What The Hey

Here is how (and this is just one of many examples we were given in PFAL - but I think it was by far the best one): John 12:32 And I [Jesus] if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. As Dr. W. explained in PFAL: Now, has everyone in your community been drawn unto the Lord Jesus Christ? Of course they haven't. So here the word "all" would not be all without exception, (because not everyone in your community has been called or believes on the Lord Jesus Christ) but rather, all with distinction - "all" those whom the Lord has called - all those whom he has disctinctly called. This is a prime example where we don't allways (pun intended) think critically when we often read the scriptures, or even in our conversations with one another. Another prime example would be in the usage of the words "throughly" and "thoroughly" - as we were also shown in II Timothy 3:17: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly (it's not the word thoroughly, there is no "o" between the letter h and the letter r) furnished (the word for furnished here should be perfected. The word is exartizo, it is the adverb. The word "artios", translated "perfect" is the noun while exartizo is the adverb, so to be consistant in our translation then the word should have been translated: "perfected". i.e. perfect, throughly -that is, through and through and throughly perfected unto all good works). I recall there was a discussion a while back on GSC where someone had said these words "throughly" and "thoroughly" mean the exact same thing. Perhaps they do in our modern day nomenclature, but not according to the Word of God. Dr W. addressed the same remark in PFAL ... He said, "Now that's what you're going to say (that is, that throughly and thoroughly mean the exact same thing - and of course, people still think these words mean the same thing today) but that's not what I'm going to say. Then he goes on to demonstrate how one can wash their hands "thoroughly" but one cannot wash their hands throughly because throughly implies an inside job. Dr. was actually making a reference to the gift of holy spirit here in this segment of PFAL, teaching us how the holy spirit would be the one doing the cleansing - and of course, it would not be thoroughly, but rather be done throughly, because the cleansing by way of the holy spirit always starts as: "an inside job." Of course, there are still pleny of Pharisee's who only cleanse the outside - or "the flesh" thinking it somehow results in a spiritual cleansing. We miss an awful lot when we just "blow stuff off" and we don't bother to stop and think critically about the words we often use - so why would it be any different when we come to reading the scriptures? If we would only stop, slow down, and think more carefully about what we read (and even what we say) we might (as I had stated earlier) be able to get a better understanding of the heart of the matter. This is where it begins - that is, in one's ability to manifest the more than abundant life for themselves.

Know it all -- recite it all -- practice it all. Now here comes the "all" important question: Would that be all without exception, or all with distinction? If one can answer the "all" question, it will "all" lead to a better understanding of the heart of the matter.

Mike's referring to one of the last teachings vpw did. I shall summarize what he said, very simply. A) There's no real truth out among other Christians. What do you mean by "real truth" exactly? Are you impling there is this "un-real truth" out among other Christians? The bottom line is: One either has the Word of God or they don't. And ... if they do have it (or they think they have it) then for them it's merely a question if the W.O.G. they have is rightly-divided or not. One might hold the Word of God, but the only question that really matters is this one: Does the Word of God hold them? B) The greatest thing to do is to serve people. I think that largely depends on exactly what is being served and if one can "stomach" it or not. Regardless, one can't serve others until they first have something to serve, can they? C) [Part A.] The greatest thing to serve people is God's Word, [Part B.] via twigs and pfal classes and twi functions. Part A: I still believe is correct, considering one already has the Word of God, the Word of Truth to serve to others, but -- Part B - who says serving God's Word has to be done via twigs, pfal classes and TWI functions? Believe it or not, some of us are already doing "Part A". But we are not looking to rebuild the vestages of TWI nor are we looking to re-live the by-gone era's (TWI-1, TWI-2 or TWI-3) of Dr. VPW's ministry. That is why we are only interested in those who want to live in the truth of God's Word (i.e. doing Part A)- not live in the nostalgia of TWI (i.e. doing Part B). (Which is all people can really only ever do here at GSC - both the good and the bad of TWI. That is the reason why people here can't recall exactly what was what, and then usually end up arguing with others over exactly what was what.) D) The greatest preparation to do that is to study the pfal books and classes. One can also study recipies, but that doesn't make someone a cook, nor does it imply they will ever cook or serve anybody anything they have cooked. (I think rascal likes all that "pre-cooked fast food" though - even has plenty to give away.) Kind of like someone studying PFAL books and taking PFAL classes. But what it really all boils down to is just this: "Exactly what is it ya got cookin'?" (I'll pass on the liver and the sauerkraut most people got and all the other "left-over's" they are still hanging onto from TWI. You see, I just don't have "the stomach" for it.)

Jesus loves me. Does he love you? Good question.

Perhaps it was, but the red drapes story used in PFAL was only used to illustrate the 4th point of "How to Recieve from God" - i.e. getting your needs and wants parallel. Now I can't say for sure if that 4th point is mentioned in the book version or not as I no longer have the PFAL book. In fact, in PFAL VPW states that there are only 3 things one really needs to know in order to receive anything from God. They are: 1. What's available. 2. How to recieve it. 3. What to do with it after you got it. VPW then says (verbatim) in PFAL, basically these are the only 3 things one needs to know in order to recieve anything from God. Then he states: But I want to take you just a step further. That is when he goes on and addresses step #4 -- Needs and Wants parallel, and then step #5. God's ability equals Gods willingness. The general concensus in TWI for many years was all 5 steps are needed for one to receive anything from God. But VPW stated himself in PFAL that only the first 3 steps were ever needed. Now many people in TWI took those steps and turned it into this - "5 step formula to receive anything from God" when the only reason VPW ever brought up and mentioned steps 4 and 5 was because those were possible hindrances to someone receiving from God. He just wanted to make sure his students understood what could possibly hinder their ability to receive from God. The PFAL class was/is a whole lot simpler than what the majority of people made it out to be. Most people wanted this "5-step formula" that worked with a "mathmatical exactness and scientific precision" each and every time - but in the end only complicated the process. Why? Because we've got to show everyone just how smart and intelligent we are about the things of God. Now people are discussing and wanting to know if whether or not "those stowries" that were told by VPW in PFAL are "fact or fiction" - complicating the process even further. There's a thread on GSC now discussing it. I guess some people still think they have to show everyone just how intelligent they are about the things of God and how to receive them. No thanks. I'll pass on discussing the issue further since most people here have already complicated the 3 initial steps that were taught to them in PFAL. (I'm having my own PFAL review before I take anybody's word here at GSC as being "the PFAL truth". Thanks Mike.)

He makes a lot more sense than some preachers I know of.

It is interesting to note how you large sized that type in: "the mothers fear killed the little boy". I assume you large sized that type simply because that is the way VPW allegedly said it (and how we love to use that word lately - allegedly) in PFAL. According to Rascal's response, we allegedly have a normal real mother who was allegedly seeking counsel from this allegedly made up minister by VPW. Of course, VPW allegedly made up the ministers, but the mother from the story is allegedly real! Sorry - can't have it both ways - a "real mother" seeking counsel and speaking with a "made up minister"? Of course the story of the minister is important, because VPW is contrasting that woman's prayer life (which allegedly is none existant) with the minister's in the story. You can't very well contrast that mother's 'non-existant' prayer life with the minister's prayer life, if we leave him completely out of the story, can we? People have "assumed" this story is based on the mothers being afraid - of her being terrified that something horrible will happen to her little "Johnny." The story is more about, and it deals with the absence of faith - when we contrast that mothers prayer life with the ministers prayer life in the story. We have come to assume "fear" always deals with someone being horrified, and being stricken with terror." (Largely due to those Freddie Kruger and Jason movies from Horror-wood I imagine). But biblically speaking, fear does not necessarily mean one is horrified or terrified. Biblically speaking, it (fear) means the absence of faith. One does not necessarily have to be horrified or terrified to have an absence of faith, although an absence of faith may lead one to that end result - hence the reason for that mother's actions in the story.

Boy, how people really love to use that word: ALLEGED! Well - two can play that game. Allegedly speaking, all these alleged people allegedly already know what they are alledgedly talking about - while all the other alledged people here they allegedly argue with over those alleged stories allegedly don't.

OK, rant on if you want to, but here is fine example of people who only remember half a story (or the part they want to remember of it) and are offended by the part they remember. Here's the other half of that story from PFAL - the part most people don't rememeber (I placed that part in bolded text below - from PFAL): --------------------------------------------------- Years ago I knew a minister whose wife had passed away and he had seven or eight children. I just do not recall how many children. About a year later he married another woman who had four or five of her own. And I suppose this gave it to them cheaper by the dozen, but I'm not sure. But they lived happily together. And about a block and a half away lived a woman who had just one boy. And this woman who had just this one son was always frustrated, always nervous, always afraid. While this minister and his wife who had this whole bunch of children it just seemed like some how or another nothing ever happened to them. Oh they get a black eye once in awhile, somebody comes home with a bloody nose, but they just lived. But this one woman with her one son, boy she was a nervous frustrated woman if you ever saw one. And week after week and month after month it got worse. When her little boy started to kindergarten she used to walk him across the street and put him in the next block where the kindergarten was for fear he might get run over. Afraid he might get hit by an automobile. When he was in the first grade she did the same thing--in the second grade--third grade. And she called on this minister and she said, "I don't understand why I'm so nervous and so upset all the time. I have just one boy, that's all I have to care. You have got all of these children, some how or other it just seems like nothing ever happens to them and you just live abundantly." You know what he said to her? He said, "ma'am this is how we operate. We get them around the breakfast table. It's the only time we can get our whole family together. We get them all around the breakfast table and when we have them seated around the breakfast table I do the praying. Everybody's quiet, I pray. And I pray like this: `Lord here we are all together at breakfast; now Lord,' he said, `they're all going out to school and other places today. So what I'm going to do with this family Lord; I give them all to you right now. Amen.' Boy right after you give them to the Lord you say `amen' real quickly because you don't want to take them back." He relinquished them to the Lord. Literally, he just let go and let God and those children just did amiably. About a year and a half or two later this son of this woman was coming home from school early once. Mother hadn't met him at the street across the block. He came home from school and they were living on a road where not more than three houses were located at the time. And when they came back from school that day the boy walked out in that street and got hit by an automobile and killed outright. I went to the service of that boy and you know what the minister preached on? That God now had another rose petal in heaven. My God people! To think of it, that God Almighty, who created the heavens and the earth, that he should want to kill a little boy like that because God needed another rose petal in heaven. Oh my God when are we going to learn something? That's blasphemy! -------------------------------------------------- Now you have the other half of this story. What should we say of the minister who said God now had a nother rose petal in heaven? I'd like to think, to put it in your own words: how unloving, how cruel, how disgusting, i don't even have the words -- okay thank you for letting me rant

You should spend more time reading Romans than Galatians, because no one can live up to your interpretation of the scriptures --- for all have sinned and fallen far short. And just how do you know whether or not VPW repented of his sins or not? Just who are you to judge him? You should get that foundational stuff in Romans down first before you head into Galatians and strip it from the grace that it is also presenting.

All that verbage of a reply from WW and he can't even read what is written - or his reading comprehension level is very low. I never claimed VPW didn't EVER care about what people thought of him. I claimed he didn't give a d*** what they thought of him when what they thought of him didn't line up with the Word of God. (Note the emphasis there.)

You are flat out wrong about the apostle Paul --- and so are all the "self-righteous" legalistic preacher's out there you've been listening to who have been feeding you all that "self-righteous" balony regarding the apostle Paul. The apostle Paul also did awful things AFTER he got born again. Read Romans 7:16-25 if you don't believe me. He didn't write that before he got born again. He plainly talks about the "sin dwelling in him" there in Romans 7:20. Also in Galatians 4:13 and 14 the apostle Paul talks about his "infirmity of the flesh" and then in v.14 he speaks of my temptation which was in my flesh... The bottom line is the apostle Paul did bad things before he got born again, and he also did bad things afterwards. Now the Word of God doesn't go into specific detail what sin or infirmity Paul had was, but let's not sugar-coat the apostle Paul to make his sermon 'holier-than-thou' - much like the 'self-righteous, hypocrite preacher's you've been listening to. Now that's Paul's own testimony of himself from God's Word - so why would anyone in their right mind listen to those 'self-righteous, hypocrite' preachers who just use God's Word to condemn others based on some "pseudo apostle Paul" and that "pseudo Jesus" they continue preaching and shoving down people's throats? It is the ungodly who want this 'moral Jesus' who is completely stripped of grace. I've run into those types many times myself and I have never come across a more proud and arrogant group of people you would NEVER, EVER want to met!!! I really can't blame the unsaved for calling those 'Christians' hypocrites either - especially if these are the only (ahem) "Christians" they unfortunately happen to encounter. Remarkable --- the Word of God says we are not in the flesh if we are born again!!! (Romans 8:9) What I find truly laughable is how you keep on talking about someone you don't like as: 'being in the flesh' - all the while being in the flesh yourself - well, to use your terminology. Apparently it's the only terminology you understand, yet the Word of God says: "But he that hateth [dislikes] his brother is in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. (1 John 2:11). I think that is an accurate assesment from the Word of God. If that darkness hath blinded ones eyes, what does it make them? According to the Word of God it makes one a "blind man" ---- and you're telling me these are the ones leading people out of the ditch they got themselves into? The Christ I know from scripture said something entirely differant about the "blind leading the blind".

OH but you do care about what people think of your opinions, otherwise you (like others) wouldn't try to "convert" those who want to believe that VPW was a real, true M.O.G. It get's pretty comical to watch after a while. Someone comes along and "whitewashes" him - then someone else comes along and "blackwashes" him - back and forth and back and forth we go. It goes down something like this: VPW WAS THE GREATEST APOSTLE SINCE THE APOSTLE PAUL! - NO HE WASN'T! HE WAS THE SPAWN OF SATAN! What I'd like to know is, since when did VPW (or even the apostle Paul or anybody else for that matter) become the central figure of Christianity? Frankly, I believe those who condemn him actually admire him more than those who have good things to say about him. The reason those people can't shut up or stop talking about VPW is because he fell just a hair short of being 'God-on-a-stick'. They are ashamed he fell "just a hair short" and they want everyone to know just what a big disappointment he was to them. They aren't happy with the fact their "VPW-GOD" failed them! The only reason they bring all his faults out in the open for everyone to view now -- after he is dead -- is so they can do what --- clear the air --- Why? Because they want to worship and continue on worshipping a 'VPW-GOD' who is faultless! (But now after he's dead there's certainly no fat chance of that ever happening. --- Right!)

WAIT JUST A MINUTE --- Let's back up a bit and see how VPW might have responded to those accusations. ---- MY GOD! VPW DID RESPOND TO THEM!! (It's right there in: "Your Power of Attorney" - Volume II, The New Dynamic Church) Here is what he [VPW] said: Every person in the world wants a good name. People desire to be well thought of, and rightly so. I [VPW] want to have a good name, and I [VPW] want people to think well of me. But many people's names today are not respected. A man says to you, "I'll pay you on such and such a day." When that day comes, he does not pay. Someone promises, "I'll meet you at such and such a time." When that time comes, he is not there but has left you waiting. Such a person's name is not respected because he has not put of lying.* (1st Footnote: Ephesians 4:25) I know that Chirst is in me (2nd Footnote: Colossians 1:27) and I am in Him.** (3rd Footnote: Romans 8:1) No matter what people may say, no matter what the world may say, my name [VPW] is written in the Book of Life. (p.43 & 44 of TNDC) That is what VPW had written some time ago - back when he was alive. Now it would seem to me if VPW had really said what he meant and really meant what he said (to use a common PFAL colloquialism) then I certainly fail to see just how your opinion of him now (or anybody else's opinion of him now for that matter) holds anything or amounts to anything but a bunch of "hot-air". What's the conclusion?: If people's opinion of him didn't mean a d*** thing to him back when he was alive, --- WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOUR OPINION OF HIM WOULD MEAN ANYTHING TO HIM NOW THAT HE IS DEAD??? Apparently this is what "your opinion" would have amounted to and meant to him when he was alive since we clearly see how VPW responded in print (3 times in fact with footnotes) to "people's opinions and people's accusations" with the Word of God. (Revelation 12:9,10)

Don't be surprised if the answer coming back will be: [To put it in words of P.D.S.T.R.O.] "NO!, screamed the blind man now's not my time, NO! screamed the blind man I just can't unwind. NO! screamed the blind man I'm not's where that's at. I'm over and I'm under and I'm just not like that." (From: The Blind Man. I realize this P.D.S.T.R.O. song may be a bit dated for some of you. But then, some things never change.)

That's why some really need to get out more and meet real people.

Gee, I'd tend to think a twinky would be right up your alley with all those McDonald burger's and pizza you've been feeding the multitude with. (Maybe some of you will have to see the "note on forgiveness thread" to catch my drift here.)

At least some of us realize there are some people here who are --- to put it in your own words, full of ... bologna. ... Or do you raise it to heaven, bless it and feed the multitude with it like Rascal does?