Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

What The Hey

Members
  • Posts

    497
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by What The Hey

  1. The reason why PFAL reached my generation the way it did back then. Back then we all knew something was horribly wrong and we were all for: "F***ing the System" - i.e. the religious establishment. Most of my generation today however have turned back and become a part of it - mainly because all our hero's failed us. It take's too much courage to be a hero. You're constantly setting yourself up as a target only to get shot down by somebody else trying to be the hero.
  2. If that's the case, then so much time/effort/money was certainly wasted by TWI translating the PFAL class/materials into Spanish/French, etc. And we were convinced it was God's Will to do so.
  3. Are you finally admitting then that there are areas in PFAL that are not God-breathed? > i.e. that there are, as you just stated, SOME possible exceptions? If that is what you are saying, then you and Raf are not in as much complete disagreement as you both pretend to be - there is only disagreement on the areas of PFAL you happen to believe are or aren't God-breathed. The problem would apparently lie then in determining exactly what constitutes "something" being "God-breathed?" As I stated in an earlier post, does something have to be written in order for it to be considered God-breathed - i.e. the scriptures? I don't think so. My reasoning on this is what is stated in John 21:25 -where John says there are many "other things" Jesus did that were not recorded. John further states that he supposes that if they should be written, every one, even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. I imagine one could put forth the arguement that because the many "other things" Jesus did were never recorded, this would also imply the many "other things" Jesus did were not God-breathed - based on fact those many "other things" Jesus did were never written down. To put this idea forth in a more modern context, Raf made this statement earlier: While Raf is correct in the fact VPW was speaking in the immediate context regarding the instructions he was giving on speaking in tongues, he misses the fact that VPW was not necessarily speaking "out of order" when he wrote, "every word I have written to you is true." Now truthfully speaking, not everything VPW ever wrote is/was God-breathed. This is quite evident today even as it was during the time of Jesus Christ. Likewise, there were many writers at the time when Luke was alive who were also attempting to make ... "a declaration of those things which are most suredly believed among us," (Luke 1:1) [LCM explains in R&E (p16) regarding Luke 1.] In Luke 1:1 "Forasmuch as" can also be translated "since". "Taken in hand" is a phrase that indicates a previous lack of success. Other narratives failed. This does not refer to the Gospels of Mattew, Mark and John, which are also God-breathed revelations. But even in Luke's time, other writers attempted sense-knowledge narratives regarding the life of Jesus Christ. These were fictitious or "apocryphal" records filled with ludicrous stories, and some are still in circulation today. So what is it that seperates all the "fictitious, "apocyphal" records filled with ludicrous stories apart from the "God-breathed" scriptures? ... "to set forth in order a declaration of those things most surely believed among us." That is exact point where all the "sense-knowledge" records failed. They failed the "acid test" - to set forth in order a declaration of the things most surely believed, etc. There is certainly much more to say as to what constitutes something being God-breathed, but right now I am short on my "posting time" today. Just something to mull over and to think more about for now.
  4. Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also; having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus. ...having had perfect understanding of all things. That phrase requires consideration. As LCM writes in R&E (p19) Luke must have had a perfect source of information to make such a statement. "Perfect" is the Greek word akribos which can be translated "divine", "exact", "precise", or "accurate". It is related to akris, a wrod used in Greek literature of climbing to the very "peak" or "summit" of a mountain. Every foothold and handhold must be taken with exact precision and forethought in climbing to the pinnacle, and that is the exactness connoted in akribos. ... "All things" in Luke 1:3 does not mean all without exception. No one could record all of it. John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. Now concerning the other things of John 21:25 which Jesus did that were never written about, were they or were they not also God breathed? It is quite evident something does not have to be written down in order to be God breathed, but not everthing written down is God - breathed. Again from p19 of R&E LCM explains: "All things" in Luke 1:3 means all things with distinction. All the truths and events that God disctinctivly desired Luke to record in presenting Jesus Christ as the Son of man, Luke wrote down in minute detail with divine understanding - not because Luke was perfect, but becasue he faithfully believed God to receive these truths by divine, accurate, and perfect revelation. ... "From the very first" anothen in Greek means "from above." The point is being made again that Luke's understanding was by divine revelation, "from above." ... "In order" in Luke 1:3 is the Greek word kathexes made up of two words: kata "according to"; and hexes "the next one". As a compound word it literally means "with method," "in a continual order." It indicates systematic progression. The reason I took this from Rise and Expansion by LCM was to answer this question topoftheworld posted earlier: It does not make the author of the instructions special (I'm assuming you mean perfect) any more than Luke writing in Luke 1:3 ... having had perfect understanding ... would make Luke special or perfect. The perfection lies here in the understanding, not in the individual themselves. The Gospel of Luke is exact and precise, as is Lukes second treatise, Acts. Both were written with divine exact and perfect understanding of the subject. The author of the instructions of "how to put a bike together" must likewise have "perfect understanding of the subject". If they didn't have a perfect understanding of the subject, the instructions would not yield - "how to put a bike together". Now those instructions may not say anything about: "how to ride the bike" (as John 21:25 does not record the "other things" which Jesus did) but that does not indicate one can not ride the bike just because those instructions were not recorded. Does everything have to be written down in order to be "God-breathed", and is everything written down "God-breathed"?. I don't think so. Even LCM writes: (from p20 of R&E) ...The point is being made again that Luke's understanding was by divine revelation, "from above." This is the reason why all the Word of God is exact; and for this reason the book of Acts is accurate in every regard to which it speaks - spiritually, ethically, chronologically, historically, and culturally; for this reason it is methodologically and strategically exact; and above all it is truthfully precise concerning the principles of the rise and expansion of the Christian Church in the first century, for it is "from above" given by the Author of Life Himself." I think the acid test to whether or not PFAL is God-breathed or not, is that it must at least meet the same criterion. The question that one is faced with is - does it? I believe all the tools are there in PFAL to get to the "God-breathed" Word. But then again, they are only tools. If I tried to put a bike together with a hammer and didn't end up caring for the results, I probably did not following the authors instructions very closely or very precisely. I for one think that is the content of Mikes message all along - and nothing really more than that. He believes we tried to put that PFAL bike together with a hammer, and that was not the authors fault.
  5. It was a question not a fabrication. Simply answer the question, that's all. Here's a hint: (Scripture is the Greek word = graphe, which means: anything written). Not everything written is God breathed. I highly doubt VPW's grocery list (or anyone elses) is/was God breathed.
  6. The answer to that question I think lies entirely within this question - Would that be all without exception, or all with distinction?
  7. 1. Who said I was attempting to make myself look clever? I was engaging you in a discussion about F. Nietzchsce, specifically regarding a wrong assumption you made about him. I was not writing a literary novel. Even if I were, I believe one can quote up to 2000 words from another author/source and not need to cite the author or the source. (Any more than that, one DOES). I would question the critics if the so-called plagarized passages VPW cited in anything he ever wrote contained more than 2000 words? They made the accusation but never came up with any real proof - there's just a few nut pickers out there only out to pick up a few "nuts" with them along the way. There are only 218 words from the source I cited (even the character count inlcuding the spaces doesn't come close to 2000) and even then, it was only done out of expediance to educate you regarding your ignorant viewpoint regarding F. Nietzchsce - it wasn't my attempt at writing a novel about him and declairing it to be mine! But If you are trying to prove how educated you are, you wouldn't have made the false assumption Nietzchsce was the one who declared "God is Dead" to begin with, but rather it was only an observation he had made. All you proved is you can do a Google search - and that fact proves you are clever and educated? Give me a freaking break! 2. My quoting of Nietzchsce accomplished the task. I constantly see my contemporaries making the same false "illusory" ethical statement over and over. The ethical statement they are making is based solely on esteeming the failures of VPW (and perhaps others) and nothing more. I just don't buy their "straw-man" argument. But that is so indicitive of the accusatory/victim menatlity mind-set so prevelant here.
  8. Perhaps you are refering to these elements: "the believers power of attorney" and "the syncronized confession"? Of course, I could possibly be wrong about those being the particular elements in regard to the law of believing that you were refering to. A while back I made the comment (post# 442 when I was talking about salvation) confession did not have to be a verbal confession, that it does not necessarily mean something that one needs to say out loud. Then from TNDC p.54 Mike posted: ... Just to say the name of Jesus Christ is not all that is necessary ... Just to say the name of Jesus Christ as it is written in Romans 10:9,10 does not produce: "confession unto salvation" for anyone. Obviously there is more involved in "confession unto salvation" than merely someone saying the name of Jesus Christ. The word for "confess" in Romans 10:9 is the word: homologeo. This word does not necessarily have anything to do with someone "speaking." It simply means to speak the same thing, which does not mean or imply one should "speak out" (exomologeo) the same thing. To understand more of what this confession entails, one must take a look at Matthew 10. Specifically look at v.32 - It says: "Whosoever therefore shall confess [homologeo] me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." Salvation therefore does not just mean one must confess Jesus as our lord, but it also entails Jesus Christ's confession of us before the Father. Has Jesus Christ confessed you before the Father? I think that's a very good question to ask. v.33 goes on: "But whosoever shall deny me before men (it does not say before God) him (that person) will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." The question therefore becomes, what did Jesus Christ confess before men? Did he go about confessing there is no God, that God does not heal, that praying is physchologically good only for the one who is praying - etc, etc, etc? If that is your confession, then exactly how does your confession line up (say the same thing) Jesus Christ's confession does? Many people today confuse the "law-of-believing" as being synonomous with some non-existant "law-of-material-prosperity" they think Jesus Christ was talking about and proclaiming. Because of this they erroneously conclude there is no law of believing. Was it not Christ who said, "The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and tomorrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?" (Luke 12:23-28) I don't find that Jesus Christ was necessarily talking about having material wealth and physical abundance in those verses, yet he was accurate in defining exactly what "little faith" was - one having total confidence in the senses, confidence in some "law of material prosperity". Such confidence only leads one into bondage, not freedom. Did you know some of the richest people in the world today are also people who have some of the greatest fears? Their greatest fear being they may end up losing all their wealth! Of course they got a plan to prevent it from happening. They may not admit it to you or even want to admit it to themselves, but that is their greatest fear. It's one of the many reasons they're on the boob-tube selling you their "secrets-of-the-rich-and-famous" plan for only $9.95. They're even afraid people can't afford more than $10 or want to risk more than that to to purchase their lousy "get-rich-quick" scheme! Scripture has something to say about being rich in this world but not being "rich toward God." There is a law of believing, however I just do not find it to be synonomous with this "law of material prosperity" so many people have misnomered as "the law of believing". Too many people unfortunately, both inside and outside TWI have put and placed all their confidence and "faith" in it instead. (It's getting too late to post more - just something to think more about later on. )
  9. While in popular belief it is Nietzsche himself who blatantly made this declaration, it was actually placed into the mouth of a character, a "madman," in The Gay Science. It was also later proclaimed by Nietzsche's Zarathustra. This largely misunderstood statement does not proclaim a physical death, but a natural end to the belief in God being the foundation of the western mind. It is also widely misunderstood as a kind of gloating declaration, when it is actually described as a tragic lament by the character Zarathustra. "God is Dead" is more of an observation than a declaration, and it is noteworthy that Nietzsche never felt the need to advance any arguments for atheism, but merely observed that, for all practical purposes, his contemporaries lived "as if" God were dead. Nietzsche believed this "death" would eventually undermine the foundations of morality and lead to moral relativism and nihilism. Nietzsche can most usefully be classified as a moral skeptic; that is, he claims that all ethical statements are false, because any kind of correspondence between ethical statements and "moral facts" is illusory. Moral skeptics hold that there are no objective values, but that the claim that there are objective values is part of the meaning of ordinary ethical sentences; that is why, in their view, ethical sentences are false. I quoted Nietzsche to prove the ethical statement my contemporaries insist upon making is found illusory and false as they go about esteeming and promulgating the errors of VPW.
  10. The errors of great men are venerable because they are more fruitful then the truths of little men. - Freidrich Nietzshce
  11. I can't imagine you understand salvation then any better than the law of believing since salvation is totally based on the simple aphorism: "confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession". (Romans 10:9,10) Likewise "senses-faith" individuals also tend to believe their salvation is something that is often true, but not always, not necessarily a law. The mistake you (and others) apparently are making is in thinking these so-called "aphorisms" are an end in themselves. 'Confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession' is merely a means to an end, it's not an end in itself. But this is were believing always starts, with a confession. It doesn't have to be a verbal confession (remember back in PFAL - VPW said when it came to confessing Romans 10:9,10 one didn't have to say it out loud) but one must always make the confession. This is the reason why believing is a law and it is always true. The question that perhaps needs to be asked is: Exactly what is "confession" (from the viewpoint of God's Word) if confession isn't something that one necessarily needs to say out loud?
  12. There is nothing wrong with VPW's definition regarding the law of believing. However there is much more to seriously consider than simply applying a single step formula of: "confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession" in regards to the practical application of this law. For example, Jesus commended the centurion in Matthew 8 for having "great faith" while on the other hand he rebuked others for having "little faith". It would appear then the answer to the practical application of the law of believing would lie in asking the question: What is it that separates someone from having "great faith" and someone from having "little faith"? When searching the scriptures on this topic, one finds there is much more to one having "great faith" than simply applying some "confession-of-belief" type formula. The more does not negate nor does it "re-describe" the law of believing however. A positive confession is certainly needed in the practical application to operate the law of believing, but then, that is not all that is needed. The main reason Jesus commended the centurion is because the centurion properly recognized where he had authority and where he didn't. The centurion also recognized where he didn't have authority. Now the centurion was not ignorant of Jesus authority, as he was already familiar with and he recognized the fact that Jesus had already healed others. Verse eight of Matthew 8 contains the "confession" part regarding the law of believing - but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. The part to emphasize is: but speak the word only. Just what constitutes the centurion having great faith and being commended by Jesus? Luke 7 gives us more details regarding this centurion. In verse 1 we see Jesus had entered Capernaum. In verse 3 the centurion had sent the elders of the Jews (this centurion certainly must have had plenty of authority himself to be able to send "the elders of the Jews". He didn't send just the typical Juedean to Jesus) to beseech Jesus to come and heal his servant. This centurion had sent "his best", so he wasn't making a "half-hearted" attempt at believing the promise of God that we so often do whenever we get around to believing God's Word. There is something else remarkable about this centurion to notice. It says in verse 5: "For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue." This centurion was not a 'wimp' when it came to applying the principles of tithing! The Word of God states it was the centurion who built the synagogue, and he must have had more than a couple of nickles in his pocket to be able to build a synagogue for the people of his nation. Why did the centurion build this synagogue? That's a very good question. The Word of God simply states - for he loveth our nation and does not go into much more detail. Truthfully that is the only motivation one needs for proper and honest giving - which is love. This centurion's great love for the people of his nation was also commensurate with his giving, and his giving didn't turn him into a pauper either. He must of had big buckaroo's to be able to build the synagogue himself! With all his wealth, power and prestige, this centurion certainly could have found plenty of reasons to be "full of himself". Yet verse 7 of Luke 7 states that he didn't even think himself worthy to come unto Jesus! Remarkable! Jesus didn't have quite the same prestige as this centurion, yet the centurion didn't consider himself even worthy enough to approach Jesus with his need!! So he sent friends. It says, "Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof" How often do we bring these "troubles" of ours to the Lord, as though we ourselves are worthy for the Lord to heal and fix our problems? So often we believe and think we ourselves are worthy, and then we end up complaining whenever our believing (or the "law of believing") fails. We seek having our own say and our own authority in certain circumstances in our lives, but not the Lords. It is the Word of the Lord that has the ultimate say as to what will be, not ours. Say in a word, [speak the Word] and my servant shall be healed. That is what the Word of God says. Understanding your authority as a Christian believer is key. As Chistians with Christ in us we have been given much authority. Yet we miss it many times in thinking that we have authority over our fellowman and even their wills. Ephesians 6:10,11 says, "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." If your putting on armour then you must be preparing for a battle. Yes it is a battle at times to carry out the works of Jesus Christ and taking our authority over the devil as we go about our daily lives. I'm not talking about going "head-to-head" with the devil in some kind of combat. Afterall, Satan will do everything in his power to keep you from coming into the knowledge that you have been given authority over him! He'll fight with you over this than more any other thing in your Christian life. Of course you will be tested, and sometimes we as Christians fail those tests. Satan wants you to blindly throw up your hands and say the authority of the believer does not work. I'd rather die than say God's Word does not work. We may fail, but God's Word does not fail. When you put on this armour, you will be entering the adversary's sphere because he is exercising spiritual authority over the powers of the air, and he wants to continue to do so. You will be interfering with the adversary's kingdom by recognizing and exercising your authority as a Christian believer, and he will attack you in an attempt to get you to back down from using the authority you have been given. Get ready, because your privelaged spritual position makes you an enemy to the adversary. But the adversary can not hold in bondage any believer who knows their authority in Christ. Although the adversary knows some things, he is not all-knowing or omniscient like our God. Many times it is simply our lack of understanding regarding our authority in Christ, and/or our lack and willingness to use the authority that we have been given because it does take work. Real believing is not this "lazy faith" or "mind over matter" notion some people want to propogate, and it does take work on your part as a Christian believer. Sometimes it takes a whole heck of a lot of work too - depending on the nature of the adversary's attack.
  13. There seems to be some confusion over what one should consider a "Holy Ghost" filled church to be. Some people believe a Holy Ghost filled church is packing a building full of gospel singers, raising 'holy hands' and having people shout GLORY HALLELUJIA! Some believe it is having an alter call, the laying on of hands and people fallin' down backwards getting slain in the spirit. Some people think a Holy Ghost filled church is someone yelling out AMEN! - Preach it Pastor! at every other sentence during the sermon. They believe it's anyone getting up at random and willy-nilly "speaking in tongues" to see who is the loudest most obnoxious speaker. They believe a Holy Ghost filled church is people laughing hysterically out loud for no reason (it would make more sense if someone actually told a good joke) getting up, jumping up and down, running up and down aisles, and practically slobbering all over everybody. It's a wierd world out there - wierder than a 2 lb. elephant! What still goes on inside so many of the Christian churches in America today is sadly even stranger. I'd just as soon see an ant swallow a bale of hay and call it a "Holy Ghost" manifestation compared to the shennanigans I've seen go on inside the so-call church. I don't mean to come off sounding critical of the typical American Christian church. But the Holy Ghost is not about "whatever-it-is" people think happens with a bunch of individuals inside the church on a Sunday (or whatever day of the week they meet) that constitutes a church being a "Holy Ghost" filled church. No. It's what goes on with the individuals outside of the church during the week that really counts and really matters the most. Have you ever run into some of those HOLY GHOST filled church people during the week? They certainly love to pass judgment on other people who are not like them. Frankly speaking, some of them can be just about the meanest, the rudest and the most critical and self-righteous bunch of snobs you would never, ever, want to meet in your life!!
  14. OK ... YOU ASKED FOR IT ... YOU GOT IT! The 22 THUS SAITH THE LORD statements: [These posts are mostly MIKE's and were taken from the PT thread from the old message board.] WARNING ... This post is lengthy. If you don't have a couple hours to read, then come back later. These were original posts that were posted over a couple months time which I compiled here all into one. ====================================================== Mike posted on: 7/15/05: Ok, topic #1 being Dr's many, many (and hidden) "Thus saith the Lord" statements. I'd love to spend lots of time here. There are three such statements on which I've posted often: TNDC p. 34, TNDC p. 116, and PFAL p.83, and these three constitute the bulk of the overt claims Dr made in writing. Many others remain hidden, and I'd love to make them a major topic here. ===================================================== Posted July 24, 2005 15:39 Here's another of the many well hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statements we can find in Dr's teachings. This one has never been in my previous posts here at GSC. It's from the Sep/Oct 1983 Way Magazine where Dr's article focuses on a short list of vocabulary words that need to be sharply understood. The list of words he handles in that article is: religion, Christianity, fact, truth, faith, believing, formed, made, created, body, soul, and spirit. The title of the article is "The Importance of Words in God's Word." The words "fact" and "Christianity" do NOT appear in the Young's Concordance or in the KJV, but they DO occur in the PFAL writings... a lot. ===================================================== Posted July 26, 2005 11:37 There is a passage in OMSW that will serve here in two ways. First, it illustrates another "Thus saith the Lord" statement, and second it will help calm those who are enraged at my above post on the new birth. The passage is on page 124 and reads (with my bold fonts): "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." I haven't the time to get into any more detail on this, but this passage in Dr's last book to us needs to be carefully pondered. ===================================================== Posted August 15, 2005 11:47 I'm thinking of doing more to eventually post that list of 90 "Thus saith the Lord" statements. Each such statement carries two pieces of information for our consideration. First, we didn't pay good attention to Dr's teaching, especially as he got older. We didn't study, and especially we didn't MASTER the material we were given. If we had studied, we'd have seen and remembered these many times when Dr asserted that he was teaching authoritatively. Our assignment to master the material that Dr gave us with his dying last words was a NEEDED assignment, even for leadership. Second, these statements give us a chance to believe, or not, that Dr was working for the True God. Even more, they force us to decide "yes" or "no" to Dr's teaching authority because they leave no gray area between. *** A tally might be in order. Remember, all of the far out exotic claims I have made are contingent on written PFAL being the authoritative, given in English, written Word of God. If PFAL isn't this kind of 2000 years special, then I'll have to admit all my evidence of the changeover of administrations in our time is illusory. But if written PFAL truly IS what Dr claimed it some 90 times over, then the new administration becomes obviously called for, and many other things line up in a marvelously "new" way. *** So, let's tally a little: 1. TNDC 34 - every word true 2. TNDC 116 - not VPW but Holy Spirit 3. PFAL 83 - God-breathed... necessarily 4. BTMS - Preface 5. TNDC - Preface 6. WWAY - Preface 7. GMWD - Preface 8. OMSW 124 - many, many times... today Hardly anyone even knows about #1. Most grads think that #2 only applies to leading us into tongues, but the context contains two words which dash that hypothesis to pieces. For #3 I've spent hours debating with posters who want this passage to say the opposite of what it does. Two of Dr's editors agree with me, though, that #3 is a very significant claim. The prefaces are hardly ever read by anyone, and some have even claimed that we should EXPECT to find no teaching in them. Lastly, #8 has hardly ever been seen by grads. So, I'm almost ten percent done with my list. Until others come back posting here, or until this thread dies due to the planned software changeover, I'll continue with this list, just hoping that someone is reading it. *** Entry #9 can be seen at the end of RHST's Introduction, where Dr claims Jesus Christ appointed him a spokesman. It's in the italic print. Entry #10 can be seen in RHST's "Introduction to the Appendices" way in the back of the book. Can anyone see the TWO "Thus saith the Lord" statements that appear in this one short set of paragraphs? ===================================================== Posted August 15, 2005 12:20 "Thus saith the Lord" statement #12 Here is one that I think is real special. This one is in the Preface (where else?) to "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today" page x in the 7th edition. There we read: "If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God’s best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book. It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted and comforted." *** Let's look at this paragraph closely, sentence by sentence. I'm stunned, even now after seeing it many times in the past. There's so much in here. "If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book." This exhortation applies to us now as much as it did back then. We were often told by Dr to master the class materials. This is just one more place. Here he used the word "study" which is used in II Timothy 2:15, our point of departure (pfal p.115). "Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God’s best." This encouragement applies to us now MORE than it did back then. Connecting this sentence with the previous one leads to two possible understandings: either "this book" IS God's best, or/and "this book" is instrumental to receiving "God's best." Looks like both are true to me. "If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book." There it is again: This book is God's answer to the how of the power, just like the above sentence. God's answer is God's Word. God's Word is the power of God. Twice establishes it. We may find our answer while reading "this book." Or how about MASTERING it? "It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted and comforted." WOW!!! That's what prophecy does! This book, RHST, is prophecy! Hey! I didn't write the book! It's been sitting there all that time, unnoticed. Think how many other treasures await us, hidden there by God. ===================================================== Posted August 16, 2005 1:48 Let's go back to "Thus saith" #3, PFAL page 83, for a moment. Often I posted on this page, and often others tried to deny it outright. After many rounds, I evolved a concise way of putting it all. 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. 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. The other was a long time editor of the magazine. ===================================================== Posted August 16, 2005 12:42 "Thus saith the Lord" statements #10 and #11 Way in the back of in the book "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" can be found an isolated "hidden" set of passages that, when I first came upon them a few years ago, the only thing I could think was "What is this doing all the way back HERE?" I could remember seeing it many years prior, in my first reading, but in those days EVERYTHING seemed so cosmic and amazing that it blended into the background in no time. But lately, when I came back to PFAL, this set of paragraphs totally astounded me in how oddly they seemed to be hidden in the back of the book. If you were specially attentive, you might have noticed that in the middle of "How the Word Works" Dr hints to us that doing word studies in the PFAL writings would be a useful thing to do. I don't mean normal word studies with the KV and a concordance. That would be a "Bible" word study. I mean a PFAL word study: looking at previous usages (in PFAL, not in the Bible) of a word for deeper meaning. For me to track down "Masters of the Word" to see Dr's previous usage of the word "master" and thus better understand his use of that word in his final instructions to us is an example of a PFAL word study, only partially completed. Dr will again hint to the profit of doing PFAL word studies in this set of paragraphs tucked away in the back of RHST. Watch close for the word studies issue to come up in the middle of all this, because there is a lot of action here. *** Let's look at the "Introduction to Appendixes" in RHST to see these TWO ways that Dr says, in essence, "Thus saith the Lord." One point to keep in consideration is that the first such appendix, right on the next pages, is titled "The Word Receive" and is on dechomai and lombano. First I'll reprint the entire passage before I work on a line by line commentary. This is From "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" page 223 in the 7th edition 1982 (p.257 6th ed. 1972). Hold on to your hats, this gets intense: "If we believe that throughout the Scriptures we have the words of God and not man, many difficulties will disappear. We must allow the Divine Author the rights and privileges claimed and operated by every human author -- that He may quote, adapt, or repeat in varied forms His own previously written or spoken words. God could have used other forms had He chosen to do so, but it has pleased Him to repeat His own word or words, introducing them in different contexts, with new applications and connotations. Thus it obligates us to study the context, the paragraph, and the section where the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see it is used in a different sense or not. "The greatest satisfaction of any Biblical scholar is to fathom what can be searched out from God's Word and to quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out. "Ephesians 3:8 - anexichniastos -- unsearchable, untraceable, cannot be explored or found out. "Romans 11:33 uses this same word translated 'past finding out.' "Romans 11:33 - anexerunetos - translated 'un-searchable' simply means inscrutable or incomprehensible, that which can be apprehended but not comprehended. "These appendixes have been added to this volume for those who desire to search out and explore the deeper reason for the way in which God has set truth in perfect order in His Word." I noted above that often we seem to be finding things that were hidden in Dr's books, and that this is a prime example, being tucked away in the very back of the Holy Spirit Book. Interestingly, the very topic of this passage centers on the hidden element in God's Word. Also above, I made brief mention that the first appendix following this introduction deals with dechomai and lombano. In PFAL'77 (and I think also in the Advanced Class) Dr explained how God started revealing to him the teaching on dechomai and lombano. Dr was reading a text that was open to a place that had both dechomai and lombano on the same page. God made the printed letters of those two words stand out high above all the other words on the page to get Dr's attention. God used many means to deliver His Word to Dr "like it has not been known since the first century." God gave Dr revelation as to WHO's other research he should spend any time on, checking it out, and who's research should be avoided altogether. God also gave him revelation as to WHICH PARTS of an other researcher's material was to be accepted by Dr, and which to reject, and God's ownership of these revelations superceded all human copyright questions. God gave Dr phenomena like the heightened block letters of dechomai and lombano. And God gave Dr what he often described as a spiritual awareness. You know, the stuff we THINK we have at times too. In this "Introduction to the Appendixes" of the Holy Spirit book, Dr points out that a person can get some facts from 5-senses tracking, but some truths can ONLY come by direct revelation. What he's really getting to, and introducing here is the Appendix on dechomai and lombano and the revelations God gave him on that subject. *** Now let's examine the opening lines closely. "If we believe that throughout the Scriptures we have the words of God and not man, many difficulties will disappear." This is just as true with Dr's books as with the ancient scriptures. In fact, it's MORE true with Dr's books, because we don't really HAVE original scriptures to work with, just mis-copies, translations, and versions. At best we only have man's translations, or versions like the KJV. If we had believed that Dr's books were of God, we would have obeyed his final instructions to master them, and the ministry would have straightened out, instead careening into the big meltdown. But we did NOT do this and as a result many difficulties appeared. I believe as we return to a meek receiving of the PFAL books "MANY DIFFICULTIES WILL DISAPPEAR." "We must allow the Divine Author the rights and privileges claimed and operated by every human author -- that He may quote, adapt, or repeat in varied forms His own previously written or spoken words. God could have used other forms had He chosen to do so, but it has pleased Him to repeat His own word or words, introducing them in different con-texts, with new applications and connotations." How many traditionalists want to confine God to the KJV or some other version, and forbid Him to re-issue, improve the surviving remnants, and further clarify to our culture HIS OWN original words? Many to most is the answer. Many to most people DO FORBID God these options. That's why we have "many difficulties." As a body we pretty much have all forbidden God the above liberties we would easily grant any human author. Tradition hates to admit the above. Tradition is a prison. The above sentences are talking about Dr's books, NOT the ancient scriptures and their derivatives. How do I know that? Next sentences (WITH MY CAPS): "Thus it obligates us to study the context, the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION where the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see it is used in a different sense or not." How many of people have Bible versions that are organized into paragraphs and sections? Not too many. How about none? Traditional Bibles are organized into books, chapters, and verses. Look in the table of contents of your Holy Spirit book. It's organized into chapters and SECTIONS and, or course, PARAGRAPHS. How many times have you ever heard anybody refer to a "paragraph" or a "section" in the Bible? These words are primarily talking about the very book they appear in, "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today." Can they also apply to a Bible version? Yes, as long as it's rightly divided via the PFAL guidance that started in 1942. These words can also apply to the other PFAL collateral books which are organized into "parts." This passage mentioning "PARAGRAPH" and "SECTION" are telling us that doing word studies within this very book, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today," is a worth while thing to do. This is hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #10. The phrase "...the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see it is used in a different sense or not." refers to the process of doing a word study. *** Next lines: "The greatest satisfaction of any Biblical scholar is to fathom what can be searched out from God's Word and to quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out." How many people can find a passage in the Bible that talks about "free will"? What Dr taught us about "free will" and "foreknowledge" and many other subjects cannot be easily traced in the Bible. Dr got those things by revelation, not by tracking them in the Bible. There are many other items like this that I may someday write a post about, but here I will mention one more untrackable item. It's about what is coming in the NEXT two pages in the Holy Spirit book. The passage we're examining is the "Introduction to the Appendixes" and two pages later is Appendix I "The word Receive" on dechomai and lombano. Several paragraphs above I mentioned a little of how Dr got what he got on dechomai and lombano. He did not track down all of this information via his 5-senses; he got some by revelation. This information can't be totally figured out by scholars or by 5-senses methods. Scholars who are meek can read this book on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" and then they can "quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out." We can quietly accept the PFAL revelations on dechomai and lombano because they are from God. This is hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #11. *** "These appendixes have been added to this volume for those who desire to search out and explore the deeper reason for the way in which God has set truth in perfect order in His Word." We desire this deeper, spiritual understanding of God's Word. A 5-senses understanding is too limited to defeat the adversary, who has run the 5-senses realm for many centuries. By meekly searching out and systematically mastering the treasure God has provided in English for us in PFAL we will see "many difficulties disappear." We have the pure Word of God. ===================================================== Posted August 17, 2005 2:44 Here's the latest tally: 1. TNDC p.34 - every word true 2. TNDC p.116 - not VPW but Holy Spirit 3. PFAL p.83 - God-breathed... necessarily 4. BTMS - Preface 5. TNDC - Preface 6. WWAY - Preface 7. GMWD - Preface 8. OMSW p.124 - many, many times... today 9. JCNG Introduction p.9 - spokesman 10. RHST Introduction to Appendixes - trackable 11. RHST Introduction to Appendixes - untrackable 12. RHST Preface p.x prophecy ===================================================== Posted August 17, 2005 13:44 "Thus saith the Lord" statement #13 - fact On page 3 of this thread (July 24, 2005 15:39 PST) I mentioned a "thus saith" but it was never assigned a number. Here's a repeat of what I posted there. In the Sept/Oct 1983 Way Magazine Dr's article focuses on a short list of vocabulary words that need to be sharply understood. The list of words he handles in that article is: religion, Christianity, fact, truth, faith, believing, formed, made, created, body, soul, and spirit. The title of the article is "The Importance of Words in God's Word." The words "fact" and "Christianity" do NOT appear in the Young's Concordance or in the KJV, but they DO occur in the PFAL writings... a lot. This again is pretty subtle. ===================================================== Posted August 17, 2005 16:45 This next "thus saith" statement has already appeared in this thread, but I purposely avoided distracting myself by pointing it out. I'd like to know if anyone saw this already. If not, we can consider it a little hidden, can we not? This is the text from the last Session of the class, just before we were led into tongues. This time I'll bold font only that section for this statement #14 *** In that segment 66 of the '67 film class Dr says: "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." *** So this statement #14 is right in there with #2. We all heard it a maximum number of times. ===================================================== Posted August 17, 2005 17:09 "Thus saith the Lord" statement #15 Interestingly enough, the preceeding use of I Thess 2:13 in the film class was the THIRD such usage. Dr had already introduced the class to this verse and Paul's authoritative teaching being "like" his own God-given authority. Here's the first such occurrence of I Thess 2:13 in the film class. This is segment 11: "You see very few of us have gone back to the Word, we have gone back to men. And we have said well what did Kant say, what did Plato say, what did Aristotle say, what did this theologian say, what did this man say, what did this other person say? Class, back to the Word! The Word and nothing but the Word! For it's this Word which is the Will of God! That's right, bless your heart. "Look at I Thessalonians, I Thessalonians chapter two; Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians; the same trouble tonight I had before, this India paper is just a little to thin to find all these scriptures so quickly; but they're in here. I Thessalonians 2:13 listen to this: 'For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us,...' "You see they received the Word of God which they heard of Paul it was Paul's vocabulary but what he was speaking was God's Word. But to the senses ears the people could have said, "well that's Paul talking, that's just Paul, yeah that's just Paul." Like they say, "oh, that's just Dr. Wierwille, yeah..." I've heard that, no, no, no. ..thank we God without ceasing, because, 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, which effectually [which effectually] worketh also in you that [do one thing--go to church every Sunday morning, sit in the front pew and shout glory hallelujah, believe in all the social action programs; no a thousand times no. Works effectually in those who do one thing. What?] believe [believe]. That is "Thus saith the Lord" statement #15 ===================================================== Posted August 17, 2005 17:14 This next occurrence of I Thess 2:13 is longer, more spread out, and more subtle. It's in in segment 13, near the end: "Let me show you something from I Thessalonians two thirteen, listen to this: I Thessalonians 2:13: 'For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, 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, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.' "You know, you may have the Word of God, you may know the Word of God but it does not work effectually in people. It does not work effectively with power until we do one thing. Believe. You believe that Word and lo and behold you speak that Word and it produces the same results today that it has produced at any time in the history of civilization since that Word has been given. "You know, the Bible says that we are to abide in the Word. We are to abide in the Word and we're to let this Word abide in you. To the end that we abide in the Word this Word takes the Master's place in our lives through our renewed mind and then it becomes our vocabulary but it is God's Word. We speak, this is our vocabulary, we speak the Word but as we speak the Word it is God's Word. 'I thank my God that when ye received the Word which ye heard of us ye received it not as the word of man,' sounds like it, 'but as the Word of God which worketh effectually in those that believe.' "This Word of God cannot be broken, that's right. Just cannot be broken, not one iota of it can be broken, for what God promised He is not only able but willing to perform and that whole Word fits like a hand in a glove. "You see it is this Word of God that really thrills a man. In Luke chapter twenty-four. Matthew, Mark, Luke, let me just check this with you. Luke twenty-four listen to verse thirty-two:Luke 24:32: 'And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?' "This was speaking about Jesus on the road to Emmaus after the ressurection as he spoke to these men. He opened unto them the scriptures. You see how their hearts thrilled, how their hearts burned within them because he opened to them the scriptures. "I've never seen a man or a woman or a boy or a girl in these classes on Power for Abundant Living whose soul just has not thrilled with an effervescence and with an abundance and with a glow when this Word of God started to unfold, started to fit like a hand in a glove. It made sense and how their hearts burned within them. How they thrilled at the greatness of God's Word!" *** That was "Thus saith the Lord" statements #16. Seen alone, this one is extremely subtle. Seen with the other two, this one glows! *** Since I'm doing Dr's "Thus saith the Lord" statements, why not include his accounts of the 1942 promise. Here is one such account from that piece titled "Light Began to Dawn" which Ana Fontana posted in an earlier thread. Actually, that's not it's original title, as this was taken from within the announcements on an old SNS tape #214, from October 17, 1965. ===================================================== Posted August 20, 2005 11:58 "Thus saith the Lord" statement #17 ... "And so, all of this stuff began to build. And so finally, as I kept praying, I just said to the Father, I said 'Father, teach me the Word––teach me the Word.' And one night, something happened, which to me is the greatest thing I don’t––I see only one experience that perhaps is greater than this in the Bible, and that’s the Apostle Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus. Outside of that, I see nothing in the Word that equals how 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.' And of course at that time I thought, 'Now that’s a dandy!' 'Boy, if I learned this Word of God, everybody’ll listen to me, the whole church will be blessed. My denomination will grow by leaps and bounds because we’ll have the Word of God.' "And I thought that was terrific! But during the process of that revelation––and I can’t tell it all to you because we’re already closing off; but during the process of it, I said: 'Father, how will I know that this is You and that You’ll really teach it to me?' Because I had worked the Word in commentaries and the rest of it and I couldn’t understand it––couldn’t get it to fit. It happened to be bright sunshine like today––like it’s been today and yesterday––what we people refer to, I guess as 'Indian Summer'––beautiful day. And the sun was shining brightly; it was in the Fall of the year––gorgeous! And there wasn’t a cloud in the sky. And just on the inside of me it seemed to say, 'Well, just say to the Father, Well, if––if it’ll just snow––right now, you’ll just know that this is God talking to you.' But, you see I’d never had much experience with God talking to me, and this business of He saying to me, just as audibly as I’m speaking to you, that He’d teach me the Word if I’d teach it, sort of shook me. "I’d been expecting to hear from heaven for a long time, but I hadn’t heard that way before, you know. Ah, my ears were perhaps clogged up, since that time I’ve heard a lot of things––from Him. But, then I said, 'Lord, if this is really true, I’d like to see it snow.' And I opened my eyes––must not have been over three seconds, and I was sitting in front of the window looking East, the sun was––ah, West. The sun was in the West and there wasn’t a cloud in the sky ‘cause I could see the whole area. I closed my eyes when God said to me that He would teach me the Word if I’d teach it. And I said, 'Lord, to know that this is true, I’d like to see it snow.' And I opened my eyes and it was pitch––almost pitch black outside and the snow was falling so thick, I have never seen it fall that thick since that day. And I sat in that little office and I cried like a baby, because I guess it was about my time to cry, because I’d grown up but didn’t know the Word. "And from that day on and He’d promised to teach me the Word, I have tried with all my heart, from time to time––all along, to learn this Word. One of the reasons there are sections of the Word perhaps that I––I don’t know, because I do too much cement pouring and a few other items that have to be done and that have to be taken care of. But I am absolutely confident that there is no portion of God’s Word that God would not teach me and unfold to me if I studied the Word to show myself approved unto Him by rightly dividing it. "And that began the ministry that has cost me, sense-knowledge, more than anybody will ever realize––except those of us who’ve gone through it. It gives ya’ a whole set of new friends. It caused people, heads of my denomination, through various times when I appeared teaching, like in India, even to write letters against me that I was not a member of the denomination at all––and I’d been born in the lousy place. Isn’t that something? And I have them on file––have them in my files, you ought to see ‘em, I got a sheet this big. "These are prices you pay. Then you say, well, why don’t I reciprocate? Because, people, you can’t fight and work the Word too. You can’t be fighting all the time and trying to defend yourself against the unbelievers, because the unbelievers are many more than the believers. And we’ve got only one job to do, as far as my life is concerned, and that is to teach the Word. Whether anybody believes it or not, that’s not my responsibility. But to teach it is my responsibility, because He said He’d teach me the Word if I would do one thing––teach it. "Now in order to teach it, I have to study the Word; and when I study it, He shows it to me, then I can teach it." ===================================================== Posted August 20, 2005 12:42 "Thus saith the Lord" statement #18 About 6 years later, Dr again explained his 1942 experience to Elena Whiteside and she quoted him in her book "The Way - Living in Love." The following is from pages 178-181 *** "Then Rosalind left. It was the fall of the year. Kids were back in school already. It must have been September. I was sitting in my office, an old dentist's office just around the corner from the church where I served — I'll show you that too when we get there. I bet you it's still there, though I haven't been back here since I left. "I was praying. And I told Father that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. "And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others. "Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me." He shakes his head slowly smiling. "It's just too fantastic. People won't believe it. But He spoke to me just as plainly as I'm talking now to you. "But really, why is it so strange? When you think about it, you see in the Bible that all through the ages God talked to people. God talked to Moses, to all the prophets. God talked to Paul. All through the centuries, God has talked to people in times of great need. And that's what we have today — a terrific need. People are just so far from hearing and believing the Word of God. "You don't get it in the theological schools. The Word is buried, just like it was in the time of Jeremiah. Oh, they had their priests, their higher echelons, their temples, their rituals. It all looked so religious, you know. But the Word of God was buried. Oh, they were teaching the people something -- they called it the Word of God maybe, but the Word was buried. God spoke directly to Jeremiah. "The Word is buried today. If there's no one around to teach it, God has to teach it Himself. You see, I am a product of my times. God knew me before the foundations of the world, just like He knew you and everyone else. We were all in God's foreknowledge from the beginnings. "God knew I would believe His Word. And every day I am more and more deeply convinced of this ministry which teaches people the accuracy and integrity of God's Word. Without this ministry the world would be in far greater spiritual darkness about His Word. There would be less light in the world. Where else but in this ministry do you find the Word of God so living and real? This is truly a time of terrific need." Doctor nods his head abruptly, as if to punctuate his urgency. "Well, I couldn't believe that God talked to me right then. You see, God's right here. He always has been here. He is still here. And God is willing and able to reveal everything to anyone or everyone. But we are just unable to receive it. We don’t believe it. It's like, you can't pour a gallon of water in a teacup. It's just not big enough to receive it, take it all in. You have to make the cup bigger first. You build up the container, and then you fill it little by little. He fills us a little bit at a time as we can take it. He knows how much we can take because God knows everything. God doesn't waste His revelation on people who cannot believe it. "Paul had to be tremendously built up to believe —receive — the mystery that had been hidden since before the foundations of the world. John, too, had to be built up to receive the revelation set forth in the book of Revelation. It's taken many years and a lot of trips and searching to build my believing to this point also. But God knows our hearts. "Well, on the day God spoke to me, I couldn't believe it. But then I came to the point by the next day where I said to myself — maybe it's true. So the next day I talked to God again. I said, 'Lord, if it's really true what you said to me yesterday, if that was really you talking to me, you've got to give me a sign so that I really know, so that I can believe.' "The sky was crystal blue and clear. Not a cloud in sight. It was a beautiful early autumn day. I said, 'If that was really you, and you meant what you said, give me a sign. Let me see it snow.’ My eyes were tightly shut as I prayed. And then I opened them. "The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling station on the corner not 75 feet away." Doctor relates this phenomenon in a joyous voice. The car swerves off the highway, onto a narrow black-top road, and the sign with the arrow reads: "Payne, 2 miles." The overcast sky turns restlessly over our heads, and the sparse sprinkling of snowflakes thickens on the windshield. Doctor laughs aloud. "It reminds me of that day in 1942. It reminds me of that other time it snowed." We pull into a sleepy, small midwestern town. Around two corners, we're by a one-story building, the front of which is a many-paned display window. "That's the old dentist's office that was my office," Doctor remarks. By now, the snow is swirling around us. At the corner stands the Marathon Gas Station. Doctor shakes his head from side to side. His face breaks into a ready smile. His eyes are blue, laughing or crying. "It reminds me of the day..." he trails off. "That's where I was sitting when I prayed to God to teach me the Word and show me how. And when I opened my eyes, it was snowing so hard I couldn't see those gas pumps right there." He points to the pumps a dozen yards or more from the window. A car has just pulled in. The dentist's office is deserted now, empty through the window." ===================================================== Posted August 20, 2005 12:49 Here's the latest tally: 1. TNDC p.34 - every word true 2. TNDC p.116 - not VPW but Holy Spirit 3. PFAL p.83 - God-breathed... necessarily 4. BTMS - Preface 5. TNDC - Preface 6. WWAY - Preface 7. GMWD - Preface 8. OMSW p.124 - many, many times... today 9. JCNG Introduction p.9 - spokesman 10. RHST Introduction to Appendixes - trackable 11. RHST Introduction to Appendixes - untrackable 12. RHST Preface p.x prophecy 13. Magazine Sept/Oct 1983 - fact 14. 1967 Film Class - seg. 66 I Thess 2:13 15. 1967 Film Class - seg. 11 I Thess 2:13 16. 1967 Film Class - seg. 13 I Thess 2:13 17. Light Began to Dawn - SNS tape #214 18. "The Way - Living in Love" - pps. 178-181 ===================================================== Posted August 20, 2005 13:22 In the 1979 Advanced Class, Segment #5, Dr says the following: "I have set for our people, and it’s set in the book on 'Receiving the Holy Spirit Today,' and people, when you reach the Advanced Class, you ought to be able almost to quote this line for line. You should have mastered this book by the time you get to the Advanced Class. If you haven’t, you better get busy and do it - work it to where you understand the Word of God in every facet, in every way of it’s utilization regarding the holy spirit field - all of them, you must know this book, in and out. But I’ve discovered as I’ve worked among my people, and even all the grads of the Advanced Class, there still are areas where we got to push ourselves." This urging to the AC students was some 6 years prior to Dr's final instructions to us, yet has some striking similarities. In this 1979 statement he says outright that NONE of the top leadership (all AC grads) had done what they (we) needed to do. In 1985 he says, specially addressing top leadership, that there was a lot of the wrong kind of mastering going on, and none of the right kind. That Dr would, in 1979, demand such rigorous RHST mastery of all his AC students can only mean that he thought such a book was WORTH mastering, and that it was NECESSARY to master if the Word of God was to be known. Such a worthy book could only come from God. That's why I count this !979 AC segment #5 as "Thus saith the Lord" statement #19. *** The same thing holds for Dr's set of final instructions in 1985. Books we were told to master had to be worthy of such mastery, and had to be of God. "Thus saith the Lord" statement #20 is "The Joy of Serving" Dr's Last/Lost Teaching ===================================================== Posted August 20, 2005 13:25 Here's the latest tally: 1. TNDC p.34 - every word true 2. TNDC p.116 - not VPW but Holy Spirit 3. PFAL p.83 - God-breathed... necessarily 4. BTMS - Preface 5. TNDC - Preface 6. WWAY - Preface 7. GMWD - Preface 8. OMSW p.124 - many, many times... today 9. JCNG Introduction p.9 - spokesman 10. RHST Introduction to Appendixes - trackable 11. RHST Introduction to Appendixes - untrackable 12. RHST Preface p.x prophecy 13. Magazine Sept/Oct 1983 - fact 14. 1967 Film Class - seg. 66 I Thess 2:13 15. 1967 Film Class - seg. 11 I Thess 2:13 16. 1967 Film Class - seg. 13 I Thess 2:13 17. Light Began to Dawn - SNS tape #214 18. "The Way - Living in Love" - pps. 178-181 19. 1979 AC Segment #5 - master RHST 20. "The Joy of Serving" - master written PFAL ===================================================== Posted August 22, 2005 2:31 "Thus saith the Lord" Statement #21 Reconstructing past events is no where near as accurate as printed records or tapes, but some things can be brought out by memory and partial print/tape records, especially if it's multiple witness testimony. An interesting example of such a reconstruction came to me by e-mail. Several years ago I posted a small announcement on the http://www.eph320.com website about finding Dr's last teaching,"The Joy of Serving." It was posted there for about a year and I received about 40 inquiries, which then led to many other contacts. In this way (and others) I conducted an informal poll where the results showed that a staggering 99% of all non-Corps grads were completely unaware of Dr's last teaching. Nearly all of the respondents to the "eph320" announcement were unaware of this last teaching so I sent them copies. Like in my posting here, I also offered them other e-documents of VPW's material. A number of these people developed into pen pals over time. Reproduced below is a letter I received from one such person regarding Dr's last teaching at Emporia. Your going to see a pattern developing. Dear Mike, Yes, we certainly would like more. Hey! My name is MB. I used to be MS and I was in the 15th Corps. I was wondering if you were in the Corps too or if by chance I might have met you? I just wanted you to know I certainly did enjoy reading "The Joy of Service" again. The year that Dr. Wierwille died, I was in residence at the Way College of Emporia. I will never forget the last 10:30 Fellowship we had with him up in the Ambassador Room. He said, Kids, the Word is not going to go over the world unless you and I take the collaterals and master them to the point you can teach them at the drop of a hat to someone you happen to run into. He said, Its not in how many classes you run, its in how much of The Word of God you know and are able to teach on the spur of the moment. He said, You've got to master it. And what I mean by mastering it is you don't turn to the next page until you completely understand and have committed to memory the first. I have never forgotten those words and have shared them many times with believers that I know and with our fellowship that W and I ran for 9 years before we moved to XY. So it really blessed me to read your e-mail and see that someone else really caught on to the greatness of what Dr. was saying. God is great. We love you our brother and we will be anticipating more. God Bless You, MB I keep in mind that this "record" of Dr's at Emporia is anecdotal, from an attendee's memory, and not a tape or published transcript. However, stacked with the accumulating mountain of hard evidence, this soft evidence can be appreciated since it fits well with that mountain. It in no way contradicts it, and adds more supporting data. I feel confident in placing this in the category of secondary confirmation of the theme that Dr wanted us to master the PFAL books, and NOT merely some of the principles in them. We aren't qualified to say what ALL those principles ARE until we've finished mastering everything. Just to enrich your appreciation of these Emporia words, let's look again at these near-quotes of Dr: 1. Kids, the Word is not going to go over the world unless you and I take the collaterals and master them to the point you can teach them at the drop of a hat to someone you happen to run into. 2. Its not in how many classes you run, its in how much of The Word of God you know and are able to teach on the spur of the moment. 3. You've got to master it. And what I mean by mastering it is you don't turn to the next page until you completely understand and have committed to memory the first. In the first paragraph (1) he instructs us to master the collaterals ...................to the degree of total impromptu teaching adeptness. In the second paragraph (2) he instructs us to know "The Word of God" ...................to the degree of total impromptu teaching adeptness. Does this seem to imply something? Did Dr say by implication that the collaterals are or reveal or give us The Word of God here? It would seem, to a casual observer, that he was talking in paragraph (2) about KJV Bible mastery. Then similarly paragraph (3) would also refer to traditional Bible mastery, BUT that would be an impossible task. However, if he was talking about the collaterals in all three paragraphs, then it's a totally do-able mastery task for us all, and everything fits consistently here, as well as with the other hard evidence we have. The collaterals CAN mastered. That's not an impossible task at all. Mastering the KJV/etc is not humanly possible. Just "Figures of Speech" can fully occupy a full-time scholar's entire life span. If at Emporia Dr meant collaterals in paragraphs (3) and (2) then this last Emporia address would then be in complete harmony with "The Joy of Serving" where collateral mastery is explicitly mentioned. From that 1979 Advanced Class quote I posted, until his death in 1985, Dr explicitly hammered away at our need to master the collaterals. I understand now why he did this, after having worked on this mastery for over 7 years now. There's lots of surprises hidden in them. Lots of confirmation that it's the right track back to what we used to have, and more. Lots of apparent contradictions in the get cleared up as we go. *** And now, just for further insight, let's compare these Emporia paragraphs with the "Masters of the Word" that I posted earlier and discussed in detail. There are several sentences in "Masters of the Word" that I'd like to point out. These sentences of Dr's are: 1. We can only recondition ourselves to this as we ourselves become masters of the Word. 2. And if you want to know about the head of the Body, you've got to go to God's Word and read it. 3. This is why we have to be masters of the Word, we have to gain a knowledge of God, and we have to get our minds at peace with the Word so that our minds are no longer warring against it. 4. You've got to get to that point that you quit disputing with God's Word; just start believing it and then master it. 5. We just have to master the Word and let the Word have mastery in our lives. 6. Mastery of God's Word is not just my pleasure and responsibility because I am a preacher or a teacher. It is as much yours as it is mine... 7. Let's become masters of God's Word and let it reign supreme in our lives. We see that in all of these sentences from that article, whenever Dr refers to God's Word he doesn't mean the KJV, he means the collaterals. The KJV is for beginners, but not for mastery. We have something much better in them and straight from God. I count Dr's last Emporia teaching as "Thus saith the Lord" number twenty-one. ===================================================== Posted August 22, 2005 3:15 I had turned of my computer and was all ready for bed when the urge to post one more "thus saith" hit me strong. Here goes. Earlier on this thread I posted my analysis of "Masters of the Word" in conjunction with "How the Word Works." In that Part 4 (of 4) post I quoted from OMSW where hundreds of miners had daily walked over top of a huge vein of silver ore as they trudged off to mine relatively much smaller areas. I compared these miners with us grads as we "mined" our KJVs while right under our noses God was re-issuing His Word in modern English for us to see Him bigger than ever before. This was on pages 23 and 24 of OMSW. On page 26 of OMSW there is an interesting passage for our inspection. There we read (with my bold fonts): "Blind chance was not the author of life. Explore the mineral kingdom; explore the animal kingdom; explore the vegetable kingdom. From the lowest to the highest, there are marks that specifically call our attention to the superbly conceived reality of that which we observe. Some great design, some great intelligence confronts us everywhere we look in the realm of creation. We can always see an intelligent purpose behind this realm, which was brought about by some type of consistent power. "Take a microscope, even a low-powered one. Focus under its lens an eyeglass, for example. You would see some imperfections in the glass, although perhaps only a few. Next, focus a high-powered microscope on the same eyeglass. You will find that the more high-powered the microscope, the greater the imperfections that will be seen in the glass. There are imperfections in anything man-made. "This example of the eyeglass demonstrates a principle. The more high-powered the microscope used to observe the works of man the more imperfect the object appears. On the other hand, the more high-powered the microscope used to look upon something that God formed or made, the more perfect and orderly it appears. The closer the scrutiny of God’s Word, the more obvious become its beauty and perfection. It is only a man who uses a poor microscope who never sees the greatness of God’s Word. He does not observe it to see its perfection." Now here we have an interesting situation. In Dr's last years and months, when this book, "Order My Steps in Thy Word," was being written he was also challenging grads left and right to master the collaterals. Do you get it? In those final months of Dr's life this book is released. There he writes that a microscope will reveal imperfections in man's work, but great beauty, perfection, and intelligent design in God's Word. He was telling us to look MUCH closer at PFAL, like with a microscope, to see its great beauty, perfection, and intelligent design... that it is the Word of God. I count this as "Thus saith the Lord" statement #22.
  15. Who made you a judge? The Word of God says we are to to examine ourselves - not examine someone else if we are in "the faith" or not. Prove your own selves - that is the Word of God. 2 Corinthians 13:5 James 4:11-12 11. Speak not evil one of another, brethern. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law: [i.e. - the Word of God] and judgeth the law: but if you judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. 12. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and destroy; who art thou that judgest another? Or do you deny the simplicity of what is written there in James 4? It appears to me the people who complain the most about PFAL are those turn PFAL into a spectator sport - i.e. a thesis. Essentially that is all PFAL is for most people - just another thesis. (The saying goes, it's no better or worse than anybody else's thesis - theology, etc.) Although I may not agree with all of Mike's conclusion's, I'm not totally against Mike's approach to PFAL. HIS APPROACH MAY WORK FOR HIM, BUT HIS APPROACH TO PFAL MIGHT NOT WORK FOR ME OR FOR ANYBODY ELSE. If Mike has proven anything so far - it is this: To master PFAL one must adapt a larger and wider viewpoint of PFAL; rather than the narrow, dogmatic view of the Jedi. ehh... PFAL critics.
  16. Although Mike had made mention of you in that particular post (not really sure why) I believe the battle he was referring to was an earlier issue between Raf and me - not necessarily with you.
  17. On this point I can concur with you Mike. A single detail can make all the difference between truth and error - between the genuine and the counterfeit. To make the point of drifting fast and far from the fine details in PFAL even clearer, it was previously stated there is no difference between The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven and that they were synonymous. The exact quote was written in an earlier post: One is never given the "details" on how VPW came to that conclusion, mainly because the "critic" didn't master the material themselves. (That is not their purpose and it never will be. But they always seem to want you to believe they are a master on something they never bother with mastering themselves.) To see the "finer details" one must refer back to what was actually written in TNDC. [My own comments are bracketed.] From TNDC - Chapter 1. Ekklesia, Bride or Body? [starting on p.6]"Before we go further, it is necessary to clarify the difference between the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God has no beginning and no ending. The Kingdom of God spans all existance. However [here is the detail that was neglected and never mentioned] under this all-expansive Kingdom of God are several periods, one of which is the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven period is for the called-out of Israel, the church of Israel, which is the bride of Christ. Each time the Kingdom of Heaven is referred to, the personal presence of the King Himself upon earth is designated. [This is not necessarily true when the bible refers to the Kingdom of God however - that the King (Jesus) upon earth is also designated.] The word "kingdom" is made up of two words: king and dom meaning "reign or supremacy." There cannot be a kingdom without a king. Great Britain can speak of itself as a kingdom because of the reign of a king or queen. Citizens of the United States of America cannot speak of their land as a kingdom for there is no monarch. While Jesus Christ was on earth, it was His reign. During His reign He called out those people of Israel who believed in Him as the Messiah. Not only did Jesus Himself minister to the people of Israel, but He also sent the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He told them not to go unto the Gentiles because Jesus had come unto God's own, Israel, and called out from Israel those who were to make up the bride. Jesus Christ was the Bridegroom. The church, the called-out of Israel, was called the bride while the Bridegroom was on the earth. But what happened to the Bridegroom? He was nailed to the cross. When the King of the Kingdom was crucified, the church as the bride was interrupted because the Bridegroom was dead. As previously noted, God promised that there would be no end to the Kingdom of Heaven, but man killed the King.* [The * points to this footnote: Luke 1:33 "And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."] What happened to God's promise? God promised that when the King came He would build the church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. But the when the King was crucified, the Bridegroom was dead, and it appeared that the Kingdom had been defeated. However, this is not so, for the church of the bride is yet to be fulfilled in the future. The same church referred to in Revelation is again the church of the bride, just as it ws in the Gospels.* [This * points to the footnote: The church described and spoken of in the book of Revelation has nothing to do with our time and our administration.]" I have cited a fairly lengthy passage from TNDC for a specific purpose. It proves VPW went to great lengths and into great detail in PFAL - details many PFAL grads tend to "gloss over" and completely miss. The reason I cited this passage is to prove these details were not just there to establish the difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, but they are also used to establish the difference between the church of the bride and the church of the body. When you read the rest of this chapter you will come away with the conclusion the church of the bride and the church of the body are no more synonomous with one another than are the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Whether you agree with VPW's conclusion or not is not really the issue. But if one is going to make it a point to refute what was written in PFAL, one would think one should make it a point to know what was actually written there in PFAL to begin with.
  18. The idea that someone must know PFAL inside and out to point out an actual error is ludicrous. Anything man produces will have errors in it. Some of the pages in the PFAL collaterals are printed crooked, and in some instances I found cases where a word has been repeated repeated in the text. (I purposely typed repeated twice). The point is, how far does one want to go in pointing out errors - are they errors that even matter? I don't know the first thing about filmmaking, but I know that Ed Wood was lousy at it. I could make some comments about filmaking here, but will decidedly hold my tongue for now. I don't know everything about PFAL, but I know there are errors in it. So do I, but the crookedly printed pages, the repeated words and whatever other errors people want to debate about haven't distracted me from the Christian gospel.
  19. If you are claiming PFAL mastery="idolatrous pigswill" then re-read the last line of my previous post. I just stated:
  20. Raf say's: Mike's posts="idolatrous pigswill" Mike's posts say: Master PFAL. Out of consequece Raf is therefore saying: PFAL="idolatrous pigswill". Coming from someone pre-occupied with errors in PFAL, no one has to understand English to comprehend what your position is. I may not agree with all of Mike's conclusions regarding PFAL, but I certainly have no misunderstanding exactly what Mike's position on PFAL is. I really can't say the same for you, as you have started threads on the errors in PFAL but now have the audacity to claim you never called PFAL "idolatrous pigswill". Matthew 12:33 You have to master the material yourself first before you can convince others you can speak authoritatively about it. At least I'm convinced Mike has done that much or attempting to do that much. His mastery of it (or your mastery of it) however is completely another subject.
  21. You would also be refering to that pigswill of work VPW supposedly plagarized from - heh?
  22. One would think with all the "PFAL mastery" threads that have been started - who really has time to get around to episode 6: RETURN OF THE JEDI PFAL?
  23. There certainly is a great difference between what one could term "Amercanized Christianity" and genuine biblical Christianity. The populace of Christian believers in America and even the world today hardly recognize there is any difference, let alone have ever considered the implications between the two. Yet the holy spirit within tells us that something is horribly amiss. Just what is the difference? The biggest difference between typical Americanized Christianity and authentic biblical Christianity lies mainly in our friendship and our fellowship. If we Christian believers who know the Word of God were to get completely honest, then the greatest burden we carry is for our brother or for our sister in Christ who is essentially living out their faith all alone. Scripture makes it clear that our love for God and our fellowship with Him is really no greater than our love for one another and our fellowship with each other. The epistle of 1 John makes this truth abundantly clear. 1 John 1:7 states: "But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." The greatest hindrance for a Christian not experiencing authentic biblical Christianity lies in their own pride, selfishness, or just plain busyness with all their "stuff". Because of their love for "stuff" they don't have room in their heart and life for others and this is the primary reason why many Christians today don't experience authentic biblical Christianity. Of course there is another reason - fear. There is something very scary about having an open and an honest relationship with someone - the greatest fear is perhaps having a conflict with them. Just what does one do then with the one who is 'afraid' - with those who are on the outside and are looking in? The Word of God has the answer to that. We love them - because (listen to the promise in 1 John 4:18) "perfect love casteth out fear." We American Christians love to give, but we hate to share. What do we mean? When someone is truly in need, most of us have very little problem giving of our time and our money to help them. This is a virtue we should never lose. But sharing our life is an equally essential virtue that most Christians know very little about. How often do we share our personal concerns with others and ask them to pray for us? It seems at times that we practically need to be on our death bed before we are willing to share our life with others. How often have you shared a decision (big or little) with another Christian in order to get their counsel? Have you ever confessed a sin to a brother or sister in Christ so they could help you? What we often forget is that while the epistles are specifically addressed to us, in practical application the ministry of reconciliation must be carried out like what was written in the gospel. It was written for our learning - remember? Matthew 5:9 states: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." While the epistles state the truth in that we are son's of God now (1 John 3:2) how many of us have honestly strived to make peace with one another? Any Christian can make the confession they are what is written in the epistles, yet in practical application we often fail to carry out even less than what was written in the gospel! Therein lies the conflict that we carry into our relationships with one another - this fear - because our actions so often fail to keep pace with our knowledge as to what is the right and the proper thing for us to do.
  24. I can't speak for you or anyone else, but frankly I am more suspicious of the man (or the woman) claiming to be "of SPOTLESS character". Under that SPOTLESS surface there is always something rotten at the core. Man is inclined and will always judge another man by their actions or behavior - but this is not true of God. The true God judges a man by his words, never by their actions. Matthew 12:37 "For by thy words (it doesn't say acts) thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Then a few verses earlier Jesus says (in v.34) "O generation of vipers, how can ye being evil speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. (v.35) "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil." These scriptures are completely forgotten by the "fruit pickers" - those who mis-lead others into believing righteousness is obtained by a man's holy works or by some "holy" acts - thus producing some SPOTLESS character? They completely miss and forget the "fruit" that Jesus was refering to - and Jeus was not refering to a mans actions or their behavior, but rather a man's word. That is why v.36 says: "But I say unto you, That every idle word [ it doesn't say act] that men shall speak they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement." The "fruit pickers" want you to believe "whoever they don't like" will be condemned in the day of judgement for their acts. God's word says different- that one will give account for every word - moreover, every "idle" word. If such is the case, it would be a good idea if some people probably kept their big mouth shut.
  25. What amazes me is how one can accuse somebody else of what they will never recognize in themselves. That has got to be the proof of spiritual blindness - if one were truly seeking spiritual proof for anything. Matthew 15:14.
×
×
  • Create New...