you saying Jesus Christ told you
that Jesus Christ appointed vpw as JC's spokesman.
Your response avoided my question DIRECTLY and went into
incidences where supposedly vpw made such a claim.
In other words, when I asked if your claim meant
"Jesus Christ told me he appointed Dr his spokesman AND Jesus Christ
is very interested in PFAL" or
"Jesus Christ told me he's interested in PFAL. I'm also claiming Jesus
Christ apponted Dr his spokesman"
you replied, in effect,
"The appointing of Dr as JC's spokesman can be seen in many places
where vpw makes such a claim-which is why I make that claim."
I CAN fetch the exact quotes.
Therefore,
SINCE you've said that vpw's saying something made it so in the past-
at least once I can easily bring to mind, yet-
I claim you've said so.]
I ask again, why do you portray this as the first occurrence of my acknowledgment of such a simple thing?
[see above.]
***
I mentioned that Dr made many “thus saith the lord” statements and you responded with:
“Most will notice that Mike NEVER produces these "thus saith the lord" statements, but instead expects us to believe he's representing the text fairly.”
You’re somewhat right. I have produced a few, three I think, but I have never produced anything close to the huge list of them I have claimed. Want to know why? Because, strangely, no one has ever challenged me to. This is the first. I’ve literally been waiting for this for over three years.
[bull.
You produced ONE ONCE and EVERYBODY demonstrated how it was
a complete distortion of what the clear meaning of the text was.
Since then, I personally have brought this up. MANY TIMES.
Usually in DIRECT response to you making bald claims.
That's because claims made in fiat are meaningless.
All claims must be supported.
Just because you've missed every time I've asked doesn't
mean I've never brought this up.
Rather than claiming I haven't been reading that closely....
Seems you're fond of always claiming that YOUR flaws-
like never investigating when you find something unpleasant-
are actually OUR flaws. Did I only catch this lately,
or have you switched to doing this lately?
I do find it interesting that twi had some interesting comments
about certain people who accused God's people of doing things
that the accusers themselves were guilty of doing.]
As I’ve mentioned before recently, last year in a Private Topic thread (in the old GSC software) I marveled at how long I’ve waited to be asked to produce this long list I’ve claimed existed from day one of my posting.
[Actually, we've been asking you to get to the freaking point since 2004,
and just SAY what you're going to say, rather than waste pages and pages
saying "I'm too busy to post any material, but I have a lot of it".
Until the last few weeks, you've been long on announcements,
but short on actual material. Style does NOT replace substance,
and sizzle does NOT equal steak.]
[On that PT I wrote up 22 such “thus saith” statements. I have claimed to have found 90, but sometimes include the caveat that a bunch of that 90 are extremely subtle. I may never have the time to write up all such subtle entries on my list, but I had no trouble writing up 22 and I see another 20 easily being within my schedule constraints to produce here.
Maybe soon I’ll post the 22 and a few others. ]
[if not, kindly refrain from all the announcements that you HAVE
a jack, but STILL aren't going to help us.]
I’m now waiting on this thread calming down or maybe getting a fresh thread just for that subtopic.
[You may wait as long as you wish.
Please mind the following, however:
A) You're not getting any younger.
B) Your audience-like twi's audience-is not getting any younger.
C) Every day, more people try independent thought rather than twi material.
D) the staff may finally be tired of you taking up thread after thread and may
insist you keep it all to this thread. ]
***
I had stated that “the purpose of the PFAL book is not TOTALLY revealed in that book's beginning pages. ... I insist on ALL of the passages of PFAL on a give topic be brought to the table, not just selected ones.”
[Of course, by "ALL of the passages of PFAL",
you mean "anything I can draw from in magazine form, tapes and the books,
as contextualized by me and read by me".
That's different from what the rest of us would mean-
which would mean "everything in the collateral, OFFICIAL books."]
Then you responded with (my bold fonts) : “...If there was an additional meaning, [A] It must be stated as clearly [ B] It must not contradict this as the CONTENTS and DESIGN. [C] It must not contradict what this is NOT-it is not a substitute for Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.”
(please pardon my format tweak to avoid invoking unwanted smiley faces)
You changed something here in item [C].
Dr wrote: “The contents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21
WW wrote that the contents therein are: “not a substitute for Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
That’s different.
[One would think-with all these years of you supposedly attempting to "master pfal",
that you'd know the introduction to the Orange Book better.
You know, that's where vpw explains the purpose of the book and what it's for.
"This is a book containing Biblical KEYS.
The contents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to
Revelation 22:21;
RATHER,
it is designed to set before the reader
the BASIC KEYS in the Word of God so that the abundant life
which Jesus Christ came to make available will become evident
to those who want to appropriate God's abundance to their lives."
So, does that mean "this book is not a substitute for Genesis 1:1 to
Revelation 22:21"?
Any HONEST reader would say "yes".
It is keys TO Genesis to Revelation, nothing more, nothing less.
(Presuming the book delivers on its promise, of course.)]
Item is ok, but I also object to item [A]. Who sez it must be stated clearly? And clearly TO WHOM? And for that matter, who sez it must be done in that same place? The other purposes of the book may be indicated elsewhere, at least in my book they may.
[Amazing you forgot who said it must be stated clearly.
I've explained this before, but I shall explain it again.
I trust everyone ELSE will understand it.
vpw said it.
The Orange Book, pg-147.
"The Word interprets itself in one of three ways:
1) it interprets itself in the verse where it is written; or
2) it interprets itself in its context; or
3) the interpretation can be found by its previous usage in The Word.
It was a remarkable revelation to us who do Biblical research to
discover that the vast majority of the Word of God does interpret
itself right where it is written. I would estimate that from Genesis
to Revelation 85 to 90 per cent of the Word of God interprets
itself in the verse.
If the interpretation is so obvious, why have we not understood it?
First of all, we have not read it; and secondly, we have not
remembered what we read. We get sloppy and read 'thoroughly'
instead of 'throughly'."
So, according to vpw, if pfal was somehow Scripture, it ALSO would
conform to the rules he stated FOR Scripture.
That means ALL Scripture is understood by a handful of rules.
EIGHTY-FIVE to NINETY PERCENT of pfal would be understood
by the plain reading of right where it is.
Those that someone claims are not can NOT be in excess of 14% of
the body of text, and THOSE "exceptions" MUST be interpreted with the
remaining rules- "in the context" "as used before", and so on.
The Orange Book covers all of them.
The entire methodology of the Mikean system is the antithesis
of the methodology outlined in the Orange Book. vpw said the Bible
was fairly EASY to understand, and any reader of the Orange Book
should be able to do so (mastering the basics, so to speak.)
*snicker*
Under the Mikean system, the plain reading of the text is never a
guarantee it says what it means and means what it says.
There's always the possibility that a new tape or a new magazine
article will be unearthed that completely reverses the meaning
of the plain text.]
***
I wrote: “Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements show that these OLGs’ PFAL mastery was insufficient, as per Dr’s final instructions, to catch this “thus saith” nuance in written PFAL.”
You responded: “Again, not one instance is given, just this mysterious ‘there's a whole lot of them’.”
[i've said it so often that I can say it in one sentence, and not
an entire paragraph, at this point.]
Yeah, ain’t the mystery delicious? And add to it the fact that this post of yours is the FIRST in three years to finally demand me to produce my list of these statements.
[Don't blame me for your poor reading comprehension and memory.
I've said it a lot.]
I once noticed here that I had posted SIX times (without scare quotes) that we grads were “gathered together” into the PFAL class, and it wasn’t until the seventh time of doing so that anyone said something about it. It was excathedra who spoke up noticing it.
[Good for her.]
I also noticed that in my first year of posting I threw it out on the table that I believe there has been some sort of administration change and no one picked up on it at all.
[A) We were busy with the more blatant, outrageous, ridiculous
statements FIRST. We got around to the others when we felt like it.
B) Goey asked you about it, in detail. You REFUSED to answer.]
It was weird. I’d post a strong hint or short explicit statement and it would sail right past everyone, and not even commented on, as if it were taboo or something.
[it was weird. People would respond to Mike, refuting all of his
claims, with specific data, and Mike would go on posting, as if they
didn't.
Then Mike would eventually respond by flinging insults, and later
announce that he'd successfully refuted all comers.
It was like he was posting here by automatic writing, and reading
some sort of press release afterwards as to what happened.]
I got the impression that people were afraid to bring these things up. Actually the “gathered together” part was probably just from people skimming my posts looking for the standard things to freak out on, and they just overlooked the “gathered together” spots. But my “thus saith” claims and my new administration claims were much more out in the open, yet ignored.
[Except when they weren't, like when Goey went into this in detail
and Mike completely ignored him. Since Mike did that quite a bit
whenever he lacked any kind of defense on something, this ceased
being news eventually.]
***
You wrote regarding these “thus saith” claims that: “THERE IS NO "INTERNAL CLAIM WITHIN PFAL THAT IT IS THE WORD OF GOD. There is a bald claim from Mike that there IS one, but any supposed support for this claim melts in the morning sun.”
Well we may have a lot of fun when I bring the statements forth.
[Not as much as Goey would have had, since he was asking about this
years ago as well, but, yes, I'm looking forward to picking up where
Goey left off.]
***
At the next point in your post #138 you completely missed something by splitting up a sentence of mine and then claiming a contradiction on my part. I will mend the sentence you violated, with the admission that my grammar was a little awkward to the point of leading you astray, so I’ll mend that too.
I had written that the mere existence of the “thus saith” statements was “still no proof of God-breathed PFAL here.
Then I switched to discuss the fact that many grads here did not recognize these “thus saith” statements or that they cannot remember them.
In my mended sentence I say this:
If it’s the case, that we grads missed the CLAIM of God-breathedness within PFAL, then HOW MANY OTHER THINGS WERE MISSED?
I had added to “if it’s the case” the phrase “and I think I have shown that it is.”
[You THINK that is the case, you CLAIM that is the case.
You have FAILED to show it is, despite being asked to make your
specifics-many times-and despite your claims that you have.
Therefore, anything that proceeded from both failed premises
is invalid.]
I do. I think I’ve shown that it is the case that most grads missed these “God-breathed” claims of Dr’s.
[so far, you've admitted you have not presented even ONE
supposed incident. You might as well be claiming a herd of
unicorns exists somewhere,
and that the rest of us are blind for missing them.
So, either "put up or shut up." "Sh* or get off the pot."]
You jumped the gun, not reading my entire sentence; you were thirsting to find a contradiction of mine.
You made a false find.
[i made a correct find. I refused to let you make another
claim these fictional unicorns existed in a herd somewhere-
because then later you'd claim we said nothing about it.
Actually, you'll make that claim no matter what I say,
but at least I can show it's a complete lie.
(BTW, the unicorn herd was a figure of speech.)]
You wrote: “Amazing how he can't see his own sentences, back to back, completely contradict each other. Mike's message, attempting to claim what it attempts to claim, of course contains many internal contradictions, but usually not back-to-back in successive sentences.”
[Well, it IS amazing. I figured you might see them if I pointed
it out. Odd how you failed to reproduce the contradicting sentences
and attempt to demonstrate how they don't contradict,
but rather just CHANGED THE SUBJECT FAST...]
I see you jumping the gun all the time on my posts. You don’t read the whole thing, I think, before you start making you comments. You don’t get the gist and then comment, you linearly track along looking for contradictions, not seeking complete comprehension first.
[You see that. It is false seeing. I notice you never explained
how I was supposedly mistaken by harmonizing the sentences
that I said contradicted. An inability to do so?
A switch to a personal attack to attempt to conceal a deficiency?]
I’ve noticed that many posters can fall into this trap of plodding through a commentary of someone’s post, and missing what’s said in that post. It’s like they are distracted by their own premature writing, when they should be reading to the end to get the full meaning before initiating the commentary process. This is like not waiting when reading PFAL for ALL the locations of a topic of focus to be found, and jumping off prematurely at only ONE such location.
[No, but it is typical of a Mikean refutation-
once you add some personal attacks,
conceal the content,
add some grandiose claims,
and accuse everyone else of sloppy work.
It's almost like they're boilerplated to some
sophomoric standard.]
We were taught that ALL the locations of a particular topic must be embraced before a text is understood.
[And according to Mike, that doesn't mean "the Bible", like we were taught,
or even the PFAL collaterals-which would make some kind of internal sense,
but rather includes every utterance of vpw, across DECADES of tape and
magazine format. Of course, this means one would NEVER be able to
realistically claim one REALLY understands something-
how would you know that side 2 of a tape in 1975 didn't have 30 seconds
on the subject that completely contradicted your understanding?
That one sentence at the bottom of one page of the magazine will
undo the work of months, assembling everything from entire libraries
of other material?]
Instead of being so driven to exhaustively debunk nearly everything I say, why not patiently read for comprehension what I say and we can have a much deeper conversation that what I am writing about now.
[i was prepared to do that years ago, and asked you
to just get to it. However, you were insistent on making cryptic
comments for pages and pages, and never getting there.
So,
rather than being so driven to making cryptic, easy-to-debunk
statements,
why not just go ahead and say what you're going to say?
The alternative, of course, is making your own website or
discussion board-or both-and doing things however you want.
Want to spend the rest of the time sounding like you're trapped
in a fortune cookie factory? Make your space and then say
whatever you want.]
Do you think I want to spend a lot of time correcting my awkward grammar or your impatient flying off at the handle when you THINK you’ve nailed me in a contradiction? I don’t.
[Do you think I want to keep debunking ridiculous claims and
personal attacks of yours for days and days at a time?
I have better things to do.]
I don’t want to talk about what we talk about, and then go on to talking about or talking about what we talked about.
I want to discuss the contents of PFAL.
[Any chance we'll actually see a discussion on the contents?
Or will we see Mike talk about what he's going to talk about,
and then complain about doing it,
again?]
In my pre-reading of this page in the thread, I saw that someone asks that we do just that: discuss the contents of PFAL. Let’s do it, ok?
[We can do that ANY discuss the Mikean pfal system that
contradicts the contents of pfal. I'm game to do that.
Or we can just bs about bs'ing about pfal, and then listen
to Mike whine that he can't get thru his message.
I can do that one as well.]
Do you see how your “discovery” of back to back contradictory sentences here is a false find?
[i saw how Mike declared it was false, and changed the subject
FAST as if he thought people wouldn't notice he did nothing to support
his point other than make another declaration by fiat.
That was the CONTENT of this post.
If a different message was hidden in it or something,
then, no, I didn't see it.]
Do you see how you misunderstood my admittedly awkward grammar and falsely accused me of contradicting myself by jumping the gun?
[i saw how Mike missed me disagreeing with him and built it
up into a length ad hominem attack.]
***
Wow! I’m done with post 138 in my attempt to imitate your exhaustive commentary style.
[i think we all knew you were attempting to imitate my exhaustive commentary style.
I'm a little surprised you're admitting you tried it.
Especially since it allows people to compare us side-by-side.
And you're trying to demonstrate equal or greater skill and substance
in comparison to me.
Points for cheek, but lost in the face-off.]
It’s going to have to do a lot of raining in Southern California for me to catch up.
[Odd-since my posts RESPOND to yours. You post ONCE in a month,
I REFUTE once in a month. How did I overtake you in refutations?
I refuted what you're GOING to post?]
Oh well, maybe our tone will shift to more discussion of the contents instead of commenting on what and how we’re commenting on each other.
[up to you.
If you include a stack of logical fallacies in the following posts, however,
Many preachers quote John 10:10 as support for the idea that Christianity leads to physical prosperity and "every good thing." The verse has been used as a description of the Christian life, the normative pattern of life that Christians can expect because of God's blessings.
Other scriptures, including the salutation of 3 John 2, "I wish above all things that you prosper and be in good health," are also used to teach that Christians are promised health and wealth if they have enough faith. However, the New Testament usually emphasizes a radically different result of following Christ. We are told that we will be persecuted, that Christ's message is divisive, that we will need to take up our cross and follow him, that the normative expectation for Christian is suffering. Job promotions, new cars, and throwing away crutches are not among the fringe benefits offered by Jesus Christ.
3 John 2 appears as a part of the introductory comments of the letter, and it was meant specifically for a man named Gaius. It was simply part of the polite way to begin a letter in those days, and similar greetings are found in other ancient writings. One manual of letter writing explains that this the is appropriate was to begin a letter. Someone today might begin a letter by saying, "I hope that this letter finds you in good health." It is not meant as a promise. Likewise, 3 John 2 should not be used as a promise that God applies to all his people. This scripture does not guarantee that Gaius, or any other Christians, will be rich or that they will never suffer from sickness or disease.
And in order to understand what John 10:10 means, we need to look at its context. Chapter 10 of John's Gospel develops the biblical theme of sheep and the shepherd. The shepherd is accessible to the sheep. Strangers do not have a personal relationship with the flock, but the good shepherd does. Verse 10 draws the contrast between Jesus and false shepherds, the thieves who come to kill, steal and destroy.
John 20:31 describes the purpose of this Gospel. Speaking of the miracles and signs, John says, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." The New International Commentary on the New Testament comments,
Life is one of John's characteristic concepts. He uses the term 36 times, whereas no other New Testament writing has it more than 17 times (this is Revelation; next comes Romans with 14 times, and 1 John 13 times). Thus in this one writing there occur more than a quarter of all the New Testament references to life. "Life" in John characteristically refers to eternal life (see on 3:15), the gift of God through His Son. Here, however, the term must be taken in its broadest sense. It is only because there is life in the Logos that there is life in anything on earth at all." (John, page 82).
The Expositor's Bible Commentary says this about John 10:10:
Jesus' main purpose was the salvation (health) of the sheep, which he defined as free access to pasture and fullness of life. Under his protection and by his gift they can experience the best life can offer. In the context of John's emphasis on eternal life, this statement takes on new significance. Jesus can give a whole new meaning to living because he provides full satisfaction and perfect guidance.
Barclay's Daily Study Bible adds,
Jesus claims that he came that men might have life and might have it more abundantly. The Greek phrase used for having it more abundantly means to have a superabundance of a thing. To be a follower of Jesus, to know who he is and what he means, is to have a superabundance of life. A Roman soldier came to Julius Caesar with a request for permission to commit suicide. He was a wretched dispirited creature with no vitality. Caesar looked at him. "Man," he said, "were you ever really alive?" When we try to live our own lives, life is a dull, dispirited thing. When we walk with Jesus, there comes a new vitality, a superabundance of life. It is only when we live with Christ that life becomes really worth living and we begin to live in the real sense of the word.
In its volume on John, the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries summarizes the passage that leads up to John 10:10:
Those who are really "His own" listen to His voice. They recognize that He has been sent from God, and are ready to follow Him as the good Shepherd, who by His sacrificial love rescues His flock from evil and death, and leads them into the best of all pasturage where they can enjoy a richer and a fuller life (9,10). He does not offer them an extension of physical life nor an increase of material possessions, but the possibility, nay the certainty, of a life lived at a higher level in obedience to God's will and reflecting His glory.
In summary, John 10:10 should not be used as though it gives some promise of an improved physical life for the Christian. Such a view, in light of the context, is shallow, and it overlooks the profound truth of the passage. The passage promises superior, superabundant spiritual life, life empowered by the indwelling of Jesus Christ. Because Christians "have" Jesus Christ, because he lives within them, they have the riches of the superabundant life. This is what Paul meant when he said he counted all things loss, that he might win Christ. John 10:10 promises a spiritual dimension to life, not physical abundance. A focus on the physical trivializes the profound depth of John 10:10.
Copyright 2000 Worldwide Church of God
John 10:10
As the Good Shepherd, Jesus died for earth's sinners, who like sheep have gone astray. Good, as used here, means more than having goodness in a physical sense but also having an excellent nature (Exodus 33:19-20). It signifies what is morally beautiful, noble, and true (Exodus 34:6-7). Christ's use of the word in this parable implies that He perfects all godly attributes in others; He is the Good Shepherd who manifests the characteristics of perfect goodness. He guides and supports His sheep, and sacrifices Himself for them. His benevolence exceeds all others (Psalm 31:19).
Martin G. Collins
The Parable of the Good Shepherd (Part One)
Related Topics:
John 10:10
What does He mean by "life . . . more abundantly"? A problem arises when discussing this concept due to the apparent subjectivity of the term "abundant." What is abundant living for one person may be absolutely unsatisfying for another. A hard-charging, A-type businessman—into exotic vacations, sports cars, and rock climbing—would not consider a rocking chair on the porch, a vegetable garden out back, and a weekly round of golf at the local course to be fulfilling, yet they would probably suit a retired senior citizen just fine. One person's bowl of cherries is another's bowl of cherry pits.
The Greek word Jesus uses in John 10:10 to describe the kind of life He came to teach His disciples is perissón, meaning "superabundant," "superfluous," "overflowing," "over and above a certain quantity," "a quantity so abundant as to be considerably more than what one would expect or anticipate." In short, He promises us a life far better than we could ever envision, reminiscent of I Corinthians 2:9, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him" (see Isaiah 64:4). Paul informs us that God "is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think" (Ephesians 3:20).
However, before we begin to have visions of palatial homes, classic automobiles, around-the-world trips, and wads of pocket money, we need to step back and consider what God says comprises "life." Once we determine His view of living, we will have a better grasp of what kind of blessings we can expect as Christ's disciples. All we need to do is glance around at our and our brethren's situations to know that wealth, prestige, position, and power in this world are not high-priority items on God's list of blessings (I Corinthians 1:26-29). In terms of economic, academic, and social strata, most of us come from the lower and middle classes, and we tend to remain in a situation similar to the one in which we were called (compare I Corinthians 7:20-24).
Perhaps the most telling biblical definition of life—particularly eternal life—is uttered by Jesus Himself in John 17:3: "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." Note that this definition makes no mention of length of days, health, prosperity, family, occupation—in fact, the only thing it does mention is knowing God!
What can we take from this?
» God is not overly concerned with the physical circumstances of our lives. It is enough that He assures us that we need not worry about what we will eat or wear (Matthew 6:25-32; Philippians 4:19).
» Eternal life, the kind of life in which a Christian is truly interested, is not determined by duration but by a relationship with God. This is why, once we are converted and impregnated with the gift of the Holy Spirit, we are said to have eternal life already (I John 5:11-13), though not, of course, in its fullness.
» Eternal life—the life God offers us through Jesus Christ and His teaching—is thus about quality, not quantity. Put another way, the abundant life is life as God lives it (Ezekiel 33:10-11; I Peter 2:21; I John 2:6), for once we truly come to know God, we will desire to emulate Him.
» Physical blessings, then, may or may not be byproducts of God's way of life; neither our wealth nor our poverty is a sure indication of our standing with God. Certainly, God desires that we "prosper in all things and be in health" (III John 2), but the bottom line is "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth" (verse 4), not that we live like royalty.
» Finally, a Christian's life revolves around, as Peter puts it, "grow[ing] in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (II Peter 3:18). This suggests that the abundant life is a process of learning, practicing, and maturing, as well as failing, recovering, adjusting, enduring, and overcoming because, in our present state, "we see in a mirror, dimly" (I Corinthians 13:12).
As humans, we are naturally oriented toward material things, but as Christians, our perspective must change. Paul admonishes, "Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died [in baptism], and your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Colossians 3:2-3). To us, life—and our perception of abundant life—is a whole new ballgame!
As I’ve mentioned before recently, last year in a Private Topic thread (in the old GSC software) I marveled at how long I’ve waited to be asked to produce this long list I’ve claimed existed from day one of my posting. On that PT I wrote up 22 such “thus saith” statements. I have claimed to have found 90, but sometimes include the caveat that a bunch of that 90 are extremely subtle. I may never have the time to write up all such subtle entries on my list, but I had no trouble writing up 22 and I see another 20 easily being within my schedule constraints to produce here.
Maybe soon I’ll post the 22 and a few others.
Mike -- I remember about those 22 from the PT thread (since I was a part of it).
I didn't think they made sense, since you *worked* the
magazine articles the way some scholars work ancient texts.
But --- whatever *floats your boat*.
Like I said (somewhere else), those way rag articles were EDITED,
yet you treated them like scripture, digging for hidden treasure,
as if God Himself approved the orderly fashion in which they appeared on each page.
And --- if I recollect correct, you took a coupla words out of one sentence,
tied them in to another sentence a paragraph (or so away), and said:
SEE!! I TOLD YA SO.
Go ahead and post them.
I seem to remember you got flack on the topic, even on the PT thread,
and there were a bunch of staunch Wierwille-ites on that thread.
(and PS --- Yes -- you've been asked several (many) times to post specifics, but so far you have done exactly as you said you did. You have posted generalities, coded comments, hints, etc., but no specifics.
Now --- if you want to post specifics, you've been asked.
And since you just said you would like to talk about the 22 - 90 occurances of *thus sayeth...."
You are acutally being nice to me. ok, i took you off ignore.
But you know, there is no way in this lifetime we are gonna agree on anything pertaining to pfal.
I am a oh geeeze, i forget what you call it. OLG? who copped out in your eyes.
So don't ask me stuff, or try to engage me in any way. If you want to come over for dinner, fine, I would probably wait on you and fuss over you and make you feel totally welcome. I'd even fix your favorite meal, if you asked me too.
But I am NEVER going to agree with you on anything regarding PFAL.
If you want to pick my brain, you better do better, dear.
I know better than to reveal stuff to you, and have you use it against me.
Do you guys have Jobs? How in the world do you have time to write the daily treatises that you write? reading them takes a major effort I imagine that writing them takes forever.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
Oakspear
There are some here on GS who rip PFAL apart (all of it, without distinction
), who will deny that there is any redeeming qualities to it or truth in it.
Raf, however, isn't one of them.
The "Actual Errors" thread (which I am proud to have been a contributor) was not about trashing PFAL, but demonstrating that PFAL was not perfect.
There have been many stimulating discussions about PFAL and other Wierwille publications over the years, but these Mike-centered "discussions" get bogged down over whether PFAL is without error, and over Mike's methodology.
Mike, this isn't a defense of you, by the way!
You might get more of PFAL's message out there if you concentrated on the message itself, rather than focussing on whether it was perfect or not. After all, very few will accept your premise that PFAL is without error, but most will accept that some, or most of PFAL is helpful, or true, or godly, etc. In fact, most of your more vociferous critics actually agree with some or most of PFAL.
For instance, most would agree that PFAL was their first introduction to considering the bible as something that could be studied and understood.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yup. That was exactly what I meant.
I figured it was obvious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Well -- I do remember a corps guy up here (back in 79 or 80 - thereabouts) commenting on this.
He said "docvic might have tossed out all those books he talks about,
but he sure has a lot of them left in his library now!"
I dunno. I guess I still discount the fact that he *read the bible only*.
And it shows in his works --- since so much of other folks stuff is there prominently.
And then, couple that with your quote from one of the way books where docvic
says his work was not his own, but putting in the pfal format was his work.
Well -- I can agree with that last statement.
But I don't see him as reading the bible ONLY to get the pfal format he did. :)
And neither did that corps guy from 25 years ago (or so).
IMO --- if he did indeed thow out books, it was *cleaning the pantry*,
and he re-stocked the shelves with fresh meat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No one who had direct, extensive contact with Wierwille agrees with the proposition that his written works were God-breathed. Not one.
Imagine if NONE of the 12 apostles considered Jesus the Messiah, ever. Not when they were with him, not the night of the crucifixion, and not after. Imagine, the only person who made the claim was Simon the Sorceror. Imagine the 12 heard this theory and said, "No, Jesus never claimed it. The proposition goes against what he taught." It would certainly lead me to question whether Jesus ever claimed it.
According to eyewitness testimony on this site, Wierwille himself specifically discounted Mike's thesis. That more evidence is needed is stubbornness of the highest level. Steadfastness? Or seared conscience?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike,
I wonder just how well you knew Dr. I mean I was invited with a bunch of other Corps folk to his home - we had barbeque, each had a sample ( small) of moonshine ( real) and then Mrs Weirwille gave us a tour of the home. he had a library filled with books. And Not just Pfal series books or study materials. I mean BOOKS and books and books!
He was also always talking about things he had read.
perhaps books had been discarded - but the important books - Kenyon's, Bullinger's, Stiles' they were kept and utilized to put the class together. I'm not sure what the timeline matters..
I think we all would have really left sooner if he hadn't read so many books - at the time we all admired VPW's wanting to stay informed and the desire to keep searching.
Mike have you ever considered putting this much effort into researching the Bible? I mean we were always taught to go with the many clear verses.....why hunt down verses in controversy when there are so many that you can get so much from? Could be soul-healing stuff...
I know that you believe that Dr's directive to master the class is what should be driving you - but consider that God Himself wants you out living a life that glorifies him and heals you - not pinning down every word spoken and written and taped by what is at best a fallen prophet
(teacher really,) then getting run through the mill for it. We arent' even asked by Jesus to do that. He chided the pharisees for getting too much into the fine minute nit picky details of the law while forsaking major matters of life that God wants us to live. ( Again if there were ever anyone who's every word should have been written down and analyzed it would have been God's only begotten - and yet God sought economy.) You are in the process of searching over 30 years worth of writings and tapes?????? whew!
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Assuming that he wasn't lying, one way that I can reconcile the preceeding statements with
is to assume that when he says "I learned wherever I could", he is talking about considering the viewpoints of others, but that his own research, arrived at independently, would determine whether a doctrine was true or not.If this is what he did, then there would be little problem. He hears about, or reads about something that he had not considered before, gets out his bible, researches the subject, comes to a conclusion based solely on what the bible tells him, and then decides to include the doctrine, based 100% on his own independent study, and in his own words; or he decides to not include it, again based on his own research. Claiming that something wasn't original just means that someone else had come up with it before he did, not that he was admitting that he copied it wholesale.
BUT
This isn't exactly what happened.
Wierwille strongly implies that he reached many of the same conclusions as Bullinger, before he had ever heard of Bullinger. However, it is obvious that Wierwille quotes Bullinger without understanding the point Bullinger is making in several places.
Wierwille's books contain passages that are virtually word-for-word copies of other authors. If he was learning from these authors and then independently working 'The Word', then it is extremely unlikely that the wording would be so close.
Wierwille saying "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original" is his way of saying that he was not teaching some new, off-the-wall heresy. "Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work" is his way of claiming that no one else was as smart as he was, to fit all the different pieces of the bible together into a coherent, fits-like-a-hand-in-a-glove package, not that he had taken a piece of Stiles, and a piece of Leonard and a piece of Bullinger and stitched the all together. Even in that seemingly humble statement he was still exalting himself.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
back to who originated the content of pfal
instead of looking at what is in it
can't even take on one verse mike?
yeah..thought so-when it's believed there is
the power of the only wise God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
here you go johniam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research
i know a few real researchers
vpw was not one of them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Searc...fulltext=Search
some of these are biased
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...blical+research
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Not ironic to most people.
See, Neither CM nor WW ever claimed they didn't believe the Bible.
Neither claimed they dismissed all information that vpw said just because
vpw said it. We rejected the stance that
"BECAUSE vpw said it, it is automatically gospel."
So, we examine each thing individually. If it stands on its own merits,
it stands. If it falls on its own merits, it falls. The things that stand on their
own merits are no guarantee that the things that failed suddenly did
NOT fail, nor that unexamined items suddenly get a free pass.
I don't know how much looking up one verse in the Greek counts as
"Biblical research", though. As it was, I had my Ricker-Berry handy,
so if YOU had asked what it had said, I would have just grabbed it and
posted it, too. Did it disprove your point? Did it support your point?
Whatever.
We meant different things.
I meant "take it off the list, but WE get credit for taking it off the list,
because WE looked at it, examined it, and found it didn't belong there."
So, it comes off the list, but the WHY I quibbled on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
http://hem.fyristorg.com/fubbe1/Don%20Henl...of%20Summer.mp3
hinga binga didly do
crank it up
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
In post #138 of this thread you quoted me thusly: “...BUT, Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements still do NOT prove that PFAL is indeed God-breathed.”
You responded with: “Please note he said this. The next time he contradicts this, I'm bringing it back.”
I protest!
Not only will I not contradict this, but I have OFTEN said this in the past.
WHY haven’t you noticed that fact?
WHY didn’t you say the same in the past?
GADS! How COULD I ever think that anyone saying anything makes it so?
I ask again, why do you portray this as the first occurrence of my acknowledgment of such a simple thing?
***
I mentioned that Dr made many “thus saith the lord” statements and you responded with:
“Most will notice that Mike NEVER produces these "thus saith the lord" statements, but instead expects us to believe he's representing the text fairly.”
You’re somewhat right. I have produced a few, three I think, but I have never produced anything close to the huge list of them I have claimed. Want to know why? Because, strangely, no one has ever challenged me to. This is the first. I’ve literally been waiting for this for over three years.
As I’ve mentioned before recently, last year in a Private Topic thread (in the old GSC software) I marveled at how long I’ve waited to be asked to produce this long list I’ve claimed existed from day one of my posting. On that PT I wrote up 22 such “thus saith” statements. I have claimed to have found 90, but sometimes include the caveat that a bunch of that 90 are extremely subtle. I may never have the time to write up all such subtle entries on my list, but I had no trouble writing up 22 and I see another 20 easily being within my schedule constraints to produce here.
Maybe soon I’ll post the 22 and a few others.
I’m now waiting on this thread calming down or maybe getting a fresh thread just for that subtopic.
***
I had stated that “the purpose of the PFAL book is not TOTALLY revealed in that book's beginning pages. ... I insist on ALL of the passages of PFAL on a give topic be brought to the table, not just selected ones.”
Then you responded with (my bold fonts) : “...If there was an additional meaning, [A] It must be stated as clearly [ B] It must not contradict this as the CONTENTS and DESIGN. [C] It must not contradict what this is NOT-it is not a substitute for Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.”
(please pardon my format tweak to avoid invoking unwanted smiley faces)
You changed something here in item [C].
Dr wrote: “The contents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21
WW wrote that the contents therein are: “not a substitute for Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
That’s different.
Item is ok, but I also object to item [A]. Who sez it must be stated clearly? And clearly TO WHOM? And for that matter, who sez it must be done in that same place? The other purposes of the book may be indicated elsewhere, at least in my book they may.
***
I wrote: “Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements show that these OLGs’ PFAL mastery was insufficient, as per Dr’s final instructions, to catch this “thus saith” nuance in written PFAL.”
You responded: “Again, not one instance is given, just this mysterious ‘there's a whole lot of them’.”
Yeah, ain’t the mystery delicious? And add to it the fact that this post of yours is the FIRST in three years to finally demand me to produce my list of these statements.
I once noticed here that I had posted SIX times (without scare quotes) that we grads were “gathered together” into the PFAL class, and it wasn’t until the seventh time of doing so that anyone said something about it. It was excathedra who spoke up noticing it.
I also noticed that in my first year of posting I threw it out on the table that I believe there has been some sort of administration change and no one picked up on it at all. It was weird. I’d post a strong hint or short explicit statement and it would sail right past everyone, and not even commented on, as if it were taboo or something.
I got the impression that people were afraid to bring these things up. Actually the “gathered together” part was probably just from people skimming my posts looking for the standard things to freak out on, and they just overlooked the “gathered together” spots. But my “thus saith” claims and my new administration claims were much more out in the open, yet ignored.
***
You wrote regarding these “thus saith” claims that: “THERE IS NO "INTERNAL CLAIM WITHIN PFAL THAT IT IS THE WORD OF GOD. There is a bald claim from Mike that there IS one, but any supposed support for this claim melts in the morning sun.”
Well we may have a lot of fun when I bring the statements forth.
***
At the next point in your post #138 you completely missed something by splitting up a sentence of mine and then claiming a contradiction on my part. I will mend the sentence you violated, with the admission that my grammar was a little awkward to the point of leading you astray, so I’ll mend that too.
I had written that the mere existence of the “thus saith” statements was “still no proof of God-breathed PFAL here.
Then I switched to discuss the fact that many grads here did not recognize these “thus saith” statements or that they cannot remember them.
In my mended sentence I say this:
If it’s the case, that we grads missed the CLAIM of God-breathedness within PFAL, then HOW MANY OTHER THINGS WERE MISSED?
I had added to “if it’s the case” the phrase “and I think I have shown that it is.”
I do. I think I’ve shown that it is the case that most grads missed these “God-breathed” claims of Dr’s.
You jumped the gun, not reading my entire sentence; you were thirsting to find a contradiction of mine.
You made a false find.
You wrote: “Amazing how he can't see his own sentences, back to back, completely contradict each other. Mike's message, attempting to claim what it attempts to claim, of course contains many internal contradictions, but usually not back-to-back in successive sentences.”
I see you jumping the gun all the time on my posts. You don’t read the whole thing, I think, before you start making you comments. You don’t get the gist and then comment, you linearly track along looking for contradictions, not seeking complete comprehension first.
I’ve noticed that many posters can fall into this trap of plodding through a commentary of someone’s post, and missing what’s said in that post. It’s like they are distracted by their own premature writing, when they should be reading to the end to get the full meaning before initiating the commentary process. This is like not waiting when reading PFAL for ALL the locations of a topic of focus to be found, and jumping off prematurely at only ONE such location.
We were taught that ALL the locations of a particular topic must be embraced before a text is understood.
Instead of being so driven to exhaustively debunk nearly everything I say, why not patiently read for comprehension what I say and we can have a much deeper conversation that what I am writing about now.
Do you think I want to spend a lot of time correcting my awkward grammar or your impatient flying off at the handle when you THINK you’ve nailed me in a contradiction? I don’t.
I don’t want to talk about what we talk about, and then go on to talking about or talking about what we talked about.
I want to discuss the contents of PFAL.
In my pre-reading of this page in the thread, I saw that someone asks that we do just that: discuss the contents of PFAL. Let’s do it, ok?
Do you see how your “discovery” of back to back contradictory sentences here is a false find?
Do you see how you misunderstood my admittedly awkward grammar and falsely accused me of contradicting myself by jumping the gun?
***
Wow! I’m done with post 138 in my attempt to imitate your exhaustive commentary style. It’s going to have to do a lot of raining in Southern California for me to catch up. Oh well, maybe our tone will shift to more discussion of the contents instead of commenting on what and how we’re commenting on each other.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Warning:
Socks, I finally remember which teaching it was the inspired the questioned I asked about suffering....
(Eureka!! she says proudly.) ok, I admit this probably has nothing to do with nothing, but I'll "share" it anyway.
It was the teaching LCM did on "Stephen, Both Barrels Blazing." Summer of 78, in the BRC. LCM taught it, but VPW was there. As I recall, the reason LCM gave for Stephen's being stoned to death was that "his believing failed." HELLO? WHAT?? was what my little pea brain was screaming. :blink:
Sorry for the interruption in ya'lls conversation.
As you were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ex10,
No interruption.
I remember that tape too.
There was more to that tape's explanation of Stephen's death, though, I think.
I remember being taught in years prior to that, regarding the beating two leaders (Peter and John?) got shortly after the Pentecost record. (I’m racing to post this adjacently, and not looking it up.), that they hadn’t gotten up to that level of believing yet, that they were growing still.
Why couldn’t that be the case for Stephen too?
I’ve seen things in life that I am good at dealing with and maintaining my positive attitude and believing, and then there are things I’m terrible at keeping a stiff upper lip for.
I can see that possibility for Stephen.
Joseph, in prison, was able to correctly prophesy the future twice, yet he was still in his prison for two more years before finally rising up to believe in THAT category.
Ditto for Abraham. It took time for him to believe all the way to receiving.
Paul was in prison when he wrote Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians.
Stephen had the believing to read them the riot act and place something in Saul’s ears that had to have had an effect. Stephen planted, I can’t see any record of it being watered, but I do see it being harvested by the road to Damascus.
***
Like every man of God Stephen reached the end of SOMETHING and the adversary finished him off. Maybe it was he was tired of the fight, even wining the fight day after day, only to see the fight needs to be fought again the next day, and the next, and he got tired.
Maybe his believing that God would give him more energy to face another day ran out. There are lots of types of believing, believing in different categories differs for people, as I wrote above.
All of God’s men died eventually. Everybody runs out of believing, eventually, or has, until now.
***
Sometimes it’s not the “Fraidy Cat” type of believing deficit that can hurt, but the weariness type I just mentioned, or another is the “not taught enough” type of believing deficit. We can only believe what we are taught.
It’s the normal human condition to have believing deficits, it should never be a shameful thing, or worse yet, a fearful thing in itself. We should learn to accept and deal with our believing deficits like we learn to ride a bike. It’s fun! We can help each other, too, not shame each other.
I’ve seen the terrible distortions that the TVTs produced as grads discouraged each other in the learning of believing. The way the PFAL incident of the mother who lost her little boy was distorted in our minds, by re-hashing it from the verbal record only, was devastating to many grads, especially grads who came in later and never heard the preTVT explanations that I heard in the early 70’s.
I thought Craig’s Stephen teaching was good in 1978, because I had all this explained to me then by sharp leadership in the early 70’s, because I had a nonTVT background in it.
I can see how by the later 70’s things were not so comfortable and efficient for grads who heard Craig’s teaching with a TVT background.
***
The TVTs started in the mid 70’s and Dr reproved them in the Corps Ephesians teachings with a strong hint to master RHST, later released in Univ of Live Eph #17.
This was pretty well ignored by ALL the Corps, and I know this because Dr says so in the 1979 AC quote I quote so often here. He says there that ALL the AC grads (that includes all the Corps that heard the Ephesians tapes) had fallen FAR short of their mastery of RHST. It’s in segment #5 of that ’79 AC, and if anyone can’t remember my posting of it, say so, and I’ll re-post it... for the umpteenth time!
***
So I can bet that Craig’s tape was fine for people who had a solid background in hearing about the law of believing. I loved that teaching and concentrated on what Craig revealed to me about Saul being in the audience. That’s the highlight I remember of that tape after all these years.
Somebody want to listen to it and prove me wrong? It won’t be the first time my memory degraded if I’m wrong about that tape, and I often like to confront my memory when I do forget. It reminds me of the great need for me to not rely on my memory of what’s in written PFAL, but to open the books (often) and read what’s written.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Does anyone know the exact year the Ephesians teachings tapes were taught to the Corps? Or what Corps it was?
I don't mean the year the Ephesians tapes were released by the Univ of Life, but their original taping date.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
You wrote: “You are in the process of searching over 30 years worth of writings and tapes?????? whew!”
Oh, no. I don’t include the tapes.
In 1998, when a man first showed me Dr’s Last/Lost teaching, I started putting aside my exhaustive tape research to concentrate on the neglected books.
I was a total tape freak in the ministry, saturating my life with tape exposure. In elementary school I was fascinated with the electronics of how tape recorders worked. When first into the Word I was a button pusher and AV-man for many classes, then worked at HQ in Tape Duplicating, then the field again working the tapes. I had a big collection of tapes.
It took me a while to de-emphasize the tapes in my life, but the tapes DO serve some good purposes. In the process I did hear many of them and use quotes from many of them here when the topic is ministry history.
In my job I am able to listen to a lot of tapes, but even there I listen to Dr’s tapes less and less all the time.
***
Oddly enough, in the late 80’s I heard that one of the main reason’s Chris Geer could be trusted as Dr’s replacement was because he had MASTERED all of Dr’s SNS tape collection.
But now I see that Dr was always pointing to the written.
“It is written” is the ultimate standard, and was the Corps motto.
***
Don’t sweat it for me, doojable.
It’s a very manageable short stack of books and a much shorter stack of magazine articles, and they are FULL of light.
AND these books are very easy to read and comprehend. They aren't stuffy and academic in their language. They aren’t cluttered with tangential distractions, such as footnotes and a huge number of supportive references.
***
You wrote: "We arent' even asked by Jesus to do that. He chided the pharisees for getting too much into the fine minute nit picky details of the law while forsaking major matters of life that God wants us to live."
I agree with you here.
I do get bogged down HERE in minutia, but I’d rather get into the meat. I’d like to get into quoting sections of the collaterals for discussion, not this run-around of attacks on me, focus on ministry history, and focus on personalities.
But that’s coming, I hope.
I agree that these things need to be applied to life, not just to the GSC Canon. This is one reason I step away sometimes, or don't try to be exhaustive in my responses. I can only imitate WW for so long and I run out of time or said imitation interferes with said living of life.
***
There may be some other things in your post I’d like to respond to but I’m out of time just now.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It's the battle of the long winded posters!
Who will become winded and wind down this marathon?
Gasp! Probably me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
not one word from the heart to give
without thought of yourself mike
where is the edification?
where is the real love of God?
why will you not discuss the scriptures?
even the ones in the books?
you want this to be a war of empty words
empty of anything that will help anyone
John 10:10 was brought up right off and you have nothing
you blame everyone else except yourself for your problem
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/gospels/john1010.htm
John 10:10 — The Abundant Life
Many preachers quote John 10:10 as support for the idea that Christianity leads to physical prosperity and "every good thing." The verse has been used as a description of the Christian life, the normative pattern of life that Christians can expect because of God's blessings.
Other scriptures, including the salutation of 3 John 2, "I wish above all things that you prosper and be in good health," are also used to teach that Christians are promised health and wealth if they have enough faith. However, the New Testament usually emphasizes a radically different result of following Christ. We are told that we will be persecuted, that Christ's message is divisive, that we will need to take up our cross and follow him, that the normative expectation for Christian is suffering. Job promotions, new cars, and throwing away crutches are not among the fringe benefits offered by Jesus Christ.
3 John 2 appears as a part of the introductory comments of the letter, and it was meant specifically for a man named Gaius. It was simply part of the polite way to begin a letter in those days, and similar greetings are found in other ancient writings. One manual of letter writing explains that this the is appropriate was to begin a letter. Someone today might begin a letter by saying, "I hope that this letter finds you in good health." It is not meant as a promise. Likewise, 3 John 2 should not be used as a promise that God applies to all his people. This scripture does not guarantee that Gaius, or any other Christians, will be rich or that they will never suffer from sickness or disease.
And in order to understand what John 10:10 means, we need to look at its context. Chapter 10 of John's Gospel develops the biblical theme of sheep and the shepherd. The shepherd is accessible to the sheep. Strangers do not have a personal relationship with the flock, but the good shepherd does. Verse 10 draws the contrast between Jesus and false shepherds, the thieves who come to kill, steal and destroy.
John 20:31 describes the purpose of this Gospel. Speaking of the miracles and signs, John says, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." The New International Commentary on the New Testament comments,
Life is one of John's characteristic concepts. He uses the term 36 times, whereas no other New Testament writing has it more than 17 times (this is Revelation; next comes Romans with 14 times, and 1 John 13 times). Thus in this one writing there occur more than a quarter of all the New Testament references to life. "Life" in John characteristically refers to eternal life (see on 3:15), the gift of God through His Son. Here, however, the term must be taken in its broadest sense. It is only because there is life in the Logos that there is life in anything on earth at all." (John, page 82).
The Expositor's Bible Commentary says this about John 10:10:
Jesus' main purpose was the salvation (health) of the sheep, which he defined as free access to pasture and fullness of life. Under his protection and by his gift they can experience the best life can offer. In the context of John's emphasis on eternal life, this statement takes on new significance. Jesus can give a whole new meaning to living because he provides full satisfaction and perfect guidance.
Barclay's Daily Study Bible adds,
Jesus claims that he came that men might have life and might have it more abundantly. The Greek phrase used for having it more abundantly means to have a superabundance of a thing. To be a follower of Jesus, to know who he is and what he means, is to have a superabundance of life. A Roman soldier came to Julius Caesar with a request for permission to commit suicide. He was a wretched dispirited creature with no vitality. Caesar looked at him. "Man," he said, "were you ever really alive?" When we try to live our own lives, life is a dull, dispirited thing. When we walk with Jesus, there comes a new vitality, a superabundance of life. It is only when we live with Christ that life becomes really worth living and we begin to live in the real sense of the word.
In its volume on John, the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries summarizes the passage that leads up to John 10:10:
Those who are really "His own" listen to His voice. They recognize that He has been sent from God, and are ready to follow Him as the good Shepherd, who by His sacrificial love rescues His flock from evil and death, and leads them into the best of all pasturage where they can enjoy a richer and a fuller life (9,10). He does not offer them an extension of physical life nor an increase of material possessions, but the possibility, nay the certainty, of a life lived at a higher level in obedience to God's will and reflecting His glory.
In summary, John 10:10 should not be used as though it gives some promise of an improved physical life for the Christian. Such a view, in light of the context, is shallow, and it overlooks the profound truth of the passage. The passage promises superior, superabundant spiritual life, life empowered by the indwelling of Jesus Christ. Because Christians "have" Jesus Christ, because he lives within them, they have the riches of the superabundant life. This is what Paul meant when he said he counted all things loss, that he might win Christ. John 10:10 promises a spiritual dimension to life, not physical abundance. A focus on the physical trivializes the profound depth of John 10:10.
Copyright 2000 Worldwide Church of God
John 10:10
As the Good Shepherd, Jesus died for earth's sinners, who like sheep have gone astray. Good, as used here, means more than having goodness in a physical sense but also having an excellent nature (Exodus 33:19-20). It signifies what is morally beautiful, noble, and true (Exodus 34:6-7). Christ's use of the word in this parable implies that He perfects all godly attributes in others; He is the Good Shepherd who manifests the characteristics of perfect goodness. He guides and supports His sheep, and sacrifices Himself for them. His benevolence exceeds all others (Psalm 31:19).
Martin G. Collins
The Parable of the Good Shepherd (Part One)
Related Topics:
John 10:10
What does He mean by "life . . . more abundantly"? A problem arises when discussing this concept due to the apparent subjectivity of the term "abundant." What is abundant living for one person may be absolutely unsatisfying for another. A hard-charging, A-type businessman—into exotic vacations, sports cars, and rock climbing—would not consider a rocking chair on the porch, a vegetable garden out back, and a weekly round of golf at the local course to be fulfilling, yet they would probably suit a retired senior citizen just fine. One person's bowl of cherries is another's bowl of cherry pits.
The Greek word Jesus uses in John 10:10 to describe the kind of life He came to teach His disciples is perissón, meaning "superabundant," "superfluous," "overflowing," "over and above a certain quantity," "a quantity so abundant as to be considerably more than what one would expect or anticipate." In short, He promises us a life far better than we could ever envision, reminiscent of I Corinthians 2:9, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him" (see Isaiah 64:4). Paul informs us that God "is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think" (Ephesians 3:20).
However, before we begin to have visions of palatial homes, classic automobiles, around-the-world trips, and wads of pocket money, we need to step back and consider what God says comprises "life." Once we determine His view of living, we will have a better grasp of what kind of blessings we can expect as Christ's disciples. All we need to do is glance around at our and our brethren's situations to know that wealth, prestige, position, and power in this world are not high-priority items on God's list of blessings (I Corinthians 1:26-29). In terms of economic, academic, and social strata, most of us come from the lower and middle classes, and we tend to remain in a situation similar to the one in which we were called (compare I Corinthians 7:20-24).
Perhaps the most telling biblical definition of life—particularly eternal life—is uttered by Jesus Himself in John 17:3: "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." Note that this definition makes no mention of length of days, health, prosperity, family, occupation—in fact, the only thing it does mention is knowing God!
What can we take from this?
» God is not overly concerned with the physical circumstances of our lives. It is enough that He assures us that we need not worry about what we will eat or wear (Matthew 6:25-32; Philippians 4:19).
» Eternal life, the kind of life in which a Christian is truly interested, is not determined by duration but by a relationship with God. This is why, once we are converted and impregnated with the gift of the Holy Spirit, we are said to have eternal life already (I John 5:11-13), though not, of course, in its fullness.
» Eternal life—the life God offers us through Jesus Christ and His teaching—is thus about quality, not quantity. Put another way, the abundant life is life as God lives it (Ezekiel 33:10-11; I Peter 2:21; I John 2:6), for once we truly come to know God, we will desire to emulate Him.
» Physical blessings, then, may or may not be byproducts of God's way of life; neither our wealth nor our poverty is a sure indication of our standing with God. Certainly, God desires that we "prosper in all things and be in health" (III John 2), but the bottom line is "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth" (verse 4), not that we live like royalty.
» Finally, a Christian's life revolves around, as Peter puts it, "grow[ing] in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (II Peter 3:18). This suggests that the abundant life is a process of learning, practicing, and maturing, as well as failing, recovering, adjusting, enduring, and overcoming because, in our present state, "we see in a mirror, dimly" (I Corinthians 13:12).
As humans, we are naturally oriented toward material things, but as Christians, our perspective must change. Paul admonishes, "Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died [in baptism], and your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Colossians 3:2-3). To us, life—and our perception of abundant life—is a whole new ballgame!
Richard T. Ritenbaugh
Are You Living the Abundant Life?
Related Topics:
from
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction...CGG/version/KJV
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mike -- I remember about those 22 from the PT thread (since I was a part of it).
I didn't think they made sense, since you *worked* the
magazine articles the way some scholars work ancient texts.
But --- whatever *floats your boat*.
Like I said (somewhere else), those way rag articles were EDITED,
yet you treated them like scripture, digging for hidden treasure,
as if God Himself approved the orderly fashion in which they appeared on each page.
And --- if I recollect correct, you took a coupla words out of one sentence,
tied them in to another sentence a paragraph (or so away), and said:
SEE!! I TOLD YA SO.
Go ahead and post them.
I seem to remember you got flack on the topic, even on the PT thread,
and there were a bunch of staunch Wierwille-ites on that thread.
(and PS --- Yes -- you've been asked several (many) times to post specifics, but so far you have done exactly as you said you did. You have posted generalities, coded comments, hints, etc., but no specifics.
Now --- if you want to post specifics, you've been asked.
And since you just said you would like to talk about the 22 - 90 occurances of *thus sayeth...."
Please fill in the blanks.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
The ball is in your court. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Is the greatest secret in the world today that the bible is the revealed word and will of God?
Is it true?
Is it a secret?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Mike
You are acutally being nice to me. ok, i took you off ignore.
But you know, there is no way in this lifetime we are gonna agree on anything pertaining to pfal.
I am a oh geeeze, i forget what you call it. OLG? who copped out in your eyes.
So don't ask me stuff, or try to engage me in any way. If you want to come over for dinner, fine, I would probably wait on you and fuss over you and make you feel totally welcome. I'd even fix your favorite meal, if you asked me too.
But I am NEVER going to agree with you on anything regarding PFAL.
If you want to pick my brain, you better do better, dear.
I know better than to reveal stuff to you, and have you use it against me.
Capiche?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Just wondering......
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
I know dooj, I am a kinesetic learner who can't even begin to read these long posts.
Heck, that's why I was an art major in college. I can't stand the reading/analytical thingy.
God bless those who can do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites