What The Hey

Had a technical problem. Previous post was edited and then resubmitted.

I remember when VPW/TWI put out the challenge for a serious debate on the subject of the Trinity. I believe this was right around the time or shortly after VPW had hung his JCING thesis on the doors of the church from his childhood - pretty much Martin Luther style. VPW said he would debate anyone on the subject, but then as soon as a challenge came up VPW said, "I'm not gonna handle it anymore. (I guess by then he had plenty of challenges to deal with at the time.) I don't have time for this junk. There are men in the ministry who can handle the subject better than me." If the CES/STFI book and Mr. Buzzard's book are better, then I guess VPW told the truth in that regard, although I highly doubt either of those books will convince a die-hard trinitarian that JCING any more than VPW's original book did. Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book. Now that might be the motivation behind these later books written by Buzzard and CES/STFI - to win a debate or an argument, so in that respect those books are probably better than the original book written by VPW. It has often been said that the Truth is easily imparted/entreated. VPW's orignal work was written from the standpoint of one searching for truth - it is not written from the standpoint of one looking to win a theological debate. The challenge for a theological debate on this subject came about years after VPW's original book was written. So before one goes off casually debunking VPW's book as being any kind of credible work on the Trinity, it is important that one recognizes the context and the standpoint from which VPW's book was originally written from. In that context I believe one will find a great and deep appreciation for the work that was initiated by VPW. I am of the opinion if someone wants to debate the doctrine of the Trinity (and it's been attempted numerous times in the Doctrinal section of this board) and if a person already has a diffucult time with VPW's original work on this subject - which is essentially written from the standpoint of a searcher for truth, then they will certainly run into greater difficulty when dealing with the later books written by CES/STFI, etc - which I believe are books written from the standpoint of those who are willing to debate the doctrine of the Trinity with someone.

Trading? There might be something to that, but being a trader myself (a stock trader) I don't always get back what I put into a trade. Sometimes I get back more and sometimes I get less than what I expected. That is how trading goes. The truth is: we are all investors - we invest in what is important to us. We all end up trading something of value for something else of value (for example: if you are an employee then you trade your time and your talent for a paycheck) and there is something about professional investing that gives one even greater insight on acessing those "codes to prosperity, health, happiness and good fortune" as you so eloquently put it. But when you study hilarious giving from the Word of Gid, it is always in the context of sharing, not necessarily giving or trading. Trading is an act, but sharing is an investment. That's the reason why many people love to give but hate to share, as sharing goes beyond just the physical act of trading or giving. The word in the Greek is the word koinonia - it is translated not only as fellowship (as in a fully sharing fellowship) but it is also translated to distribute, to be a partaker, to make a contribution. That word - koinonia deals not only with fellowship but we also see this word used in the context in the Word of God in relation to hilarious giving. Here's a good example, actually probably the best example: John 3:16 - it's a very well known verse of scripture. It says: For God so loved the world that He gave ... etc. Now just what was the reason for God giving? Was it because God needed health, happiness and good fortune etc. back in return? Was that why God gave? No, God gave because God needed, wanted, and desired fellowship - and that is a full sharing fellowship, and that "koinonia" is also with us and with one another. That is why this word, koinonia also appears in 1 John 1:3,6 and 7. Take a look at those verses sometime. Those are the verses that deal with fellowship and that type of giving and that type of fellowship are all intrinsically tied and woven together throughout the Word of God. That's why if one breaks this principle from God's Word, one could give until their blue in the face and it would be the reason they don't see diddly squat in return. The problem isn't always an issue over what one gives or in what one receives or what one doesn't receive. Many times it is a "fellowship" issue - and it is a koinonia fellowship issue at that. Certainly there is much more to expound in this regard, but this just might get one started back on the right track. I think there was a whole lot of talk in PFAL about one giving, there probably was a whole lot of talk about fellowship too, but I don't recall there being much talk about how these two things work together to the end of someone seeing positive results. It soon became a "I only give to get" thing, and the whole fellowship thing was soon completely forgotten and left far behind.

No.. I call them untrustworthy.

There is the answer to what killed more than just that little boy. If there is ever a rich truth, a blessing to God's people, the most valued things God intends for his people in His Word, then one can always count on the devil (the bible says it is the devil who is the author or death - not fear; although that is one of his tactics) moving in on that territory and mischaracterizing it, twisting it, distorting it, finding those who would abuse in until that jewel of truth is lost. The best things from God to His people, and the way the devil robs from God's people is to get some nut to move in on that territory and exploit it out of context, twist it from the center of truth, and turn people off by it. That which has been rich for God's people has always been twisted and abused by the simple minded and the devious minded so it is almost a lost truth of scripture even to those who live God's way. All the promises of God - all His laws and His principles, are text in God's Word. The law of scriptural exegesis is: Text without context is error. God does not make His promises, His laws and His principles in a vacuum. The only people who can claim those promises are those who give hilariously. If you are one of those people, then you can leave all the rest (the nut cases) behind and talk about your blessing. The reason some people don't have God's unmerited favor abounding toward them is because they have not learned how to become a hilarious giver. FEAR certainly does that - and that is what I believe happened to that woman and her boy in that PFAL story. The only place (and there is no other place) in the Word of God where it talks about God abounding toward you so that you have all sufficiency in all things is in 2 Corinthians 9:8. That verse is the result of those who have applied the previous verses, the verses that pertaining to hilarious giving. Now the simple minded and devous minded typically think of hilarious giving only in terms of $$$, but I am not talking about $$$. That's right. You don't need $$$ to be a hilarious giver. Even the historic Christian Church has FEAR dealing with this subject, and it is the FEAR of being characterized with all the nuts. Jesus Christ commended the widow above all, and she only had 2 mites and she gave them both there in Mark 12:42. She gave it all. Most of the nut cases out there use this verse of scripture to extract more $$$ from you, as the only reason they give is due to need. But the verses in 2 Corinthians that deal with hilarious giving tells us we don't give grudgingly (that's from grief) nor out of neccesity (that's out of need). Jesus didn't commend the woman because of the amount of $ she gave. Jesus was sitting over against the treasury, as the previous verse says, and he beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and it says many that were rich cast in much. That right. Jesus saw everything that was going on and he didn't commend those who had the big $$$ - those who were rich and who cast much into the treasury. The only one Jesus commended was the woman who threw in 2 mites. Unfortunately that is not how the Christian church operates or commends people today. The principle is, she gave it all. But what about the case of the widow who had nothing but 1 meal left? She only gave 1/3 of it to the man of God. What's the end of the story in the Word of God in that case? Did she end up poorer or richer because she only gave 1/3 of her meal instead of the entire amount? That is why I am not suggesting people should throw in everything that they have and that everybody has to give everything that they have to their church - just because the church has all these needs to be fulfilled. What I am saying is - be a hilarious giver - even with very little - and God is able to make all grace abound toward you. So where does that leave most of the beggars of the Church world today then? The Word of God says you're not to give from grief; because your emotions have been dug by tearjerking testimonies from evangelists who could mop floors without a waterbucket - by their instant ability to turn it on. It's that motivation out of neccessity because of a need. The only reason many do give is because of a need; that is, we need this building, we need this extension. We need to get these bibles out, etc., etc., etc. or whatever the need happens to be. So what's left then if we can't raise $$$ with tears or a need - just what's left? The only thing left is the Holy Spirit working in you, to reproduce His nature which gives without reason. That's idealisitc. That's right, and the only problem is God sees it so seldom. The bible doesn't say God loves only those who don't have any fear at all. It doesn't say he only loves those who are tounge talkers or those who keep on breathing for His namesake - those who want to put on a show. Nope, the only thing God loves is a hilarious giver. There are wonderful things that happen to those who live and give God's way. That's why many times we have to rescue the "baby from the bathwater" those who are living in FEAR. It's fear that keeps them from becoming a hilarious giver and fear that keeps you from becoming one - fear of lack due to need. People try all the time to claim God's promises without hilarious giving so the result is they can only act out of fear! Some people will stay confused all their life about it and will continue to wonder why they can't get any correction or any results from their giving. Are you still confused? Then I suggest you find some little "2 mite" promise you can act upon to get God's spirit working in you and cultivate it. When you feel the urge to give, then give hilariously about it. All of a sudden your darkness, God promises, will become light. It is the hilarious giver that gets the light and finds God's promises.

I'm not an internet geek type of person, but it sounds to me like they don't have their initial IP address set up as a shared IP? I was a little curious about this and found this out - Plesk registered in HSPcomplete must have the first IP address configured as a shared IP. (To fix the problem they should login to their Plesk server and set the IP to be a shared IP address).

These doctrines might be everywhere, but what made TWI unique was the way those scripture/doctrines were expounded upon. The way in which TWI expounded on these scriptures is/was unique to TWI, but then, you're going to find that in just about every charsimatic movement. For example some have found more insight and help understanding the law of believing through the Kenneth Hagin ministries (i.e. the Word/Faith movement) than they did in TWI, and they also think that those teaching were stolen by VPW. Critics have claimed that Hagin never received any formal theological training, and they also allege that the bulk of his theological teachings were lifted verbatim from the writings of other authors, i.e. John A. MacMillan and E.W. Kenyon for example. Hagin's response was he had not plagiarized anyone, but his acknowledgment of MacMillan had been an oversight. He then implicitly claimed the plagiarism was proof his teaching and MacMillan's teaching were from God. Author Judith Irene Matta, M.Th., has also accused Hagin of reviving the heresy of gnosticism. Matta asserts that Kenyon's word of faith movement has basically taken over the pentecostal churches and Christian television. ... The alleged heresy is, according to Matta, lifted verbatim from Kenyon's book. All these accusations, a faulty doctorate, plagarism, etc. is not unique to VPW/TWI. Afterall, if you're teaching and expounding upon basically the same scriptures and the same doctrines as someone else but end up taking the $$$ and the people away from someone else's till, the same accusations would eventually be leveled at you.

Boy, a lot of people are real quick to shoot from the hip without checking things out from the Word of God first. I was making the distinction here between the word for fear (the fear that is translated from the Greek word phobeos) and the other word for fear (the fear which is also translated from the Greek word - apisita, or fear resulting in unbelief). But the fear you were talking about, the one you gave in your example, as in the mother fearing for her child's safety and her child still returning home safe wouldn't be the Greek word phobeos or apistia, (fear) as the Greek word would be eulabeo - (also translated as fear) which means to be circumspect or to be cautious. And that "fear" (being circumspect or cautious) is certainly not the same kind of fear the Word of God uses for "fear" resulting in phobeos = total fright, or apistia = unbelief. VPW wasn't giving us an example in PFAL about a mother who was being circumspect or being cautious (fearful) with her child - or eulabeo, but one who had a totally different type of fear altogether. Kapeesh?

Hmmmm ... I wonder, just how good are the cookies if the milk is sour?

Whoa back up ... I was certain I was taught it is the devil (or the adversary) who is the author of death, not a child's mother. As I recall VPW said in PFAL it was the FEAR in the heart and the life of that mother (it was not the mother herself) that killed that child. I don't see how you can make the claim that PFAL taught the mother herself killed her child with her fear. I believe what was taught in PFAL (quite accurately) was it was the fear that the mother had which contributed to the death of her child. VPW taught the same principle in the pamphlet: "Christians Should Be Prosperous". While VPW largely covers the subject of tithing in that pamphlet, he goes on to explain (on p12 of that study) "There is a close and definite relationship between the material and the spiritual realms. You just cannot separate the two for they are inextricably bound by all the chords of life. The spiritual and material go hand in hand. Medical science in the field called psychosomatic medicine indicates that at least seventy to eighty percent of all diseases are rooted in the spiritual realm. The bible clearly indicates that all [enlarged for emphasis] material manifestation is the result of our spiritual attitude." Do mother's fear for their children's safety? Of course many do. Do they still see their children home safely? Many do. The question that needs to be asked I believe would be, is that fear the same thing or the same result of their spiritual attitude - as VPW explains in CSBP? Obviously it can't be the same fear, as many children do apparently make it home safely. A mother's fear for her child's safety may not have anything to do with her overall spiritual attitude, but rather fear out of concern. It is quite clear to me the example VPW cited in PFAL was not an example of a mother who was fearing out of concern for her child's safety, but rather a mother whose overall spiritual attitude was that of fear itself - and that is something entirely different. The reason this explanation is in CSBP is because the same principle (or spiritual law) also applies to tithing. What I found remarkable was this explanation about fear was in the CSBP pamphlet. What that tells me is, there is much more to prosperity than just a Christian being healthy and having lots of money. It also tells me the reason why some Christians tithe - which is also out of fear. It is the fear of their not having enough (that is the only reason many tithe and why they are critical of those who don't) and the reason why their tithe often backfires on them and why they end up having less than they had before and less than enough. The bottom line is, if your spiritual attitude is only one out of and that of fear - and not out of trust or of faith in God, then you're someone who is going to be in for a whole heap of hurt. Fear is also one of the reasons why many people in TWI tithed. Some even feared 10% was just not good enough for God, so they tithed even more and also compelled others to do the same. Now let's look at what that fear did for them, and also look at what it got us. (Something tells me this discussion should go into "Doctrinal" - or it will eventually end up there.)

They did - unless you made them exactly like VPW or LCM made them to taste good.

I'm a winner, I'm a sinner, Do you want my autograph?

It's not just your humble opinion, it's IMHO as well. But then, we all know he's too proud to even seek that!

And just what do we have at GSC anyway, a masterpiece? Hmmm... I was right. I thought it was a Picasso. Picasso's work covered many different periods too, the blue, the rose, etc. so ... what period of TWI were you from - from the anayltic or the synthetic cubism?

That: you can't go further than what you've been taught subject I believe has been debated here before. But there is world of difference between what one has been taught and what one has learned - as one being taught is not the same as one learning. We all make "free will" choices over and about the things we are being taught and the things we've already been taught, but then we all end up having a whole heck of a lot to say about the things we all have learned. It seems to me, we allow for one's own free will choice whenever it comes to the things we are taught and what we have been taught, but not for the things we are learning or for the things we have learned, and that is the reason why there are some people out there who insist upon you learning their lesson.

I just edited my inital post to add the last remark: "From what I heard, ESW is no longer with TWI today and that book might have had something to do with it too. At least, that's what I think." I think the reason she left TWI is that the people who are still stuck in TWI do indeed have that "gray image of the more abundant life" - to put it in her exact words. I believe it all started with VPW making the statement that only God Himself could create, and that man can only shape, fabricate, and make, but man can never create - only God Himself could create and man claming creativity for himself was akin to claiming the same thing the serpent said back in Genesis where it says - For ye shall be as Gods ... Remember how it was always a misnomer in TWI (for most people it was totally off the Word) for us to use the word: "create" especially when speaking of anything that we produced ourselves? Yep, you were automatically out of alignment and harmony with God Almighty whenever you slipped up and used the word "create" when speaking of yourself. Some of us have finally figured out that our God is not really all that incompetent.

Nope, your not. Elena S. Whiteside addresses the same thing in the book, "God's Word in Culture" - specifically, Essay Two - The Word in Culture. In this chapter she talks about sitting through her first PFAL class in Rye, NY when working for 2 years as a free lance writer. Poetry was what she wanted to write most, but no one wanted to pay her for poetry so she expanded into research and writing in an area where she had considerable background. She talks about how after taking the foundational class she became totally engrossed in God's Word and immersed herself with reading only the Bible and TWI ministry materials. It was at this point a conflict entered her mind - that is, on one hand she was convinced the Word of God was God's Word and God was the greatest author ever and He had said everything that needed to be said. Her conclusion: "Why write anything? What could she write? It has all been said. If she wrote she was presuming more needed to be said." (Quoting ESW verbatim from the book - God's Word in Culture.) She considered any writing on her part then to be egotisitical, vain, bringing only glory to herself. She expresses how she was not alone in that conflict. She states how she met others with thoughts of being musicians, dancers, etc. on one hand and that on the other hand God's will for them was to "keep in the Word" which she says she thought meant spending day after day working, reading, studying the Bible 15 hours a day only to run a fellowship for 2-3 hours a night. She states: (quoting her verbatim) "Do not ask me now where I got this gray image of the more abundant life. Looking back I do not recall anyone teaching this. (The mind works in peculiar ways sometimes.) But at that time I could not reconcile what looked like a vain, egotistic, worldly desire to write on the one hand, with what seemed to me to be God's will on the other hand. It was at this point that I decided to turn to look for answers His Word. (Now that is always right.) Was there a place for writing? And for that matter, for the other arts? For culture? If so, how did art and culture fit with the Word? Could I go in the direction of writing and still be in God's will? From the replys that have been posted so far, it seems to me a lot of people in/from TWI never bothered reading that book - God's Word in Culture - especially if they still have the same hang-ups today that she says she overcame. From what I heard, ESW is no longer with TWI today and that book might have had something to do with it too. At least, that's what I think.

That may seem and perhaps it even sounds like a good answer. However the only problem with that answer as I see it is, even those who were the closest to Paul had already forsaken him. (See 2 Tim. 4:10) One of the reasons Paul wrote to Timothy was to let him know of those who had forsaken him, and also to let him know that only Luke was with him (see v.11) Here's a question that needs to be asked: Just how in the world did Titus end up being in Dalmatia (see 2 Tim. 4:10) when Paul had originally sent Titus to Crete for the purpose of ordaining elders? (Compare that section in 2 Timothy to: Titus 1:4,5) Apparently there must have been a "break down" in the fellowship among these very early church leaders. That is one of the reasons I don't buy the "Apostolic sucession" bit as a key for keeping "true doctrine" alive. There are other methods, but they have little or nothing to do with apostolic succession that some people just want to palm off. There might be a reason for church councils, but church councils are hardly ever (or rarely ever) to debate what is correct and what isn't correct doctrine. The council at Nicaea and the resulting creed of Nicaea (or Nicene creed) and the debate between the bishops, Constantine and Arius is a prime example. The doctrine explicitly stating Jesus as God was confirmed at Nicaea in 325 by church bishops, yet their position (as well as Constatine's) on Jesus being God was no more correct than Arius' position. Although Arius did not believe Jesus to be God, his position was just as incorrect as Constantine's and the bishops at that council, as Arius himself did not hold to the belief Jesus Christ was God's only begotton son either - anymore than Constantine did, or the other bishops at that council. They all may have mouthed Jesus Christ was God's son, but then that phrase meant something different to everyone that was present at that council. If you honestly get around to studying the council at Nicaea or the Creed of Nicaea without any preconceived notions, you will easily become overwhelmed (even nauseated) by all the political wranglings and underhanded machinations that resulted from that council in 325AD and the years thereafter. That is why I simply don't buy the line that the "reason's for councils is to debate what is correct and what isn't correct to keep the church from corruption" jive is the truth, anymore than that "Aposotolic succession" jive being the way to the truth either. There is a way to the truth, but it certainly isn't through man made church councils and their lousy apostolic successions! In fact, the whole RC church was built on all of that. You can't fool too many people today on how corrupt the RC church has become either.

The simple answer: Because there are people who care more about politics (i.e. what looks good) than the truth. Of course these "church fathers" are very special to those who only care about what looks good.

Well there's a totally confused statement if I ever heard one. Get real man! VPW had no more ability to give anybody any power to retrieve the originals than you or I do! It takes work, not power to rightly divide the Word of God by appling the proper grammatic principles (or keys if you want to call them that) to the Word of God. But if you just want to debate whether or not VPW did that more perfectly than others who did it, that's another topic. Come to think about it, that's exactly what this entire arguement has been about all along and still continues to be - isn't it? That is, whether VPW did it better than somebody else who supposedly had done it already before he did it! Then there are those who just want to argue over whether he even did it legally or not! (The whole plagarism thing, ya know.) Partially true. It's only partly true because who really knows exactly what Ehrman is defining as being impossible? Applying the grammatical keys to rightly divide the Word of God is something that certainly can be difficult at times, perhaps even very tedious at times, but not something impossible to do. If you ask me, that doesn't sound to me like VPW giving anybody the power to rightly divide the Word of God. It sounds more to me like someone (VPW) giving you a heck of a lot of work! Yeah, some just want to bitch about all the work he gave us, and some would rather sit and bitch (type) and enjoy each other's bitchin' more than going to work.

Only his hairdresser knows for sure.

It is probably a good thing then that VPW never said, "I wish I were the man you know to be."

The patient in this war is you - and it is also me. But why listen to these war stories? Don't you realize that they've trained us to lie - even lie to ourselves? I've got news for you sister. God's been off my case since Calvary, so why do we let all these stupid preacher's (even stupid people) get on our case? It's no wonder we can't love the god some people ram down our throat!!! How much better it would be for them, for the devils, for us to all die in nursing homes then (rather than a war where one is prepared to die) - among doctors who lie, among nurses who lie, among friends who lie, as the devils have them well trained to promise life to the dying - thereby encouraging the belief that sickness excuses every indulgence unless they should betray to the sick man his true condition. We are all sick men for we are human, and that is what makes you a patient in this war - you are human too, are you not? The devil's best weapons is our own contented, coveted worldliness - to have us deny there is any war at all! God forbid it should be exposed and therefore rendered useless to these devils. That's what's wrong with humanity today. So many aren't expecting to die so they aren't even getting ready. In a war you are prepared to die at any moment. Man, if you thought you were going to die tonight and all you had were treasures laid up in heaven, can you imagine the checks that would flow in? It's tragic, but true. What reward there must be then for those of us who can see in the contented comfort times, as well as in the draught.

What a bunch of silly and foolish Christians! Isn't this a wonderful destiny for those of you who forget what the war is about? You're in a zombie state for what the devils are truly after in your case. You are prey - you're a brimful living chalice of despair, horror and astonishment which the demons can raise to their lips as often as they please. Why let this temporary excitement distract us from the true business of undermining the faith and the formation of any real virtue? Rather we give an account of a patients reaction to the war. In the mean time I must remind you not to hope too much from a war. Of course, war is entertaining from a demons perspective. The immediate fear and suffering from humans is a legitimate and pleasing refreshment for the tirade of toiling demon workers. But what permanent good does it do unless they make use of it for bringing souls to their father below? Just to see our temporal suffering and have us escape is like tasting the first course of a rich banquet and being denied the rest. It is worse than to not have tasted it at all! No doubt the next thing one can expect from them is: Do you know Jesus? Come to Jesus. He'll leave you alone but it will give me the opportunity to get on your case! Were you really expecting them to quit handing out their lousy sermon to you? Not likely. Rather you can expect it because that is the god some people wish to peddle off.