Steve Lortz

Rafael - Regarding whether or not Wierwille's treatment of II Timothy 3:16 was an actual error or an error of interpretation you wrote, "If you'd care to make a more detailed argument, I'm all ears." I intend to take you up on your invitation, but the level of detail in this particular examination of the question is only going to be mid-range. Two of the things you indicated as being germane to this thread were showing that PFAL contains actual errors "not due to interpretation or 'translation', middlemen, proofreaders, etc.", and showing PFAL does not fit its own definition for being God-breathed. Without going into detail of the actual Greek at this time, I am going to say that "All scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" is an acceptable translation of II Timothy 3:16. I could demonstrate why, but that would get into high-end detail pricing. On page 81 of PFAL Wierwille presented *his* version of II Timothy 3:16, "All scripture *is* given by inspiration of God [God-breathed], and *is* profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [which is] instruction in righteousness." Later on pages 81 and 82 Wierwille wrote, "...All Scripture is profitable in three areas: (1) doctrine... (2) reproof... (3) correction... All three of these are 'instruction in righteousness'". According to PFAL the order of the words in the God-breathed Word must be perfect; and, if you add, subtract or change words, you no longer have the Word of God. The rest of this argument will show that Wierwille, in coming up with his version of II Timothy 3:16, disregarded the order of the words, added words, and changed the meanings of words. And... that he did it deliberately. Let's take II Timothy 3:16 apart. The sentence consists of one subject, "scripture", modified by the adjective "all"; two verbs substantive, "is", with two predicative adjectives, "God-breathed" and "profitable", connected by the conjunction "and"; four prepositional phrases beginning with "for"; and one prepositional phrase beginning with "in". The prepositional phrase "in righteousness" is used as an adjective modifying "instruction". In the Greek the preposition is "en" with a dative object, meaning "by the instrument of", or the way we would understand "with" in the sentence, "I stir the batter with a spoon". Instruction which is "with", or "by the instrument of", or "by means of" righteousness. If we distribute the subject, the second verb substantive and the second predicative adjective to the four "for" prepositional phrases, which is a grammatically valid thing to do, we get: "All scripture is profitable for doctrine, all scripture is profitable for reproof, all scripture is profitable for correction, all scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness." II Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is profitable for *four* things. Why did Wierwille reduce that number to three? When VPW taught that Romans, Ephesians and Thessalonians were profitable for doctrine; Corinthians and Philippians for reproof; and Galatians and Colossians for correction, he was plagiarizing an idea Bullinger set forth in his "Companion Bible". However, Bullinger reduced the number of things for which all scripture is profitable from four to three by saying that "doctrine" and "instruction in righteousness" mean the same thing. Wierwille couldn't teach this, because of what he taught in another place about "made", "formed" and "created" being absolutely different things because they were different words. So, Wierwille took George Ricker Berry's translation, "for discipline which [is] in righteousness" , and shifted the "which is" from modifying "in righteousness" to modify "instruction". In rendering his interpretation of II Timothy 3:16 Wierwille changed the number of things for which all scripture is profitable from four to three. In teaching that some parts of Scripture are profitable for doctrine while other parts are profitable for reproof, and yet other parts are profitable for correction, Wierwille ignored the truth that the subject of II Timothy 3:16 is "all scripture". If a scripture is God-breathed, then it is automatically profitable for all four things. Wierwille changed the meaning of "for instruction in righteousness" by shifting, or if you like, by adding, words to the Word. The fact that Wierwille plagiarized Bullinger's teaching only in part, and plagiarized/twisted Berry's translation for the rest, in order not to contradict his own writings, shows that Wierwille's error was deliberate. I think this is an actual error in PFAL, not just an error of interpretation, and it's an error where we can follow Wierwille's thinking in its fabrication. Love, Steve

Oakspear - "Actual Errors in PFAL" has always been a part of the "Mike Saga". Love, Steve

Rafael - In your post of Jan. 27, '03, 16:07, you wrote, "The Word is profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction." II Timothy 3:16 actually says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God [God-breathed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" The Bible says that *all* scripture breathed by God is profitable for *four* things; doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. It's easy to see why you made this error, since Wierwille drilled into our heads "DOCTRINE, REPROOF, CORRECTION". How did VPW get rid of the fourth thing for which *all* God-breathed scripture is profitable? He retranslated II Timothy 3:16b as "...and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, which is instruction in righteousness." Wierwille's reconstruction is not warrented by the Greek. The second half of II Timothy 3:16 in the King James Version is a perfectly adequate translation. Wierwille read his meaning into the text by taking George Ricker Berry's translation and performing what troubledwine called a "word shift". Berry's translation is as follows: "Every scripture [is] God-inspired and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for discipline which [is] in righteousness." Wierwille transformed Berry's "for discipline which [is] in righteousness" into "which is instruction in righteousness". Another actual error in PFAL. Thanks, Raf! Love, Steve

Well said, Oakspear! Love, Steve

Jerry - It's good to have you back, even if it may not be for the marathon posting sessions you used to do. We've missed you. I hope everything else in your life is working out as well as it possibly could. Love, Steve

This past week I drove out to Columbia, Maryland, to pick up my wife who had been visiting our daughter and granddaughter over the holidays. My daughter had changed apartments since the last time I was there. I had my daughter's new street address, so when I got to Columbia, I stopped at a Staples and bought a local street map. I got to my daughter's apartment complex just after dark, and I couldn't read the numbers on the buildings, so I cruised around the parking lot until I found my daughter's SUV. There was snow on the ground, and I followed my daughter's tracks from the side of her SUV to the building. The whole process was SOOOO pre-2003! It even included tracking footprints. I felt like Aragorn in "The Two Towers". The next evening I called one of my nieces, who recently moved nearby, to invite her over to watch TV and eat pizza. I had my maps spread out by the phone, ready to give her directions. The first thing she did was to ask me for my daughter's street address. I gave it to her, and before I could do much else, my niece started reading ME the directions of how to get there! She had simply fed the address into some program on her computer, and it gave her the directions, down to a "t". Yes, this IS 2003! Love, Steve

Some of my favorite movies are the ones with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. I wish my wife and I could dance like that. What an expression of tenderness and teamwork at the same time. We did some '40s style swing dancing at my neice's wedding reception and it shocked everybody there. They weren't used to seeing us dance. (At least I hope that's the reason they were shocked. I hope they weren't thinking we suffered from the Elaine Benes dance syndrome!) We were only able to do about 1&1/2 numbers though, out of respect for my hernia. Sometimes my wife's feet start jerking spasmodically as a side effect of other difficulties. When that happens around other people, I start singing, "Hear the beat Of dancing feeeeet, On the avenue I'm takin' you to... Forty-second street." It breaks the tension and everybody laughs. Some of my favorite movie dance numbers: -Anything Fred A. & Ginger R. -James Cagney and Ruby Keeler doing "Shanghai Lil" in "Footlight Parade" -"Lullaby of Broadway" -"We're in the Money" and "Forgotten Man" from "Gold Diggers of 1933" -"I Love a Military Man" from the Shirley Temple movie with Alice Faye and the guy who played the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz -"Forty-second Street" from "Forty-second Street" -"Pennies Form Heaven" from the Steve Martin movie of the same name Sometimes my wife and I just do a few spontaneous steps around the house, ala the situations where dance numbers spring up in the old movies. Sometimes I dip here when we kiss. It's fun! Love, Steve

Rafael - Mike has boiled his method down to a few simple statements. 1. "I'm not trying to prove my approach as correct, I'm merely announcing it as my established policy." Mike is not interested in re-examining his basic ideas in any form of dialogue or exchange. He is not here to discuss, he is here to announce. He has established his policy, and cannot presently be persuaded to change. 2. "The way I handle PFAL ACs is to assume the 'originals' were of God and therefore perfect." There isn't anything wrong, in itself, with making assumptions. We all have to do it whenever we have to make a decision and we don't have complete information. Problems come when we don't recognize our assumptions, or when we fail to test them by gathering more information. Mike assumes that the "originals" of PFAL (whatever *that* means) were given to Wierwille by God, and are therefore "perfect". You and I reject this assumption because we have found sufficient objective evidence to convince us that it is wrong. Mike is not willing to examine objective evidence that might invalidate his assumption. He does this by redefining such evidence as "*apparent* contradictions". He then attempts to control the language by making an acronym (acronyms have sounded pretty authoritative since the New Deal), "AC", and consistently using it, rather than accurate terminology. 3 "If after a few hours of study, I still don't have an acceptable answer to an AC, then I file it away in my spiritual closet, and may return to it on another date to work it again." An "acceptable answer to an AC" is one that doesn't challenge his basic assumption, that there are no errors in PFAL. "I file it away in my spiritual closet", a fanciful turn of phrase, meaning "I ignore it" when put into plain language. "...and may return..." This raises the possiblility that Mike may *never* revisit that particular "AC". Mike presents us with the possibility that he will ignore evidence for the rest of his life, if it is contrary to his basic assumption, that PFAL is perfect. I can't fault Mike for wanting to return to the glory days of his experience with TWI. But you and I know that trying to "revive" PFAL just isn't going to do it. Mike is dooming himself. He is postponing the disappointment from which many of us here are already in the process of recovering. Love, Steve

I'm turning in for the night. Love, Steve

Mike wrote, "My primary mastering activity is simply READING the books." I Thessalonians 5:21 says, "Prove [test] all things; hold fast that which is good." The Bereans did so by searching the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). Jesus exhorted his countrymen to search the Scriptures (John 5:39). Mike wrote "The ACs are the exceptions, the FITs are the rule." How can Mike know what "FITs" if he doesn't compare what he reads in PFAL with what is actually written in the Bible? Wierwille was in massive error on a number of topics. What VPW wrote about "administrations" is in error. What VPW wrote about "body-soul-spirit" is in error. What VPW wrote about "the new birth" is in error. I think Mike has the proportions backwards. Love, Steve

Rafael - I don't know where you first encountered the phrase "linguistic legerdemain", but I bet I can identify some of it's techniques (my father-in-law is president of the local chapter of Society of American Magicians). One trick is to shift the terminology. For instance, this thread is about "actual errors". Somehow this has been transformed into "ACs" which Mike equivocally defined as "actual contradictions" or "apparent contradictions". By using "AC", he shifts the focus of the thread from "actual" to "apparent". Zixar will confirm me when I say that "AC" means "armor class". Love, Steve

I'll bring the beer. Does TreeFrog suit everybody? I can't drink the stuff myself, because it could interact with my Paxil and possibly cause a psychotic episode. We wouldn't want that to happen, would we. Love, Steve

Hey, Rafael - Do you ever write fiction? Love, Steve

Wordwolf - You asked "Anybody know how come the scene in Bree, in FotR was so different in the common room?" Among the features on the extended version DVD of FotR are a number of commentary tracks where you can listen to various people talk about the movie while you're watching it. On the director/writers commentary track, Peter Jackson explained that they didn't have enough time (in the movie, not during filming) to include a song, and they also felt that sort of thing would slow down the dramatic momentum of the film. They also wanted to make Frodo's disappearance look more obviously like a trick of the ring's evil will, rather than a chance accident. Love, Steve

Cool photo. It'll be interesting to watch Andy Serkis' actual face as he acts. Love, Steve

I agree with Zixar, that Andy Serkis deserves an award for his portrayal of Smeagol/Gollum. In the "Cinefex" magazine it said that Gollum had much less of a role in the film until Jackson saw how well Serkis was doing it. Jackson liked it so much, he beefed up Serkis' part. In the earlier stages of filming, Serkis wore a mask over his face when he was acting in his body suit, because they thought his facial features would interfere with the animators. Later, they put motion-capture dots all over his face so they could get his expressions. They went back and digitally put Serkis facial movements into the earlier footage. This may seem goofy, but Gollum reminded me of a cross between Barney Fife and Peter Lorrie. Thanks for more of the background, Oakspear. Last night I snagged a copy of GamesWorkshop's model of Helm's Deep. It's just the gate of the Hornburg with two adjoining sections of wall, but it's cool. I've got the GW Uruk Hai engineers with their puny little plastic ladders, but I'm going to build models of the giant ladders using kitchen matchsticks and wooden coffee stirrers. Need more Uruk Hai models! I've only got about sixty so far. Sunday, I started drawing a four-foot by six-foot map of Middle Earth on butcher paper so I can run some games of "Ring Bearer", a strategic level miniatures game portraying the war of the rings, originally published back in '75. Love, Steve [This message was edited by Steve Lortz on January 15, 2003 at 5:35.]

I went to see the movie again for the sixth time over the weekend. My wife's out of town. I've got to do something besides dialogue with certain other people. I think I really am starting to enjoy the movie as a movie. The first time I watch one of these LOTR installments, I keep comparing what I'm seeing with what I remember from the books, and thinking about how they did the special effects. Then I watch it a few more times, rereading appropriate sections from the books as I go along, figuring out how to relate what I see with what I've read. Sort of like the analysis we did of orc morale. Then finally, I just go back and watch it as a movie. For fun. It's getting that way with "The Two Towers" now, and I can almost set aside my awareness of "The Return of the King". It's cool! Gotta go! Love, Steve

I was reading a copy of "Cinefex" magazine (the issue with Gollum on the cover), and they *did* film a scene showing how Smeagol got the ring. The scene is about five minutes long, and they're supposedly going to include it in "The Return of the King". Love, Steve

P.S. - (or #6. Orc morale always seemed fairly brittle to me anyhow.) Zix - Just an off-topic question here. Do you read "Knights of the Dinner Table"?

Oak - Thanks for posting the background material. I have a hard time staying focused while reading the "Silmarillion", but I love listening to the audiotape version. You wrote, "The One then creates the Ainar, kind of like angels, who he teaches some kind of heavenly music which is basically his word made into reality." That's one of my favorite parts. I think Tolkien did a far better job of handling the problem of theodicy (how can a good God's creation contain evil?) than did TWI with its "idiom of permission", or especially CES with its blind god (they teach that God does not have foreknowledge). And why shouldn't we be able to find truth in Tolkien's fantasy? Look how much of the Bible is *poetry*! QQ and Hope - The cavalry charge of Gandalf and the Rohirrim (some of Tolkien's languages use the ending "rim" the way we would use "ites", Rohirrim come from Rohan, Haradrim come from Harad, etc.) into the Uruk Hai pike formation seemed a little hokey to me, too, the first time I watched it. Horses are smarter than people in many ways, and will not deliberately run into something they perceive as an obstacle. This is how I was able to rationalize it after watching it a few more times (I've only seen it 5 times so far. I need to get back into the theater soon:-) 1. The Uruk Hai (Dunlendings, too) had expected Helm's Deep to be a cake-walk, but the defenders put up a better fight than expected. Surprise, surprise, there were some nasty elves there, too. Yikes! 2. The Uruks had fought through the whole rainy night, and just as they thought they were on the point of winning, Theoden, Aragorn, etc. come charging out of the Hornburg down the causeway. 3. As if this wasn't enough, The bad guys receive an unexpected cavalry charge from higher ground on their flank. 4. The rays of the morning sun are shining into their eyes, and even though the Uruks were bred to operate in the daylight (and not turn to stone like trolls), I still like to think this would lower the morale of the Uruks. 5. Gandalf the White, a powerful wizard, is at the head of the charge. Gandalf may or may not have been using some magic to influence the Uruk's morale, but I like to think he was. So my interpretation is that the pike formation's morale broke, just before the charge hit home. Terror spread from the fleeing first ranks, and morale failure cascaded through Saruman's whole army. Historically speaking, many armies have been defeated due to morale failure cascades. At any rate, it was a whopping good spectacle! Post on, post on! Love, Steve

Proverbs 18:13 "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" Is that succinct enough, Raphael? :-) Sorry about the length of my post above. I had presented the material briefly on the other thread. Zixar questioned whether or not I had it right, so I spelled it out on this thread. There are some errors so deeply embedded in the matrix of PFAL that it would take more words than there are in PFAL to expose the errors. For instance: the word translated "administration" in PFAL is never used in the Bible to indicate a period of time; Pentecost was *not* the "birthday" of the Church; the phrase "the new birth" never occurs in the Bible; Genesis 2:7 says "man = dust, dust(body) + breath(spirit) = living soul", not "man = body + soul + spirit"; Wierwille taught "your soul is that which makes you you", while Genesis 3:19 says "for dust thou art"; etc., etc. etc. Some of the errors of PFAL are errors of omission. Wierwille did not teach the greatness of the gospel of the Kingdom of God, he did not teach that the grace we have received is a result of the New Testament. He did not teach the Lordship of Jesus Christ. But I know expounding these things seemingly endlessly would not serve your purposes for this thread. Thank you again, Raphael, for your stand for the truth on this thread, and the others! Love, Steve

Raphael - Thanks for starting this thread to help elucidate spiritually boosted researchers who have set their hearts on meekly mastering PFAL! I think I understand the purpose of your rules, that is, to point out demonstrably false statements in writings of VPW that at least one person adamantly believes to be God-breathed. If I'm wrong, let me know. On a certain other thread I set forward a word-by-word dissection of a passage taken from pages 217 and 218 of PFAL (9th printing, 1985) where Wierwille taught that Romans 9:3 through 11:12 are addressed to Israel while Romans 11:13 through at least 11:22 are addressed to Gentiles who are "not born again". I pointed out four specific places where Wierwille contradicted what's actually written in the Word, and two specific places where he contradicted what he himself had actually written in other parts of PFAL. Zixar, a poster whose contributions I highly enjoy and profit from (a fellow gamer to boot!), conceded that I might be right concerning the fact that Romans 9:3-11:12 are addressed to "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints". However, he wasn't convinced that Romans 11:13-23 are also addressed to Christians. After all, Romans 11:13 clearly says, "For I speak to you Gentiles..." I can demonstrate Wierwille's error in writing that the relevant passage is addressed to unsaved Gentiles, but I wanted to bring the discussion over to this thread, because, to speak plainly, I've said all I want to say to the originator of that other thread. I'm still following it, and I admire what other posters are putting up there, but the other things I might say to the original meek master have been said by others more aptly than I could have put it. So... who are the Gentiles of Romans 11:13? On page 208 (PFAL, 1985 printing) Wierwille wrote, "How many groups of people can different segments of The Word be addressed to? In I Corinthians 10:32 God discloses His system of classification. "I Corinthians 10:32: Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. God lists Judean, Gentile, the Church of God - three catagories. Galatians 3:28 says that a person is either a Judean or a Gentile until he becomes born again of God's Spirit at which time he joins the Church of God. The entire Bible is addressed to one or the other of these three groups." He opened with the question "How many groups of people can different segments of The Word be addressed to?" which he answered with "The entire Bible is addressed to one or the other of these three groups." Wierwille limits the number of groups to *three*. Is that biblically accurate? In one sense, yes, because anybody addressed by any part of the Bible would have to belong to one or more of those three groups. In another sense, no, because there are multitudes of groups and individuals within each of those three catagories. Some parts of the gospels are addressed to Pharisees. Are the Pharisees a group? Yes they are. Are they Judeans? Yes they are? Are all Judeans Pharisees? No. Pharisees constitute a distinct subgroup within "Judeans". Ephesians 5:22-24 are addressed to "wives", a subgroup within the "Church of God". In the same way, Ephesians 5:25-33 are addressed to "husbands, Ephesians 6:1-3 are addressed to "children", 6:4 is addressed to "fathers", 6:5-8 to servants and Ephesians 6:9 to masters. So we see that the *complete* answer to "how many groups of people can different segments of The Word be addressed to?" is "as many groups of people as the different segments address." It isn't just limited to three, and we have to determine which particular group is being addressed by the internal evidence of the passage. Wierwille taught that Paul was using the word "Gentiles" in Romans 11:13 to mean Gentiles who had not been saved. Is that the way Paul used the word in Romans? Romans 16:3 "Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: 4 "Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles." What are we to make of Paul's statement in verse 4? Are these "churches of the Gentiles" the political assemblies of all the cities in the Graeco-Roman world? I think not. Why should they give thanks to Priscilla and Aquila? These "churches of the Gentiles" were Christian churches whose congregations were predominantly made up of people who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds. In Romans Paul sometimes uses the word "Gentiles" to refer to a subgroup of the Church of God, believers who came to Christ from Gentile backgrounds. Romans 1:13 says "Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren [fellow believers], that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other [the rest of the] Gentiles." I can't say I completely understand this verse, but Paul's use of the word "Gentiles" doesn't seem to fall into Wierwille's simplistic catagory. If we wanted to boil the book of Romans down to its "punch-line", Romans 12:3 would be a good candidate for the position, Romans 12:3 "For I say through the grace given unto me,to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." Apparently there was some dissension between Judean believers and Gentile believers at Rome. The Jusean believers were thinking more highly of themselves than they ought, and the Gentile believers were also thinking more highly of themselves than they ought. Look at the structure: Romans 1:15 through 2:16 discusses the shortcomings of Gentiles in general. Then comes Romans 2:17 through 28, wherein Paul specifically addressed those who called themselves Judeans, and took them down a notch or two. Romans 9:1-11:12 discusses the shortcomings of Israel in general. Then comes Romans 11:13-36, wherein Paul specifically addressed "Gentiles", and took *them* down a notch or two. That these "Gentiles" were Christians becomes apparent in the section. Romans 11:17 "And if some of the branches [unbelieving Israel] be broken off, and thou [believing Gentiles], being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them [believing Israel] and with them partakest of the root [God's promises to Israel] and fatness of the olive tree; 18 "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 "Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:" Notice that these Gentiles stand by faith. They were Christians from Gentile backgrounds. Romans 11:21 "For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he spare not thee. 22 "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell [unbelieving Israel], severity; but toward thee [believing Gentiles], goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." Wierwille brough up this whole topic to "reconcile an apparent contradiction" between this verse and Romans 8:37-39 which say nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. There is no contradiction. All the things listed in Romans 8 are things external to our selves. Nothing outside of me can separate me from the love of God... but... if I deliberately choose to walk away from God's goodness, then I can be cut off. That "cutting off" is not necessarily permanent. Let's read on. Romans 11:23 "And they [unbelieving Israel], if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again." If God can regraft Judeans who "abide not still in unbelief", he can regraft Christians who do not continue in His goodness, as long as they abide not still in unbelief. Romans 11:30 "For as ye [the Gentiles of Romans 11:13] have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31 "Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy." The Gentiles of Romans 11:13 had obtained mercy. They were Christians from Gentile backgrounds. I don't have any more time to post today. I'll be back tomorrow. I hope I've made this post intelligible. Love, Steve

On pages 217 and 218 of PFAL, in a chapter entitled "To Whom The Word Is Written", Wierwille wrote the following: "Romans 8 says that nothing can separate me from the love of God; and yet three chapters later, Romans 11 says that if I don't continue in His goodness, I am going to be cut off. What's going on? Look to see to whom each passage is written. "Romans 9:3: For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. "Who were Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh? Verse 4 says, 'Who are Israelites....' To whom is it addressed? Verse 4 says to the Israelites, the Judeans. Paul continued talking to Israel. Paul wrote in chapter 10 verse 1, 'Brethren, my hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.' This is still addressed to Israel. In chapter 11, verse 1, he says, 'I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.' Paul was still writing to Israel. But in verse 13 Paul changed to the Gentiles in his speech." "...What does it mean for a Gentile to continue in His goodness?... Unless the Gentile continues in His goodness by making the confession of Romans 10:9, '...thou [Gentiles] also shalt be cut off.'..." Let's take this section of PFAL apart to see what it says in detail: 1. - "Who were Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh? Verse 4 says, 'Who are Israelites....' To whom is it addressed? Verse 4 says to the Israelites, the Judeans." Does verse 4 really say this section of scripture is addressed to the Israelites? Romans 9:4 "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;" No, it does not. It says that a lot of other things pertain to Israel, but it gives no indication that Paul is addressing Judeans at this point. It is *about* Israel, but not addressed *to* Israel. 2. - "Paul wrote in chapter 10 verse 1, 'Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.' This is still addressed to Israel." Now a person might try to make a case that the "brethren" of Romans 10:1 are Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh", and therefore this section would be addressed to Israel. However, if that were the case, then Paul would have written, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for YOU is that YOU might be saved." In this verse Paul used "brethren" as he so often did, to indicate his fellow Christians. The "brethren" of Romans 10:1 are "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints". 3. - On page 212 of PFAL Wierwille wrote, "These two prepositions, *for* and *to*, make the critical difference between truth and error when it comes to rightly dividing the Word of God." However, in his analysis of Romans 10:1 Wierwille totally ignores the sense of these prepositions in the phrase "my heart's desire and prayer TO God FOR Israel". Romans 10:1 is NOT "still addressed to Israel." 4. - "In chapter 11, verse 1, he says, 'I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.' Paul was still writing to Israel." Paul was still writing to Israel? Just read what's written... Paul was not addressing any remarks to Israel. He was using *himself* as an example to show that God had *not* cast Israel away! 5. - "But in verse 13 Paul changed to the Gentiles in his speech." Wierwille would have us to believe these are the Gentiles of Galatians 3:28, but Romans 11:17 and 24 indicate that these Gentiles had already been grafted into the olive tree, and that the root of the olive tree bore them. Verse 20 says that these Gentiles stand by faith. The Gentiles of this section are believers who came to Christ from Gentile backgrounds, not the raw Gentiles of Galatians 3:28. 6. - "...What does it mean for a Gentile to continue in his goodness?... Unless the Gentile continues in His goodness by making the confession of Romans 10:9, '... thou [Gentiles] also shalt be cut off.'..." Didn't Wierwille just say that Romans 9:4-11:12 is addressed to Israel? Doesn't Romans 10:9 fall within that section? How can a Gentile apply a verse that's supposedly addressed *to* Israel? Within a very short span, only a little over *one page* in a book of 370, mostly within one paragraph, Wierwille managed to contradict what's actually written in the Word at least four times, and himself at least twice. These are not *apparent* contradictions. They are *real*. These are not the typos of heathen printers, nor are they honest mistakes. When Wierwille wrote, "...verse 4 says to the Israelites... ...Paul continued talking to Israel... ...This is still addressed to Israel... ...Paul was still writing to Israel" and when Wierwille implied that the Gentiles of Romans 11 were the same as the Gentiles of Galatians 3:28, he was deliberately lying. The reason he was lying was because he knew, that if we read Romans 11 as it was known in the first century, his definition of the church would collapse, and along with it, much of the rest of his theology, like a house of cards; his definition of the mystery, his scheme of administrations, his definition of salvation, his definition of holy spirit, his practice of grace as a license to sin. Supposedly, back in 1942 God promised Wierwille that He would teach him the Word as it had not been known since the first century if he, Wierwille, would teach it to others. At one point, Mike, you wrote that you believe the first part of that promise because of what Wierwille taught you. I submit that what we learned from Wierwille was not "the Word as it had not been known since the first century", but rather a "Word" that was concocted by John Darby in the mid-nineteenth century. At some point in one of these threads someone quoted Jeremiah 17:5&6. Let's look at those verses again. Jeremiah 17:5 "Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. 6 "For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited." I submit that much of the devastation and ruination that came upon those of us involved with TWI was not the result of the devil trying to suppress the truth, nor of failure to become meek masters of the collateral reading, but rather the result of this curse. "Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man who trusteth in man [instead of trusting God, we trusted Wierwille and the other "Trustees"], and maketh flesh his arm [instead of walking in the spirit, we relied on meetings, classes, nametags, advances, conferences, keys, principles, guidelines, blue forms, trainings, general's suggestions, quotas, ministry calendars, micro-managed personal schedules, protocols, etc., ad nauseam], and whose heart departeth from the Lord [instead of looking to our Lord Jesus Christ, *we* got *our* needs and *our* wants met through the power of *our* believing, while TWI's absent Christ sat idly on the right hand of God smoking $50 cigars]." About five years ago I publicly and specifically repented of doing these foolish (Galatians 3:1) things. Since then, I have tried the best I know how to turn my heart back to the Lord. My life has never been better. You may not understand or appreciate or agree with the things I have written, Mike. But there may come a time when you recognize the curse. If that happens, remember that repentance is the way to recover the mercy and the grace that God extends to us through Jesus Christ our Lord! Love, Steve

Mike - My question is this: do you believe that everything Wierwille committed to paper in the PFAL and collateral books is God-breathed? We can save discussion until your schedule allows, but I *would* like a "yes" or "no" answer to serve until then. Love, Steve

My original plans for today got snowed out, so I've spent the day reading Mike's threads here at Greasespot. Very thought provoking, to say the least. I also, along with Oakspear, would like for you to clarify which writings of Wierwille you believe to be God-breathed, Mike. If I have understood the discussion so far, you said that some were, and some were not. When asked to indicate which were which, you mentioned "The Dilemma of Foreign Missions in India", "Victory in Christ(?)" and "The Gifts of the Spirit Class" as possibly representing material that was not God-breathed. My question is this: do you believe that everything Wierwille committed to paper in the PFAL and collateral books is God-breathed? Love, Stev