Ok, CM. You refuse to answer my question, but I don’t think it’s in response to anything I say or don’t say.
I think you don’t have a clue why you concentrate on me, a man who does his best to respect God, Bible, and Jesus and to get others to do the same, and then you FAIL to concentrate on others who reject all three and try to get others to do the same.
I don’t think you’re even aware of your discrimination here. You are just doing whatever makes you feel spiritual. I’m sorry to see you sink into the same rut as Craig with your negativity and insults and warnings and self-appointed correctness.
What do you think would happen to you here if you were an equal opportunity doomsayer and insult artist? Try it and find out.
Thanks for answering my questions to you. I don't agree with your assumptions, but I do better understand why you think the way you do.
Have you considered the possibility that we don't need a "scholar" to interpret the scriptures for us? That maybe you, me, anybody who has made Jesus Christ Lord and has the Comforter to guide us into all truth can trust Jesus, the only begotten son of God who is the head of the body, of which you and I are a part, to reveal our Father to us, and bring us into fellowship with Him and one another?
Whew, that was a long sentence.
But I think, Mike, now this is only my opinion, that you have replaced the Lordship of Jesus Christ, with the Lordship of PFAL. And that fact really isolates you from "fellowship" instead of bringing you closer. If you are wrong in your assumptions, couldn't this be the case?
Victor Paul Wierwille is dead. But Jesus Christ is alive and working in His Church still to bring those that belong to him, into relationship or "fellowship" not only with our Heavenly Father, but with him and one another.
Would you be willing to consider my point of view? Just as I have considered yours?
THAT was beautifully and gently said ex 10. What you asked so diplomatically is something that each of us must ask of ourselves in regards to the direction we have chosen.
Who/What have we made Lord in our life? Does it bring us closer to fellowship with God with Jesus and with each other? ....whew
I’m grateful that you took me off the electronic dodge system , known as the “ignore” feature. I consider it an honor to be able to talk to you.
You wrote: “Thanks for answering my questions to you. I don't agree with your assumptions, but I do better understand why you think the way you do.”
I find that in this charged atmosphere, and with the charged topics we discuss here, it’s very difficult to hear what someone is really saying.
I have SO MANY people here speaking TO YOU for me, putting words into my mouth, twisting what I say, and downright lying as to my position, that I can’t blame you for backing off. It is a tribute to your integrity that you would slog through to at least hear what you have so far, and I think your for it.
***
You wrote: “Have you considered the possibility that we don't need a "scholar" to interpret the scriptures for us? That maybe you, me, anybody who has made Jesus Christ Lord and has the Comforter to guide us into all truth can trust Jesus, the only begotten son of God who is the head of the body, of which you and I are a part, to reveal our Father to us, and bring us into fellowship with Him and one another?”
Yes, I have done that. I spent many years pondering that possibility. The reason I finally rejected it is because I see the scriptures (even the KJV) saying the opposite.
In a nutshell, I believe much more needed detail and many more needed topics can be handled by God's indirect method of reavealing all this to us, AND FASTER.
Yes, I’m aware of the promise that Jesus stated, that the holy spirit would guide into all truth. But we must temper that verse with all the others that relate to the same topic.
I know that God can and will guide someone to His salvation at times without any other help from people. But that salvation is spiritual, and there is a lot more God would like to give that person, but He has also set up a Body of Christ where each member contributes. God WANTS His people to get His Word from other people because he can get so much more to them, and quicker, that way.
God tried to get the mystery through to Peter, but Peter was limited because of his great loyalty to tradition. God eventually gave the whole job of the mystery revelation to Paul, and then it was Paul’s epistles that got it through to Peter. It took years, too.
When Phillip asked the Ethiopian eunuch if he understood what he was reading the eunuch responded with “How can I unless some man should guide me?”
The epistle of I John talks about us not needing teachers, but that is in the category of the new birth, not learning about how the power works. Ephesians says that Jesus Christ works in a special way with some people to make their service to the Body especially gifted, and it’s for the purpose that we not be blown about by every wind of doctrine. God wants us to have both eternal life, AND an abundant life which would knowing the details of His will and power.
I see that God would love to have the chance to directly, spiritually reveal all His truth to each and every one of us, but that’s not the practical reality of it. We’re only capable of receiving so much from God, and He always has more than eye has seen, and ear heard, and imagination has imagined. He can get more to us if it’s in writing and in the 5-senses realm... at first.
We were taught in the Advanced Class that we were to “Study the Word much. What you can know by the five senses God expects you to know.”
Jesus had to do it this way: first master the written Word, and THEN tap in spiritually. So do we.
For the most part, God has a hard time finding someone who can both hear the revelation and then accurately get it into written form for others. Most people are not willing to place them on the front line like that, facing the utmost wrath of the adversary.
In “Light Began to Dawn,” a sub-teaching on an old SNS tape, Dr describes the 1942 promise a little differently than he does in Elena’s book. In that old tape he says this: “...God revealed Himself to me and talked to me and told me as plain as day: 'That if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to teach it to anybody since the first generation.'
Paul says in Ephesians that by READING his message we could understand the mystery. I see many grads who think it comes by spiritual osmosis, but most of us are not able to get it that way. We CAN get it by reading, though, and it’s much faster.
In the Our Times article Dr wrote to go along with “Masters of the Word” he says that in just a few short hours we can get what took him many years to put together. Sure it would be sensation to get it all by revelation, but we don’t see it happening that way in the OT, nor in the NT. God finds the one man (or a small number of people) He can trust to get His great revelations into written form, and then we read it.
Now I’m all for celebrating the way God verifies to us personally that we are on the right track when we do operate our 5-senses to master what is written and that for specific situations (non-doctrinal establishing) we can receive an abundance of revelation to minister to others.
***
You wrote: “But I think, Mike, now this is only my opinion, that you have replaced the Lordship of Jesus Christ, with the Lordship of PFAL. And that fact really isolates you from "fellowship" instead of bringing you closer. If you are wrong in your assumptions, couldn't this be the case?”
What I’ve done is I’ve replaced my culturally defined (through religion, movies, TV, etc) notion of what Jesus is all about and what he wants to command us to do with the PFAL definition of the same. If PFAL is the revelation from the Father, then Jesus the Son respects this revelation as God’s commandments to HIM!
I could try to conjure up a gushy feeling of the stereotypical Hollywood Jesus, and then trying to act whatever way I myself define to be “like Jesus.” But instead, I collect in mind all that I’ve been taught from God’s written Word about him and match my definitions accordingly. I’m letting God (via His appointed spokesmen like Dr, Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc) define Jesus and his lordship for me, rather than running with my own definition, a sure broken cistern.
***
You wrote: “Victor Paul Wierwille is dead. But Jesus Christ is alive and working in His Church still to bring those that belong to him, into relationship or "fellowship" not only with our Heavenly Father, but with him and one another.”
Yes, and Paul is dead too, and I don’t mean McCartney!
Paul’s ministry lives in the epistles he wrote according to God’s revelation, and the same goes for Dr’s ministry. If VPW’s ministry was a mere man-breathed Bible aid, then what you say has merit.
If Dr taught by revelation then that revelation must be in total harmony with Jesus’ lordship.
Thus Saith #2 - TNDC p.116 - not VPW but Holy Spirit
Page 116 of TNDC:
“Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that ‘when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.’ You too must follow God’s truth as told in the Word of God. But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God.”
Wordwolf,
I just noticed that the following was not included in the preliminary version of my collection of 22 “thus saith” statements.
Most grads think that #2 only applies to leading us into tongues, but the context contains two words which dash that hypothesis to pieces. The following is a letter I recently sent to some friends. It deals with this context issue in statement #2.
*******
Dear Cheryl and Jim,
There is a passage from "The New, Dynamic Church" that is very familiar to all PFAL grads. It is very similar to what Dr spoke in the last session of the class when he led us into tongues. In this written passage Dr lets it be known in no uncertain terms that he was God's spokesman.On page 116 of TNDC he writes:
“Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that ‘when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.’ You too must follow God’s truth as told in the Word of God. But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God.”
As I have discussed this grand "Thus Saith The Lord" statement with grads, almost every one's initial impression is that the passage merely applies to Dr's leading us into tongues, because that's its context. That's what the chapter is about. This initial impression makes it seem that to apply this strong claim of Dr's to ALL of the PFAL writings is to take it out of its context.
Let's look deeper into this matter of context.
There are two small simple words in the immediate context of this passage in TNDC p.116 that slightly stand out to alert the watchful student. They are in the passage I quoted above. These two words stand out as a just a little bit odd, and by carefully investigating them we can see how they influence the context of this passage. These two odd words occur in this sentence: "But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive.
The two words are "or speaking." Why are these two words in there? It's a BOOK, and he's writing, not speaking.
These two words bring in a broader context. The printed words on TNDC p.116 were originally SPOKEN in Session Twelve of the class, and then edited down to the smaller passage that appears on that page. With my own capitalization added, here is exactly what was SPOKEN in that session just before Dr led us into tongues:
"I know that you would like to receive into manifestation the power of the fullness of the holy spirit. I know that you would like to speak the wonderful works of God and magnify God. And so, now, I'm going to help you to manifest the power of the holy spirit, JUST LIKE I'VE HELPED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF OTHER PEOPLE ACROSS THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD. And there's one thing I want to tell you, and that is that, if you can believe God's Word, and surely you can believe God's Word, FOR OF ALL THE TIMES THAT WE'VE BEEN IN THE DEPTH OF THE GREATNESS OF GOD'S WORD, YOU HAVE SEEN the mathematical exactness, the scientific precision with which it works. And that God's Word is faithful, what He has promised, He is not only willing to perform, but He's able to perform, not only able but willing.
"And therefore, I can assure you upon the integrity of God's Word, that you will be speaking in tongues the wonderful works of God and magnifying God. I'd like for you just to take your Bible, and what other materials you have, and just lay them to the side. And you just forget about them for the time being, and you just listen to me. Just let me unfold the keys to you, and within the next few minutes, you too will be speaking the wonderful works of God.
"You know, in Acts, chapter 2, in verse 4, it says: 'And they were all filled with the holy spirit ...' They were all filled - nobody got missed, just nobody. And, IN MY CLASSES ON POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING, nobody ever gets missed, because, IF YOU'RE IN THIS CLASS, YOU'VE HEARD THE WORD, you've believed God's Word, God is always faithful. And nobody ever misses, if you'll do exactly what I tell you to do, right down to the minute detail.
"It's like, in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember where the Apostle Paul said: 'I thank my God, that, when you received the Word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God.' Now, if you'll be as honest with God as that Word of God says, you too can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the power of God. But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille talking, you'll never get it.
"But if you know that what I am saying -- it's V.P. Wierwille saying it, but these are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is utilizing and speaking to you THROUGH MY MINISTRY AND MY LIFE, then you too will manifest forth the greatness of the power of God. If you will, literally, do what I tell you and ask you to do, and show you why, then you can walk into the greatness of this power, LIKE ALL THE REST OF US HAVE, and manifest forth the greatness of this abundance of God, the wonderful power of God."
Now I want to repeat the capitalized passages and note their meaning:
"JUST LIKE I'VE HELPED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS" - refers to previous live classes.
"FOR ALL THE TIMES" - refers to the entire span of "this" particular film class.
"IN MY CLASSES ON POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING" - refers to previous PFAL classes.
"IF YOU'RE IN THIS CLASS" - refers to "this" entire class.
"THROUGH MY MINISTRY AND MY LIFE" - refers to teachings other than the class.
"LIKE ALL THE REST OF US HAVE" - refers to previous classes.
We can see here that in addition to the leading us into tongues, those two odd words "or speaking" alert us and show us that the entire class as well as many other teachings of Dr's are a big part of the context of page 116.
This letter opens with my use of the phrase "God's spokesman" in describing Dr's ministry to us and his teaching. Dr phrased this similarly on page 9 of "Jesus Christ Is Not God" (2nd edition) where he says of Jesus Christ: "It is he who appointed me as a spokesman of God's accurate Word; may I be found faithful in that calling."
In the past 7 years I have many, many "Thus Saith The Lord" statements by Dr in writing or on tape. Some are overt, but many are very well hidden.
On page 34 of the same book, "The New, Dynamic Church," we see another such claim of Dr's where he says that "every word I have written to you is true." For Dr to claim this authority to write and speak for God does not necessarily make it true. For THAT certainty we need to go to God and have HIM verify Dr's claims. But to be certain that Dr DID claim to be giving us God's pure written Word in his teachings to us is as easy as reading what is written. I have decided to accept Dr's claims.
Thank you for that prayer. We all need similar prayers. I pray that grads stop allowing their own rendering of God's Word and will on their own and that they return to what God supplied them. I realize that I can turn what I do into a love-less ego trip. I try to not do that.
This item WAS in the preliminary draft, but I know you’ll be hammering away a lot on this one, so I thought it would be good for everyone to see it set all alone in a single post. Plus I wanted to see it in colors.
Often I posted on this page 83 of the PFAL book, and often others tried to deny it outright. After many rounds, I evolved a concise way of putting it all.
Bold fonting the pertinent passage, here is what is actually written on that page 83 of PFAL:
"The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let’s see this from John 5:39. “Search the scriptures ....” It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille’s writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, “Search the scriptures ....” because all Scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed."
***
The key sentence is the last one. It's taken nearly word-for-word exactly from the '67 film class, so everyone was exposed to this sentence a maximum number of times. Here's how we heard it in the film class:
"'Search the scriptures.' It doesn't say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of my denomination, no. It's says, 'search the scriptures!' Why search the scriptures? Because all scripture is God-breathed. But not all that V.P. Wierwille would write would of necessity be God-breathed, nor what Shakespeare said nor Kant nor Plato not Aristotle or Freud. But the scriptures; they are God-breathed. All scripture, all of it."
***
How many times were we exposed to this sentence? Many. Yet it eludes us to this day. Why? What many posters tried to assert was that this key sentence in Dr's teaching to us was equivalent to the following sentence of their own composition:
"Not what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed."
But that's not at all the choice of words Dr used. What Dr said and wrote says the exact opposite of the above sentence. It’s the addition of just a few words, “not all” and “necessarily” that make the big difference.
***
The ACTUAL sentence reads (with my bold fonts): "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed."
The phrase "not all" implies "some."
If I eat NOT ALL of a pizza pie, then that means there's SOME left for you.
This means Dr's statement on PFAL page 83 asserts that...
SOME some of what Wierwille writes will OF NECESSITY be God-breathed.
Why “of necessity” must SOME of Dr’s writings be God-breathed? Because God appointed him as His spokesman.
***
There were times when Dr would put something in writing and it was God-breathed, like when he wrote to US, his students. As he claimed in my TNDC p.34 quote above, every word he wrote to US, his PFAL students, was true. Then there were also times when he wrote something and it was NOT God-breathed, but just his flesh understanding, whether correct of incorrect.
This passage on PFAL p. 83 troubles a lot of people. He’s just saying there that man’s word is untrustworthy, but God’s IS trustworthy. He says that, compared to God’s Word, man’s is faulty, every man’s, even great religious leaders’ words. He then goes one step farther and says (in effect) that even a man (himself) who is appointed as a spokesman for God, by God, has faulty words when he is not speaking (or writing) exactly what God commissions.
So, all of written PFAL, what Dr told us to master, is worthy of mastery because THOSE writings are God-breathed. God inspired them and supervised them being printed and handed to us grads.
***
I have verified my grammar and logic on this one sentence with two of Dr's editors, one of whom worked on the PFAL book and remembered well that one key sentence quite well. The other was a long time editor of the magazine. Both agree that this page 83 passage is a siognificant "Thus saith the lord" kind of claim, even though they didn't want to totally agree with my whole thesis that Dr's claim was accurate.
Some points I have found in your most recent posts.
You wrote:
"So, all of written PFAL, what Dr told us to master, is worthy of mastery because THOSE writings are God-breathed. God inspired them and supervised them being printed and handed to us grads."
But God insired and supervised SOMEONE ELSE to write these words - the men who wrote them first - Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles etc. These were the men with this revelation - Dr only repeated the revelation he found (assuming it is revelation) when he wrote all these collaterals.
Later, to CM you wrote:
"One of the most detestable things I saw in the ministry was Corps people who demanded respect without earning it. To the degree that a leaders was an extension of Dr’s ministry in the old days, I'd give that leader great respect, but all that died over 20 years ago."
While this was true - many of them learned their habit from the men above them - Dr included. Some the things DR taught was reprehensible behaviour. And because he allowed it (this habit of demanding respect not earned) to continue he actually sanctioned the very behaviour you detest so much. Heck Dr rewarded some of these guys with ordination!
And then later you wrote:
"If Dr taught by revelation then that revelation must be in total harmony with Jesus’ lordship."
And suppose he didn't teach by revelation? Suppose he repeated what someone else received by revelation. I know I keep making the same point over and over. But it seems to me that the point needs to be made. It is the weak link in the chain. If I repeat Romans 10:9, 10 to someone and they get born again - was that MY revelation - or me repeating the direction God directed Paul to put in writing? ( Big rhetorical question here)
Stiles taught Dr how to speak in tongues - this was I believe Dr's 3rd try. Surely by then he learned what worked and didn't work - that doesn't take revelation. In fact the person who led me into tongues used the exact same technique as Dr - and I used the same words later with friends and later my daughters.
Now here was revelation: On the day I ended up SIT-ing I was walking uptown in Manhattan, NYC and I was praying. I silently said to God that I wanted desperately to pray perfectly. Later that evening, after a Branch meeting, One young man came up to me and told me that God just told him I was ready to speak in tongues. Within 15 minutes I was "lo-shanta-ing" with the best of them! Of course there was a little flack because by that time (early "79) the control freak thing had already started and someone said that although they were thrilled for me that they were discouraging people learning to SIT before they took the class. WTF?????
This was truly a control and fear driven policy. the thinking was that if a person knew how to SIT they would see no need for the class. Ahem - Paul rejoiced when people learned to SIT!
Anyway - you're right we do differ on how often people get revelation - I believe that God wants us to hear from Him and so He speaks to us - in whatever way possible.
Dr not only found what those men wrote (by revelation), but he had to exclude a lot of others, and he had to exclude some of the error those men had mixed in with their valid revelations. He had to put it all together in one place. None of those other guys were able to do that. Dr had to believe to move his message around the world. None of those other guys could do that, ESPECIALLY when it came to moving it to us 70's hippies.
So he didn't merely find it all pre-packaged and addressed to us in a form we could have accepted.
Now for a spot quiz: Who can point out the hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement in the Preface of the Blue Book?
Hidden in the sense that it's not stated outright, like with the first three overt “thus saith” statements. Hidden in the sense that it's implied. You can't read it, but as you think it through the implication appears.
There's a subtle implication the last two sentences in the Preface of BTMS convey. For years I used to wince with pain whenever I'd see them, thinking that they were incredibly poor writing style. When you put these two sentences together something is implied.
***
Let's look at those two adjacent sentences in BTMS page ix and see what we can see.
The sentences are:
(1) "I know the contents of Volume I of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more of God's Word for you, but will also uplift you - mentally and physically and spiritually."
(2) "Let us put God's Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world."
Sentence (1) says the contents of BTMS will uplift us - mentally and physically and spiritually. That sounds like pretty complete upliftance. Upliftance from what? The world and it's darkness, of course.
Sentence (2) says that ONLY God's Word can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
Decades ago I would cringe while reading these two sentences. I thought it was poor writing to so strongly associate the contents of BTMS with God's Word. Now I see that it is right and proper.
***
Aside from each individual Preface having specific opening lines regarding that volume's contents, the wording for each "Thus saith the Lord" statement is nearly the same for all three Prefaces. All three of these early volumes were released in book form in 1971.
However, when Volume IV (GMWD) came out in 1977 there were two small but significant differences to be found in it's "Thus saith the Lord" statement. Here is that statement with the changes in my bold fonts:
"...I know that the contents of Volume IV of 'Studies in Abundant Living' will not only unveil more of God’s Word for you, but, in doing so, will also uplift you - mentally and physically and spiritually.
"Let us put God’s Word in our hearts and minds, for it alone can give us complete deliverance and dispel the darkness of this world."
This is part of the evolution of revelation that was happening while we snoozed. God was making more available to us and telling us in a quiet and discrete manner. It was a secret. We’ll get into more of this later.
"Dr had to believe to move his message around the world"
Mike - if it was revelation it wasn't his message - it was God's.
Are you sure he found it by revelation? I mean he was in the ministry and looking - if you look for something you find it. Putting stuff together doesn't necessarily take revelation. I know cuz I do it all the time - I believe that God guides me to help kids learn to draw - that in no way means that my class on drawing is revelation and should stand as God-breathed scripture.
And... About the last "thus saith" quotes - whenever that Word of God is TAUGHT healing results and darkness is cast out - like in Nehemiah. The collateral itself does not have to BE revelation for the healing to be accomplished. Can't this just be a series of quotes that are in effect saying just that? That the book is designed to be uplifting (OK) and that God's Word will cast out darkness ( presumably the Word that is taught in the book) These do not have to be equal statements to be true. The "God's word" that is to be put into our minds is the Word that is taught in the book - not that the Book has become the Word of God. (Reminds me of transsubstantiation-sp? Sorry to Mark if I got this concept wrong.)
This seems like circular reasoning to me.....but that is MHO
You wrote: “if it was revelation it wasn't his message - it was God's.”
Come on dooj, I know it wasn’t OWNED by Dr, but it was his job to speak it to us.
***
You wrote: “These do not have to be equal statements to be true.”
The way you are treating them is how I used to treat them. But then they are poorly written.
If the two sentences weren’t meant to convey what I stated, why wasn’t the grammar cleaned up?
***
It’s good to note that personal, incident specific revelation is different from doctrinal revelation.
I agree that God wants to speak all kinds of personal, incident specific things to us. However, we are not always listening.
In the OT, when “too” many people received spirit and were prophesying someone asked Moses to forbid such a violation of tradition. It had always been the case that only one head honcho got spirit. Moses reply was that if God had His way, ALL of Israel would have spirit and prophesy.
But God doesn’t always get His way, not immediately. He must tolerate our sin, sickness and suffering, all of which are against His will. He must wait for us to be listening and grow to the point of being ABLE to hear His revelations.
***
I agree that all sorts of TVT diddy’s grew out of signing up people for the class. But the bottom line was that it was in the class that people got maximum information, and developed maximum commitment. I first SIT from reading the PFAL and then RHST books, before I took the class, and I always felt a little robbed of the dramatic leading into tongues some others had. I got over it.
Here is a passage (my bold fonts) on page 124 of OMSW:
"It’s a remarkable thing that God put His promise in the past tense—‘I have already given to you’—and He still does this today. Many, many times He puts in the past tense what still is the future for us."
Does anyone know where those many, many places are?
Dr says it's TODAY that God puts promises into the past tense that are still future FOR US.
Dr can only be referring to the modern revelations from God, TODAY, that Dr was putting into written form FOR US GRADS. There's the hidden "Thus saith."
Twice, in his last months, Dr urged us to re-think everything we believed. (I have produce the magazine documentation.) This should include the new birth and everything we think about it, including whether or not we have fully arrived at that blessing.
This passage in OMSW should get us thinking bigtime.
Some of the things we were totally sure of may need revamping or at least fine tuning, otherwise why would Dr challenge us to re-think everything?
I nearly fell off my chair when I first read this passage in recent years. It leads to many answers as to why thing went so wrong for us.
***
The only candidates for where Dr is referring to God doing this many, many times today is in the PFAL writings. The only place where Dr points to God's Word being alive today is in the PFAL revelations. Dr said (in an Our Times article) that if he knew any other place where he could get the Word he'd go there.
Actually, certain facts that are used in PFAL he DID go to get, the last I know of being the star of Bethlehem work of Dr. Martin of Pasadena.
But the only place that is ever acknowledged by Dr as modern (today's) God breathed writings, where God could many, many times do the past tense thing, is PFAL.
The key words in the OMSW passage, to me, are "today," "many, many times," and "for us."
***
Yes, well before Dr died he pointed out with increasing intensity that we needed to shift gears and focus on the written materials God inspired him to write. The days of trying to obtain God's Word from the ancient manuscripts was essentially finished by 1982, but when Dr announced this there was no corresponding action to change the direction of the ministry.
***
In segment #6 of that AC Dr teaches that we can only become like minded (and thus enjoy community believing) by studying the same thing.
Here's how he put it:
"'Such as I have, I give' such as you have, you give. You can’t give, class, beyond what you’ve got. First Corinthians, one, ten - such an important verse of scripture, maybe so many of them are - I should all - have all of them put on charts but only put on, I guess, what I feel in my heart I’d like to have. First Corinthians, one, ten: 'Now I beseech . . .' The word 'beseech' means to implore - lovingly beg you. We have it here on this chart.
"'. . . [implore - lovingly beg] you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Number one:] that ye all speak [and the word 'speak' is lalao - it literally means 'running off of the mouth” - so that we should all have the running off of the mouth - talking about] the same [what?] (thing), [Number two:] . . . that there be no [what?] divisions among you; [And number three:] but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind [nous] and in the same [what?] (judgment).”
"And class, that can only be when we all speak the same thing on God’s Word. No one will ever qualify for first Corinthians one, ten, unless they get their heads and their hearts into the accuracy of the integrity and the greatness of God’s Word. How will we ever speak the same thing unless we study the same thing, people, and let the Word of God speak for itself. If you and I do not rightly divide the Word of God, there’s gonna be division among us."
***
The only common thing for study and mastery we were given is written PFAL.
“Thus saith” #9 – JCNG Introduction – appointed spokesman
This statement can be seen at the end of JCNG's Introduction, where Dr claims Jesus Christ appointed him a spokesman. It's in the large italic print section.
That Introduction closes thusly (but with my bold fonts):
*******
Before closing, let me bare my soul. To say that Jesus Christ is not God does not in my mind degrade the importance and significance of Jesus Christ in any way. It simply elevates God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to His unique, exalted and unparalleled position. He alone is God.
I do believe the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of man because he had a human for a mother; and he is the Son of God because of his created conception by God. So on the basis of the parentage of God alone, besides his choosing to live a perfect life, Jesus Christ is by no means a run-of-the-mill, unmarked human being. Thus, to say that I do not elevate and respect the position of the Lord Jesus Christ simply because I do not believe the evidence designates Jesus Christ as God is to speak the judgment of a fool, for to the very depth of my being I love him with all my heart, soul, mind and strength.
It is he who sought me out from darkness.
It is he who gave me access to God; even now he is my mediator.
It is he who saved me when I was dead in trespasses and sin.
It is he who gave me the new birth of God’s eternal life–which is Christ in me, the hope of glory.
It is he who gave me remission of sins and continues to give forgiveness of sins.
It is he who filled me to capacity by God’s presence in Christ in all the fullness of God’s gift of holy spirit.
It is he who was made unto me my wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.
It is he who called me and set me in the heavenlies.
It is he who gave me his joy, peace and love.
It is he who appointed me as a spokesman of God’s accurate Word; may I be found faithful in that calling.
It is he who is all in all to me that I might give my all for him.
It is he who is God’s only begotten Son.
May I as a son of God live always to glorify the God whom men can only know from God’s written Word, the Bible, and from the declared Word, God’s Son, Jesus Christ.
In spite of all my human frailties and shortcomings, I endeavor to love him with all my being. I love him and the one and only God who sent him. May His mercy and grace continue to be yours as well as mine, and may God be magnified by our testimony of Him who gave His Son that we might have life and have it more abundantly–yes, that life which is eternal and therefore more than abundant.
Mike, when I made my comment about the servant never being greater than his master, I was referring to Paul, or VP, or anyone else who claims to speak for God. The words and works of the servant are NEVER greater than those of whom he serves.
Yes, you are correct. I am concerned that you are taking things too far in a wrong direction. The ideas that you promote here seem out of balance, and downright harmful to some. Look, plenty of people find great valuse in PFAL and the writings, teachings, whatever of VPW; plagerism and defective moral character aside. Great!
But to say that his words are God-breathed, and then to build a false mythology around that idea, is what many find offensive, and even sinful (as in idolatrous.) And then to make the false assumption that NOBODY, EVER "mastered" PFAL, and you are the first attempting to do that, is to vaunt yourself, and puff yourself up above everybody else who was exposed to PFAL. There is no way you can know if anyone ever "mastered" the teachings or not.
Your words and attitude are disturbing and offensive to many people here Mike. I know it's just a message board on the Internet, but still.......I think you put a stumblingblock in the path here. Something that we aren't sposed to do to one another. Many have tried to reason with you, but you dismiss them, because you think they are "unfit." Not exactly hallmark Christian attitude towards fellow believers.
Whatever, I'm not trying to lecture you, Mike. Just explain to you what I think.
Thanks Rascal. At least you get it. And maybe Mike will too.
Mike here are the two sttements that you say are "bad grammar" without the separation. Then I will add comments.
The sentences are:
1) "I know the contents of Volume I of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more of God's Word for you, but will also uplift you - mentally and physically and spiritually." (2) "Let us put God's Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world."
I might just be dull but I see no bad grammar here. Dr prays for the word to be opened through volume one then prays for the natural results of the Word being opened up: 1. uplifting mentally, spiritually, physically and, 2. the complete deliverance from darkness.
I see this as one of Bullingers ABAB structures:
A Pray for God's Word to be opened
B Result of God's Word - Uplifting...
A Invitation to put God's Word in our hearts( The Word that was opened)
B Result of God's Word - Deliverance
No bad grammar from my point of view. Are you sure that you're not looking for a meaning that isn't there?
Ok you guys... Ex10, help me out here - am I clueless, crazy? I simply do not see any bad grammar - and my husband's an English major - I feel pretty comfortable that I understand good grammar.
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
CM
no doom about it
this is something you should want
the change that is talked about in the bible
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You didn't answer my question.
Why aren't you on the board predicting the doom of many self-professed God, Bible, and Jesus rejecters here?
Why concentrate on me with all your crap?
What’s your excuse for this discrimination?
Don’t you CARE about the doom they are heading for?
Where’s your “love” for them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
aaahhh-i didn't answer your question?
how many questions have you not answered?
btw-thanks for the God of the world compliment
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ok, CM. You refuse to answer my question, but I don’t think it’s in response to anything I say or don’t say.
I think you don’t have a clue why you concentrate on me, a man who does his best to respect God, Bible, and Jesus and to get others to do the same, and then you FAIL to concentrate on others who reject all three and try to get others to do the same.
I don’t think you’re even aware of your discrimination here. You are just doing whatever makes you feel spiritual. I’m sorry to see you sink into the same rut as Craig with your negativity and insults and warnings and self-appointed correctness.
What do you think would happen to you here if you were an equal opportunity doomsayer and insult artist? Try it and find out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
lol...such a funny fellow you are..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Mike
Thanks for answering my questions to you. I don't agree with your assumptions, but I do better understand why you think the way you do.
Have you considered the possibility that we don't need a "scholar" to interpret the scriptures for us? That maybe you, me, anybody who has made Jesus Christ Lord and has the Comforter to guide us into all truth can trust Jesus, the only begotten son of God who is the head of the body, of which you and I are a part, to reveal our Father to us, and bring us into fellowship with Him and one another?
Whew, that was a long sentence.
But I think, Mike, now this is only my opinion, that you have replaced the Lordship of Jesus Christ, with the Lordship of PFAL. And that fact really isolates you from "fellowship" instead of bringing you closer. If you are wrong in your assumptions, couldn't this be the case?
Victor Paul Wierwille is dead. But Jesus Christ is alive and working in His Church still to bring those that belong to him, into relationship or "fellowship" not only with our Heavenly Father, but with him and one another.
Would you be willing to consider my point of view? Just as I have considered yours?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
THAT was beautifully and gently said ex 10. What you asked so diplomatically is something that each of us must ask of ourselves in regards to the direction we have chosen.
Who/What have we made Lord in our life? Does it bring us closer to fellowship with God with Jesus and with each other? ....whew
Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ex10,
I’m grateful that you took me off the electronic dodge system
, known as the “ignore” feature. I consider it an honor to be able to talk to you.
You wrote: “Thanks for answering my questions to you. I don't agree with your assumptions, but I do better understand why you think the way you do.”
I find that in this charged atmosphere, and with the charged topics we discuss here, it’s very difficult to hear what someone is really saying.
I have SO MANY people here speaking TO YOU for me, putting words into my mouth, twisting what I say, and downright lying as to my position, that I can’t blame you for backing off. It is a tribute to your integrity that you would slog through to at least hear what you have so far, and I think your for it.
***
You wrote: “Have you considered the possibility that we don't need a "scholar" to interpret the scriptures for us? That maybe you, me, anybody who has made Jesus Christ Lord and has the Comforter to guide us into all truth can trust Jesus, the only begotten son of God who is the head of the body, of which you and I are a part, to reveal our Father to us, and bring us into fellowship with Him and one another?”
Yes, I have done that. I spent many years pondering that possibility. The reason I finally rejected it is because I see the scriptures (even the KJV) saying the opposite.
In a nutshell, I believe much more needed detail and many more needed topics can be handled by God's indirect method of reavealing all this to us, AND FASTER.
Yes, I’m aware of the promise that Jesus stated, that the holy spirit would guide into all truth. But we must temper that verse with all the others that relate to the same topic.
I know that God can and will guide someone to His salvation at times without any other help from people. But that salvation is spiritual, and there is a lot more God would like to give that person, but He has also set up a Body of Christ where each member contributes. God WANTS His people to get His Word from other people because he can get so much more to them, and quicker, that way.
God tried to get the mystery through to Peter, but Peter was limited because of his great loyalty to tradition. God eventually gave the whole job of the mystery revelation to Paul, and then it was Paul’s epistles that got it through to Peter. It took years, too.
When Phillip asked the Ethiopian eunuch if he understood what he was reading the eunuch responded with “How can I unless some man should guide me?”
The epistle of I John talks about us not needing teachers, but that is in the category of the new birth, not learning about how the power works. Ephesians says that Jesus Christ works in a special way with some people to make their service to the Body especially gifted, and it’s for the purpose that we not be blown about by every wind of doctrine. God wants us to have both eternal life, AND an abundant life which would knowing the details of His will and power.
I see that God would love to have the chance to directly, spiritually reveal all His truth to each and every one of us, but that’s not the practical reality of it. We’re only capable of receiving so much from God, and He always has more than eye has seen, and ear heard, and imagination has imagined. He can get more to us if it’s in writing and in the 5-senses realm... at first.
We were taught in the Advanced Class that we were to “Study the Word much. What you can know by the five senses God expects you to know.”
Jesus had to do it this way: first master the written Word, and THEN tap in spiritually. So do we.
For the most part, God has a hard time finding someone who can both hear the revelation and then accurately get it into written form for others. Most people are not willing to place them on the front line like that, facing the utmost wrath of the adversary.
In “Light Began to Dawn,” a sub-teaching on an old SNS tape, Dr describes the 1942 promise a little differently than he does in Elena’s book. In that old tape he says this: “...God revealed Himself to me and talked to me and told me as plain as day: 'That if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to teach it to anybody since the first generation.'
Paul says in Ephesians that by READING his message we could understand the mystery. I see many grads who think it comes by spiritual osmosis, but most of us are not able to get it that way. We CAN get it by reading, though, and it’s much faster.
In the Our Times article Dr wrote to go along with “Masters of the Word” he says that in just a few short hours we can get what took him many years to put together. Sure it would be sensation to get it all by revelation, but we don’t see it happening that way in the OT, nor in the NT. God finds the one man (or a small number of people) He can trust to get His great revelations into written form, and then we read it.
Now I’m all for celebrating the way God verifies to us personally that we are on the right track when we do operate our 5-senses to master what is written and that for specific situations (non-doctrinal establishing) we can receive an abundance of revelation to minister to others.
***
You wrote: “But I think, Mike, now this is only my opinion, that you have replaced the Lordship of Jesus Christ, with the Lordship of PFAL. And that fact really isolates you from "fellowship" instead of bringing you closer. If you are wrong in your assumptions, couldn't this be the case?”
What I’ve done is I’ve replaced my culturally defined (through religion, movies, TV, etc) notion of what Jesus is all about and what he wants to command us to do with the PFAL definition of the same. If PFAL is the revelation from the Father, then Jesus the Son respects this revelation as God’s commandments to HIM!
I could try to conjure up a gushy feeling of the stereotypical Hollywood Jesus, and then trying to act whatever way I myself define to be “like Jesus.” But instead, I collect in mind all that I’ve been taught from God’s written Word about him and match my definitions accordingly. I’m letting God (via His appointed spokesmen like Dr, Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc) define Jesus and his lordship for me, rather than running with my own definition, a sure broken cistern.
***
You wrote: “Victor Paul Wierwille is dead. But Jesus Christ is alive and working in His Church still to bring those that belong to him, into relationship or "fellowship" not only with our Heavenly Father, but with him and one another.”
Yes, and Paul is dead too, and I don’t mean McCartney!
Paul’s ministry lives in the epistles he wrote according to God’s revelation, and the same goes for Dr’s ministry. If VPW’s ministry was a mere man-breathed Bible aid, then what you say has merit.
If Dr taught by revelation then that revelation must be in total harmony with Jesus’ lordship.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thus Saith #2 - TNDC p.116 - not VPW but Holy Spirit
Page 116 of TNDC:
“Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that ‘when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.’ You too must follow God’s truth as told in the Word of God. But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God.”
Wordwolf,
I just noticed that the following was not included in the preliminary version of my collection of 22 “thus saith” statements.
Most grads think that #2 only applies to leading us into tongues, but the context contains two words which dash that hypothesis to pieces. The following is a letter I recently sent to some friends. It deals with this context issue in statement #2.
*******
Dear Cheryl and Jim,
There is a passage from "The New, Dynamic Church" that is very familiar to all PFAL grads. It is very similar to what Dr spoke in the last session of the class when he led us into tongues. In this written passage Dr lets it be known in no uncertain terms that he was God's spokesman.On page 116 of TNDC he writes:
“Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that ‘when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.’ You too must follow God’s truth as told in the Word of God. But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God.”
As I have discussed this grand "Thus Saith The Lord" statement with grads, almost every one's initial impression is that the passage merely applies to Dr's leading us into tongues, because that's its context. That's what the chapter is about. This initial impression makes it seem that to apply this strong claim of Dr's to ALL of the PFAL writings is to take it out of its context.
Let's look deeper into this matter of context.
There are two small simple words in the immediate context of this passage in TNDC p.116 that slightly stand out to alert the watchful student. They are in the passage I quoted above. These two words stand out as a just a little bit odd, and by carefully investigating them we can see how they influence the context of this passage. These two odd words occur in this sentence: "But if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive.
The two words are "or speaking." Why are these two words in there? It's a BOOK, and he's writing, not speaking.
These two words bring in a broader context. The printed words on TNDC p.116 were originally SPOKEN in Session Twelve of the class, and then edited down to the smaller passage that appears on that page. With my own capitalization added, here is exactly what was SPOKEN in that session just before Dr led us into tongues:
"I know that you would like to receive into manifestation the power of the fullness of the holy spirit. I know that you would like to speak the wonderful works of God and magnify God. And so, now, I'm going to help you to manifest the power of the holy spirit, JUST LIKE I'VE HELPED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF OTHER PEOPLE ACROSS THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD. And there's one thing I want to tell you, and that is that, if you can believe God's Word, and surely you can believe God's Word, FOR OF ALL THE TIMES THAT WE'VE BEEN IN THE DEPTH OF THE GREATNESS OF GOD'S WORD, YOU HAVE SEEN the mathematical exactness, the scientific precision with which it works. And that God's Word is faithful, what He has promised, He is not only willing to perform, but He's able to perform, not only able but willing.
"And therefore, I can assure you upon the integrity of God's Word, that you will be speaking in tongues the wonderful works of God and magnifying God. I'd like for you just to take your Bible, and what other materials you have, and just lay them to the side. And you just forget about them for the time being, and you just listen to me. Just let me unfold the keys to you, and within the next few minutes, you too will be speaking the wonderful works of God.
"You know, in Acts, chapter 2, in verse 4, it says: 'And they were all filled with the holy spirit ...' They were all filled - nobody got missed, just nobody. And, IN MY CLASSES ON POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING, nobody ever gets missed, because, IF YOU'RE IN THIS CLASS, YOU'VE HEARD THE WORD, you've believed God's Word, God is always faithful. And nobody ever misses, if you'll do exactly what I tell you to do, right down to the minute detail.
"It's like, in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember where the Apostle Paul said: 'I thank my God, that, when you received the Word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God.' Now, if you'll be as honest with God as that Word of God says, you too can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the power of God. But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille talking, you'll never get it.
"But if you know that what I am saying -- it's V.P. Wierwille saying it, but these are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is utilizing and speaking to you THROUGH MY MINISTRY AND MY LIFE, then you too will manifest forth the greatness of the power of God. If you will, literally, do what I tell you and ask you to do, and show you why, then you can walk into the greatness of this power, LIKE ALL THE REST OF US HAVE, and manifest forth the greatness of this abundance of God, the wonderful power of God."
Now I want to repeat the capitalized passages and note their meaning:
"JUST LIKE I'VE HELPED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS" - refers to previous live classes.
"FOR ALL THE TIMES" - refers to the entire span of "this" particular film class.
"IN MY CLASSES ON POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING" - refers to previous PFAL classes.
"IF YOU'RE IN THIS CLASS" - refers to "this" entire class.
"THROUGH MY MINISTRY AND MY LIFE" - refers to teachings other than the class.
"LIKE ALL THE REST OF US HAVE" - refers to previous classes.
We can see here that in addition to the leading us into tongues, those two odd words "or speaking" alert us and show us that the entire class as well as many other teachings of Dr's are a big part of the context of page 116.
This letter opens with my use of the phrase "God's spokesman" in describing Dr's ministry to us and his teaching. Dr phrased this similarly on page 9 of "Jesus Christ Is Not God" (2nd edition) where he says of Jesus Christ: "It is he who appointed me as a spokesman of God's accurate Word; may I be found faithful in that calling."
In the past 7 years I have many, many "Thus Saith The Lord" statements by Dr in writing or on tape. Some are overt, but many are very well hidden.
On page 34 of the same book, "The New, Dynamic Church," we see another such claim of Dr's where he says that "every word I have written to you is true." For Dr to claim this authority to write and speak for God does not necessarily make it true. For THAT certainty we need to go to God and have HIM verify Dr's claims. But to be certain that Dr DID claim to be giving us God's pure written Word in his teachings to us is as easy as reading what is written. I have decided to accept Dr's claims.
Agape,
Mike
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Mike,
The servant is never greater than the master. I hope and pray in your mastery of PFAL that you come to understand that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ex10,
Thank you for that prayer. We all need similar prayers. I pray that grads stop allowing their own rendering of God's Word and will on their own and that they return to what God supplied them. I realize that I can turn what I do into a love-less ego trip. I try to not do that.
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
"Thus saith" #3 - PFAL page 83 - necessarily ... God-breathed
WordWolf,
This item WAS in the preliminary draft, but I know you’ll be hammering away a lot on this one, so I thought it would be good for everyone to see it set all alone in a single post. Plus I wanted to see it in colors.
Often I posted on this page 83 of the PFAL book, and often others tried to deny it outright. After many rounds, I evolved a concise way of putting it all.
Bold fonting the pertinent passage, here is what is actually written on that page 83 of PFAL:
"The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let’s see this from John 5:39. “Search the scriptures ....” It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille’s writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, “Search the scriptures ....” because all Scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed."
***
The key sentence is the last one. It's taken nearly word-for-word exactly from the '67 film class, so everyone was exposed to this sentence a maximum number of times. Here's how we heard it in the film class:
"'Search the scriptures.' It doesn't say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of my denomination, no. It's says, 'search the scriptures!' Why search the scriptures? Because all scripture is God-breathed. But not all that V.P. Wierwille would write would of necessity be God-breathed, nor what Shakespeare said nor Kant nor Plato not Aristotle or Freud. But the scriptures; they are God-breathed. All scripture, all of it."
***
How many times were we exposed to this sentence? Many. Yet it eludes us to this day. Why? What many posters tried to assert was that this key sentence in Dr's teaching to us was equivalent to the following sentence of their own composition:
"Not what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed."
But that's not at all the choice of words Dr used. What Dr said and wrote says the exact opposite of the above sentence. It’s the addition of just a few words, “not all” and “necessarily” that make the big difference.
***
The ACTUAL sentence reads (with my bold fonts): "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed."
The phrase "not all" implies "some."
If I eat NOT ALL of a pizza pie, then that means there's SOME left for you.
This means Dr's statement on PFAL page 83 asserts that...
SOME some of what Wierwille writes will OF NECESSITY be God-breathed.
Why “of necessity” must SOME of Dr’s writings be God-breathed? Because God appointed him as His spokesman.
***
There were times when Dr would put something in writing and it was God-breathed, like when he wrote to US, his students. As he claimed in my TNDC p.34 quote above, every word he wrote to US, his PFAL students, was true. Then there were also times when he wrote something and it was NOT God-breathed, but just his flesh understanding, whether correct of incorrect.
This passage on PFAL p. 83 troubles a lot of people. He’s just saying there that man’s word is untrustworthy, but God’s IS trustworthy. He says that, compared to God’s Word, man’s is faulty, every man’s, even great religious leaders’ words. He then goes one step farther and says (in effect) that even a man (himself) who is appointed as a spokesman for God, by God, has faulty words when he is not speaking (or writing) exactly what God commissions.
So, all of written PFAL, what Dr told us to master, is worthy of mastery because THOSE writings are God-breathed. God inspired them and supervised them being printed and handed to us grads.
***
I have verified my grammar and logic on this one sentence with two of Dr's editors, one of whom worked on the PFAL book and remembered well that one key sentence quite well. The other was a long time editor of the magazine. Both agree that this page 83 passage is a siognificant "Thus saith the lord" kind of claim, even though they didn't want to totally agree with my whole thesis that Dr's claim was accurate.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike,
Some points I have found in your most recent posts.
You wrote:
"So, all of written PFAL, what Dr told us to master, is worthy of mastery because THOSE writings are God-breathed. God inspired them and supervised them being printed and handed to us grads."
But God insired and supervised SOMEONE ELSE to write these words - the men who wrote them first - Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles etc. These were the men with this revelation - Dr only repeated the revelation he found (assuming it is revelation) when he wrote all these collaterals.
Later, to CM you wrote:
"One of the most detestable things I saw in the ministry was Corps people who demanded respect without earning it. To the degree that a leaders was an extension of Dr’s ministry in the old days, I'd give that leader great respect, but all that died over 20 years ago."
While this was true - many of them learned their habit from the men above them - Dr included. Some the things DR taught was reprehensible behaviour. And because he allowed it (this habit of demanding respect not earned) to continue he actually sanctioned the very behaviour you detest so much. Heck Dr rewarded some of these guys with ordination!
And then later you wrote:
"If Dr taught by revelation then that revelation must be in total harmony with Jesus’ lordship."
And suppose he didn't teach by revelation? Suppose he repeated what someone else received by revelation. I know I keep making the same point over and over. But it seems to me that the point needs to be made. It is the weak link in the chain. If I repeat Romans 10:9, 10 to someone and they get born again - was that MY revelation - or me repeating the direction God directed Paul to put in writing? ( Big rhetorical question here)
Stiles taught Dr how to speak in tongues - this was I believe Dr's 3rd try. Surely by then he learned what worked and didn't work - that doesn't take revelation. In fact the person who led me into tongues used the exact same technique as Dr - and I used the same words later with friends and later my daughters.
Now here was revelation: On the day I ended up SIT-ing I was walking uptown in Manhattan, NYC and I was praying. I silently said to God that I wanted desperately to pray perfectly. Later that evening, after a Branch meeting, One young man came up to me and told me that God just told him I was ready to speak in tongues. Within 15 minutes I was "lo-shanta-ing" with the best of them! Of course there was a little flack because by that time (early "79) the control freak thing had already started and someone said that although they were thrilled for me that they were discouraging people learning to SIT before they took the class. WTF?????
This was truly a control and fear driven policy. the thinking was that if a person knew how to SIT they would see no need for the class. Ahem - Paul rejoiced when people learned to SIT!
Anyway - you're right we do differ on how often people get revelation - I believe that God wants us to hear from Him and so He speaks to us - in whatever way possible.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Mike,
You missed the point of my last post...sigh.
Dooj, excellent points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ex10,
Aren't you concerned that I take this too far in too wrong a direction?
I think about that sometimes, and pray that I don't. I work to prevent it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
Dr not only found what those men wrote (by revelation), but he had to exclude a lot of others, and he had to exclude some of the error those men had mixed in with their valid revelations. He had to put it all together in one place. None of those other guys were able to do that. Dr had to believe to move his message around the world. None of those other guys could do that, ESPECIALLY when it came to moving it to us 70's hippies.
So he didn't merely find it all pre-packaged and addressed to us in a form we could have accepted.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
“Thus saith” statements #4, #5, #6 and #7 Volume Prefaces – “...it alone...”
Now for a spot quiz: Who can point out the hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement in the Preface of the Blue Book?
Hidden in the sense that it's not stated outright, like with the first three overt “thus saith” statements. Hidden in the sense that it's implied. You can't read it, but as you think it through the implication appears.
There's a subtle implication the last two sentences in the Preface of BTMS convey. For years I used to wince with pain whenever I'd see them, thinking that they were incredibly poor writing style. When you put these two sentences together something is implied.
***
Let's look at those two adjacent sentences in BTMS page ix and see what we can see.
The sentences are:
(1) "I know the contents of Volume I of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more of God's Word for you, but will also uplift you - mentally and physically and spiritually."
(2) "Let us put God's Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world."
Sentence (1) says the contents of BTMS will uplift us - mentally and physically and spiritually. That sounds like pretty complete upliftance. Upliftance from what? The world and it's darkness, of course.
Sentence (2) says that ONLY God's Word can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world.
Decades ago I would cringe while reading these two sentences. I thought it was poor writing to so strongly associate the contents of BTMS with God's Word. Now I see that it is right and proper.
***
Aside from each individual Preface having specific opening lines regarding that volume's contents, the wording for each "Thus saith the Lord" statement is nearly the same for all three Prefaces. All three of these early volumes were released in book form in 1971.
However, when Volume IV (GMWD) came out in 1977 there were two small but significant differences to be found in it's "Thus saith the Lord" statement. Here is that statement with the changes in my bold fonts:
"...I know that the contents of Volume IV of 'Studies in Abundant Living' will not only unveil more of God’s Word for you, but, in doing so, will also uplift you - mentally and physically and spiritually.
"Let us put God’s Word in our hearts and minds, for it alone can give us complete deliverance and dispel the darkness of this world."
This is part of the evolution of revelation that was happening while we snoozed. God was making more available to us and telling us in a quiet and discrete manner. It was a secret. We’ll get into more of this later.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
"Dr had to believe to move his message around the world"
Mike - if it was revelation it wasn't his message - it was God's.
Are you sure he found it by revelation? I mean he was in the ministry and looking - if you look for something you find it. Putting stuff together doesn't necessarily take revelation. I know cuz I do it all the time - I believe that God guides me to help kids learn to draw - that in no way means that my class on drawing is revelation and should stand as God-breathed scripture.
And... About the last "thus saith" quotes - whenever that Word of God is TAUGHT healing results and darkness is cast out - like in Nehemiah. The collateral itself does not have to BE revelation for the healing to be accomplished. Can't this just be a series of quotes that are in effect saying just that? That the book is designed to be uplifting (OK) and that God's Word will cast out darkness ( presumably the Word that is taught in the book) These do not have to be equal statements to be true. The "God's word" that is to be put into our minds is the Word that is taught in the book - not that the Book has become the Word of God. (Reminds me of transsubstantiation-sp? Sorry to Mark if I got this concept wrong.)
This seems like circular reasoning to me.....but that is MHO
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
You wrote: “if it was revelation it wasn't his message - it was God's.”
Come on dooj, I know it wasn’t OWNED by Dr, but it was his job to speak it to us.
***
You wrote: “These do not have to be equal statements to be true.”
The way you are treating them is how I used to treat them. But then they are poorly written.
If the two sentences weren’t meant to convey what I stated, why wasn’t the grammar cleaned up?
***
It’s good to note that personal, incident specific revelation is different from doctrinal revelation.
I agree that God wants to speak all kinds of personal, incident specific things to us. However, we are not always listening.
In the OT, when “too” many people received spirit and were prophesying someone asked Moses to forbid such a violation of tradition. It had always been the case that only one head honcho got spirit. Moses reply was that if God had His way, ALL of Israel would have spirit and prophesy.
But God doesn’t always get His way, not immediately. He must tolerate our sin, sickness and suffering, all of which are against His will. He must wait for us to be listening and grow to the point of being ABLE to hear His revelations.
***
I agree that all sorts of TVT diddy’s grew out of signing up people for the class. But the bottom line was that it was in the class that people got maximum information, and developed maximum commitment. I first SIT from reading the PFAL and then RHST books, before I took the class, and I always felt a little robbed of the dramatic leading into tongues some others had. I got over it.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
It looks like I've already done up 1-7 from the preliminary list. I didn't think it would go this fast.
I'll work on the others soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
“Thus saith” #8 – OMSW p. 124 – many, many times
This item has hardly ever been seen by grads.
Here is a passage (my bold fonts) on page 124 of OMSW:
"It’s a remarkable thing that God put His promise in the past tense—‘I have already given to you’—and He still does this today. Many, many times He puts in the past tense what still is the future for us."
Does anyone know where those many, many places are?
Dr says it's TODAY that God puts promises into the past tense that are still future FOR US.
Dr can only be referring to the modern revelations from God, TODAY, that Dr was putting into written form FOR US GRADS. There's the hidden "Thus saith."
Twice, in his last months, Dr urged us to re-think everything we believed. (I have produce the magazine documentation.) This should include the new birth and everything we think about it, including whether or not we have fully arrived at that blessing.
This passage in OMSW should get us thinking bigtime.
Some of the things we were totally sure of may need revamping or at least fine tuning, otherwise why would Dr challenge us to re-think everything?
I nearly fell off my chair when I first read this passage in recent years. It leads to many answers as to why thing went so wrong for us.
***
The only candidates for where Dr is referring to God doing this many, many times today is in the PFAL writings. The only place where Dr points to God's Word being alive today is in the PFAL revelations. Dr said (in an Our Times article) that if he knew any other place where he could get the Word he'd go there.
Actually, certain facts that are used in PFAL he DID go to get, the last I know of being the star of Bethlehem work of Dr. Martin of Pasadena.
But the only place that is ever acknowledged by Dr as modern (today's) God breathed writings, where God could many, many times do the past tense thing, is PFAL.
The key words in the OMSW passage, to me, are "today," "many, many times," and "for us."
***
Yes, well before Dr died he pointed out with increasing intensity that we needed to shift gears and focus on the written materials God inspired him to write. The days of trying to obtain God's Word from the ancient manuscripts was essentially finished by 1982, but when Dr announced this there was no corresponding action to change the direction of the ministry.
***
In segment #6 of that AC Dr teaches that we can only become like minded (and thus enjoy community believing) by studying the same thing.
Here's how he put it:
"'Such as I have, I give' such as you have, you give. You can’t give, class, beyond what you’ve got. First Corinthians, one, ten - such an important verse of scripture, maybe so many of them are - I should all - have all of them put on charts but only put on, I guess, what I feel in my heart I’d like to have. First Corinthians, one, ten: 'Now I beseech . . .' The word 'beseech' means to implore - lovingly beg you. We have it here on this chart.
"'. . . [implore - lovingly beg] you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Number one:] that ye all speak [and the word 'speak' is lalao - it literally means 'running off of the mouth” - so that we should all have the running off of the mouth - talking about] the same [what?] (thing), [Number two:] . . . that there be no [what?] divisions among you; [And number three:] but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind [nous] and in the same [what?] (judgment).”
"And class, that can only be when we all speak the same thing on God’s Word. No one will ever qualify for first Corinthians one, ten, unless they get their heads and their hearts into the accuracy of the integrity and the greatness of God’s Word. How will we ever speak the same thing unless we study the same thing, people, and let the Word of God speak for itself. If you and I do not rightly divide the Word of God, there’s gonna be division among us."
***
The only common thing for study and mastery we were given is written PFAL.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
“Thus saith” #9 – JCNG Introduction – appointed spokesman
This statement can be seen at the end of JCNG's Introduction, where Dr claims Jesus Christ appointed him a spokesman. It's in the large italic print section.
That Introduction closes thusly (but with my bold fonts):
*******
Before closing, let me bare my soul. To say that Jesus Christ is not God does not in my mind degrade the importance and significance of Jesus Christ in any way. It simply elevates God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to His unique, exalted and unparalleled position. He alone is God.
I do believe the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of man because he had a human for a mother; and he is the Son of God because of his created conception by God. So on the basis of the parentage of God alone, besides his choosing to live a perfect life, Jesus Christ is by no means a run-of-the-mill, unmarked human being. Thus, to say that I do not elevate and respect the position of the Lord Jesus Christ simply because I do not believe the evidence designates Jesus Christ as God is to speak the judgment of a fool, for to the very depth of my being I love him with all my heart, soul, mind and strength.
It is he who sought me out from darkness.
It is he who gave me access to God; even now he is my mediator.
It is he who saved me when I was dead in trespasses and sin.
It is he who gave me the new birth of God’s eternal life–which is Christ in me, the hope of glory.
It is he who gave me remission of sins and continues to give forgiveness of sins.
It is he who filled me to capacity by God’s presence in Christ in all the fullness of God’s gift of holy spirit.
It is he who was made unto me my wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.
It is he who called me and set me in the heavenlies.
It is he who gave me his joy, peace and love.
It is he who appointed me as a spokesman of God’s accurate Word; may I be found faithful in that calling.
It is he who is all in all to me that I might give my all for him.
It is he who is God’s only begotten Son.
May I as a son of God live always to glorify the God whom men can only know from God’s written Word, the Bible, and from the declared Word, God’s Son, Jesus Christ.
In spite of all my human frailties and shortcomings, I endeavor to love him with all my being. I love him and the one and only God who sent him. May His mercy and grace continue to be yours as well as mine, and may God be magnified by our testimony of Him who gave His Son that we might have life and have it more abundantly–yes, that life which is eternal and therefore more than abundant.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Nice try ex 10 ....sigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Mike, when I made my comment about the servant never being greater than his master, I was referring to Paul, or VP, or anyone else who claims to speak for God. The words and works of the servant are NEVER greater than those of whom he serves.
Yes, you are correct. I am concerned that you are taking things too far in a wrong direction. The ideas that you promote here seem out of balance, and downright harmful to some. Look, plenty of people find great valuse in PFAL and the writings, teachings, whatever of VPW; plagerism and defective moral character aside. Great!
But to say that his words are God-breathed, and then to build a false mythology around that idea, is what many find offensive, and even sinful (as in idolatrous.) And then to make the false assumption that NOBODY, EVER "mastered" PFAL, and you are the first attempting to do that, is to vaunt yourself, and puff yourself up above everybody else who was exposed to PFAL. There is no way you can know if anyone ever "mastered" the teachings or not.
Your words and attitude are disturbing and offensive to many people here Mike. I know it's just a message board on the Internet, but still.......I think you put a stumblingblock in the path here. Something that we aren't sposed to do to one another. Many have tried to reason with you, but you dismiss them, because you think they are "unfit." Not exactly hallmark Christian attitude towards fellow believers.
Whatever, I'm not trying to lecture you, Mike. Just explain to you what I think.
Thanks Rascal. At least you get it. And maybe Mike will too.
Edited by ex10Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike here are the two sttements that you say are "bad grammar" without the separation. Then I will add comments.
The sentences are:
1) "I know the contents of Volume I of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more of God's Word for you, but will also uplift you - mentally and physically and spiritually." (2) "Let us put God's Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world."
I might just be dull but I see no bad grammar here. Dr prays for the word to be opened through volume one then prays for the natural results of the Word being opened up: 1. uplifting mentally, spiritually, physically and, 2. the complete deliverance from darkness.
I see this as one of Bullingers ABAB structures:
A Pray for God's Word to be opened
B Result of God's Word - Uplifting...
A Invitation to put God's Word in our hearts( The Word that was opened)
B Result of God's Word - Deliverance
No bad grammar from my point of view. Are you sure that you're not looking for a meaning that isn't there?
Ok you guys... Ex10, help me out here - am I clueless, crazy? I simply do not see any bad grammar - and my husband's an English major - I feel pretty comfortable that I understand good grammar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites