Jbarrax

Mike.

I think it interesting that you asked me a question about how growing beyond PFAL has blessed my life, but rather than wait for my answer, you rejected the possibility that I had one and closed the subject. On the one hand I'd say that's been typical of your interaction here, but I'm at least encouraged that you asked.

For the benefit of lurkers who may also be interested in the benefits of growing beyond a man-made doctrine, I'll post my response here, with apologies to Rafael, Steve, Goey, Troubledwine, & co.

I'll also try to honor your request and contact you by e-mail for a more detailed answer and perhaps an extended dialogue.

************* Those of you interested only in doctrinal stuff,f read no further *************

During all of the years I was devoted to Dr.'s doctrines, I remained unsuccessful at work, financially strapped, always in debt, moving from one job to another, and barely tolerating my marriage to a lovely good-hearted woman. She didn't share my zeal for "The Word", so obviously she was beneath me. Or so I thought; and so I was encouraged to think by my TWI leadership. In short, I thought I had all the answers, but I was failing the litmus test of session one. I failed to manifest a more abundant life. Partly because of this failure to master the basics of providing for my own, I never won any co-workers to the my way of thinking. I always had an explanation for every aspect of life and never shied away from sharing my beliefs and opinions. Sometimes I was tolerated as being weird, sometimes I was embarrassed when my Weirwillian perspectives proved to be ridiculously wrong. Because I was a decent person and God was gracious in my immaturity, there were always people who helped me and gave me opportunities, but I could never bring them to fruition.

I rationalized that it was more than made up for by my "spiritual abundance" and the result of my high ethical standards. Nevertheless, we were very unhappy and at times, very poor.

Since having abandoned the confines of 1)PFAL and 2)the idea that ANY book has all the answers [more on that in a moment], my life has blossomed in all categories. I am now the vice presient and general manager of a rapidly growing company. Oddly enough, I didn't have to abandon my ethical standards. There really are people out there who've never heard of The Way Ministry who strive to be honest, fair, AND prosperous. We now live in a fairly new house that is what we dreamed of in vain for years under the yoke of TWI. Our children actually have full rewarding social lives, unbridled by the fear relationships with "unbelievers". My respect for and relationship with my wife is better than ever and continually improving, my peace of mind is the best it's ever been and, best of all, I have learned to actually trust God to take care of us based on His grace and mercy.

I have also learned more than ever the importance of wisdom and obedience. Somehow the Way fostered a kind of cavalier attitude about basic obedience to God's will. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seemed as if we were taught to expect God's best whether we did his will or not; just because we were the elite, the Way believers. Actually, as I think about it, I CAN put my finger on it. A Corps guy on "Hoho relo" once shared a story with me about his lashing out at a Corps buddy on a work project. His supervisor looked on and, at the end of his tirade said, "That's right. Give em hell Dave. Cause you don't get nothin from God by being good." The basic lesson was that righteousness, honesty, integrity, temperance, all of the virtues that most Christians strive for, were relatively unimportant if you had 'big believing'.

That kind of elitism destroys one's integrity, corrodes relationships, and defeats success and prosperity by eroding one's sense of personal responsibility. Mine is being rebuilt with the loving help of God and of my Lord Jesus Christ. Am I now the perfect Christian? Heck no, but I'm moving in the right direction and I'm not deceiving myself anymore about it.

Finally, I have learned, many times over, that the world doesn't turn on my understanding of life and living. I have accepted the fact that the Bible contains many apparent contradictions, difficult verses, and doesn't have all the answers. It's not supposed to. No book, man-made or God-breathed does, because God didn't send His only begotten Son to live and die for us so we could keep our noses in a book and rely on our understanding of some words on a page. That's carnal Pharisaism. Walking by the senses; leaning to your own understanding. It is the antithesis of walking in the spirit, trusting God and emulating Our Lord.

Jesus didn't have all the answers. He did what God, the Holy Spirit told him to do, as God told him to do it. We're supposed to do likewise.

You speak of having a book that teaches all about the manifestations and "the power". People don't get spiritual power from books Mike. They receive it from God by Jesus Christ as someone ministers it to them. If I may paraphrase the Apostle Paul, He who ministereth to you the spirit, doeth he it by the words in a book, or by the hearing of faith? .

So I submit that leaving PFAL behind will enable you to prosper more, be more at peace, interact more with your fellow man, have better intimate relationships, and have a richer relationship with God your Heavenly Father AND the Lord Jesus Christ (remember Him?) based on obedience, trust, and faith. Justas importantly, you may be released from the subtle but incredible stress of having to feel like you have aaalllll the answers. That's what it's done for me.

And you don't have to give up being a witness for God. Just last week, one of our managers came to my office and said that he was talking with some of our other employees about faith in God and the reliability of Christianity. He told them he sometimes has doubts, but he reasoned. "Jerry's a pretty smart guy and he has faith. So it must be a good thing." He told the the story of the conversation and said. "So in a way, my eternal destiny is dependent on you." Then, smiling, he added "No pressure."

In all the years I pretended to have allllll the answers, I didn't have that kind of effect on a co-worker. Now, by letting go of the pretense of omniscience, I have am a witness people can relate to, respect, and accept.

I'd say I finally have what over 12 years of PFAL-think failed to produce: a more abundant life.

[sorry about the long OT post; brevity isn't my forte}

Peace

JerryB

Interesting post Steve. Goey, I think your point is valid...to a point. :-)

VP did list figures of speech as possible biblical usages of the word "pneuma" and the use of it referring to soul life would definitely fit there. So his use of the term spirit in reference to soul in RHST fits your parameters, in which case it's not an actual error.

But in PFAL, he spoke at some length about this in an attempt to explain, if not define spirit. He said, if I remember correctly [i'm at work now, so I can't check it right now] "All life is spirit." He then went on to quality that statement by saying that not all spirit life is eternal life. Remember, he compared it to love with the bunsen burner, hot love quip. You can't put love in a bunsen burner and get "hot love" (Freudian slip or harmless joke? You decide).

So, in Weirwille's thinking, the word spirit may refer to all of life because it exists beyond "the senses realm." So soul life and angels and cherubim and God hiimself are all different forms of spirit life. So, because he put explained soul life as a subset of spirit life, it may be fairly said that he did use the terms "soul" and "spirit" synonymously.

However, I tink in all fairness I'd have to call that a error of interpretation rather than an actual error.

Peace

JerryB

Thanks for the kind words Rafael.

Zix, I think you nailed it. Mr Fletcher indeed!

And that picture of Gollum/Smegel is a HOOT!!

TW, great work on Genesis chapter 9. There is yet another reason the PFAL body-soul-spirit doctrine is erroneous. But only if you assume that the Bible is a higher standard of truth. Sadly, not all of us hold to that opinion.

And I apologize because I've forgotten who posted it , but someone said that there are more grads like Mike out there than we think. I would have to agree. Although I haven't met any who take it quite to this level of denial and self-delusion, there are many still bound by the conviction that VP really did teach a truth that had not been known since the first century.

I was quite dismayed when the Corps grad with whom we were fellowshipping when I first learned of these PFAL problems all but accused me of being devil-possessed because I dared to question the accuracy of The Class.

I think there are many grads, and many Way Corps who still hold Dr. Weirwille in extremely high regard and consider his teachings to be...sacred on some level, and certainly well worth their continued devotion and defense.

And in part, I understand that. Mike did make one valid point today. He touched on the one reason for his blind obssession with the orange tome. He said, "I prefer to work where I see God at work, and I SAW God at work in Dr's ministry in PFAL,...". Mike received benefits in his life after taking PFAL. I daresay we all did. (though Larry P may beg to differ)No matter what denomination we start in, I believe this is part of the Christian experience, part of what happens throughout the Church of the Body of Christ.

People get born again in Baptist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, and Catholic services, even at snake handlers' tent revivals. Does this mean that a Catholic or Copperhead-grapplin' Christian can't learn more by a closer examination of the Scriptures?

Mike, would you tell a man who'd been saved or even physically healed in a tent revival that he shouldn't reconsider some of what he'd alreadly learned, just because he'd gotten some benefit from his religion? I doubt it. You would "witness " to him, telling him that there are more benefits, more truth, more joy, more peace available to him if he will only trust GOD to continue to bless him as he grows beyond his past experience. That's all we're asking you to do.

Consider that maybe GOD your heavenly Father is big enough to teach you and bless you even more as you trust him to show you how to walk beyond the confines of that tattered little orange book.

Peace

JerryB

Okay people, I hate to seem like I'm hogging the forum. I considered myself done for the night, but I just read Mike's next post and I am...stunned.

Mr. Mike. You wrote,

---

I haven’t studied this out to know how exactly I’ve lined up my rough feel with what is written...

I’m not qualified right here and now to extract at once ALL the places where Dr uses that phrase and/or defines it.

---

My first response is, your blind acceptance of the perfection of something you haven't studied is dangerously naive. But it's actually worse than that. In the same post, you wrote...

---

Neither do any of you all NEED to have all these difficulties cleared up before accepting the challenge to come back to the pure written PFAL,...We’ve all only winged it, and I am reporting that there is an exciting adventure for those who check this out more carefully.

---

How do you justify "reporting" that there is an "exciting adventure for those who check this out more carefully" when, by your own admission, you haven't taken the time TO DO SO??

Do you know what the word "reporting" means? Do you not see the blatant HYPOCRISY in that invitation. How the he!! can you preach about an "exciting adventure" that results from something you claim you don't have the TIME or INCLINATION to do?

I am truly aghast Mike.

And one more thing. You should know that the people you're contending with on this thread HAVE TAKEN THE TIME to check this thing out VERY carefully, and we are "reporting" to you that it's full o holes.

When you finally get around to practicing what you preach, you'll find something much less than an exciting adventure.

Wake up dude!

JerryB

[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 19:56.]

[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 19:59.]

Man, this HTML stuff is a p.i.t.a.! :-)

[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 20:03.]

Mike said,

---

I corresponded briefly with Gerry when he first appeared on Waydale. I double checked his website just today. It does look like a fascinating read, but it also looks in skimming to solve the problem by cutting out James. That's why I asked Jerry to tell me plain.

---

Mike, it seems you want me to address how I deal with Bible contradictions based on my belief that PFAL if chock full of errors. That sounds like a fair question. But I don't want to be rude. You were here first and this thread was apparently started with you in mind. So I'll make a deal with you. You answer the 15 or so Actual Errors in PFAL that we've listed so far, to Rafael's satisfaction, and I'll tell you about how I deal with apparent contradictions in the Bible.

Peace

JerryB

Rafael The Observant said:

---

I thik Wierwille's definition of "made" is an actual error too, especially as he distinguished it from "create." Spirit existed before God placed it in Adam. How do we know this? Because God is Spirit. So are the angels. SO there was a substance existing of which the thing made consists, which is Wierwille's definition for "made."

---

Well said! I never noticed that point. The only way VP's definition of "create" could apply to God putting spirit in Adam was if Adam preceded the angels and of course God himself. "Silly it becomes"

What is that, actual error number 15? Anybody keeping count?

Peace

JerryB

Hi Garth, great to see ya! Yeah, the CES forum was terriffic; best Food Fights I've ever seen. I learned a ton there, much of it from you.

And now, back to another correction in the inconsistent reasoning offered by the "minority voice"

Mike wrote,

---

I assume the difficulties either lie in (A) the reader’s interpretation or in (B) in the “middlemen” like proofreaders and printers. Each of these categories have multiple entries and subdivisions.

---

Dear Mike, this is another example of you shifting the definitions to suit your argument. The sad thing about this is, it seems that the shift isn't designed to counter anything we've said, but rather to cobble together your own shaky concept of a divine PFAL.

To be specific; Dr. Weirwille taught that if there appears to be a contradiciton in the Bible, the source is either in a) Our understanding, or b) TRANSLATION. You said it's either in understanding or "...in the middle men like proofreaders and printers."

You have equated the TRANSLATION of the Bible form Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to English over thousands of years, with the process of editing and publishing PFAL, which occurred all the way back in 1971.

To put it bluntly; We're not dealing with a TRANSLATION of Power for Abundant Living. Are you saying that proofreaders and printers have diluted the original meaning of PFAL just as much as centuries of translators have done with the Bible? Personally, I think that's an absurd statement, to say the least.

It may seem like a small point, but I think it indicates how much you are willing to fudge, to cheat, to deceive even yourself in order to avoid facing the horrifying possibility that your trust has been misplaced.

Oh, so many kind comments, so little time. I really wish I could devote more time to this thread. I work fairly long hours these days. So if there's a big gap between responses, please forgive me.

Quote

---

"JERRY!!!!!!

Jerry rocks. God bless you, man."

Gee thanks Raf!! You're quite a blessing yourself!

And Mike said,

---

" I was wondering what your philosophy is in HOW one should handle Bible contradictions, apparent or actual."

---

Uh...I'm not s'posed to answer that. It's Rafael's thread & he sets the rules. Besides, I've read the whole thing, so I'm well aware of where you're going with that question. The question I would pose in response is, if Dr. Weirwille says the Bible fits like a hand in a glove and the class on Power For Abundant Living gives us the keys so we can clearly understand the Bible, why shouldn't the class itself fit like a hand in a glove? Shouldn't Dr. Weirwille at least adhere to the very tenets he teaches? If these keys are so wonderful, why the heck doesn't he USEthem?

Rafael and Zixar said,

---

"Zixar has inadvertently pointed out another actual error. For you see, according to this statement, God is MANNA! "

---

Excellent point guys. Yet another factual error uncovered.

Hope said,

---

"Oh.. btw - Jerry, good to "see" you again. I didn't participate in your discussions way back when, but I read them with great interest. Thanks to you, too."

---

Thanks Hope. It sure is glad to be back into this subject matter again and to be discussing the Bible and matters fo truth with people of good character and sound minds. specially Mr. Olmeda. :)Speaking of whom, that question about how your spirit can talk to your brain when GOD cant' is a gem. I remember my fiancee (now wife) asking that very same question way back when. I didn't have a decent answer, but I faked it. Waythink; what can I say? :-)

Hey great post TW. There's a lot to consider there. I think there's a lot to study and learn regarding the nature of God being light, love, spirit, etc. Good stuff.

Okay, now I'll get back to reading. God bless eveyone.

JerryB

[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 18:45.]

[This message was edited by Jbarrax on January 27, 2003 at 19:54.]

Anyone know if Jacques Kersaint (16th Corps) is still in TWI? The last time I spoke with him was at least 5 years ago. It was a very short conversation. Jacques was my WOW brother and a man of outstanding commitment to truth. I had hoped he would wake up and leave by now. Any news?

Jerry Barrax

Thanks Steve. It's good to be back. Everything else in my life is actually going pretty well, too. :)-->

Thanks Zixar.

And by the way, not to belabor the point about Nathan, but I think the big reason I'd count this as an actual error is, in the PFAL book, Dr. Weirwille concluded that section with the statement, "Isn't that a trememdous verse of Scritpure when we examine it closely to see the Greatness of God's Word." (paragraph 3, page 88.)

I challenge Mike or anyone else to find an actual scriptural reference anywhere in Weirwille's 2 page exposition about David and Nathan. He never cited a Scripture in the first place; just started telling his version of the story. Then, after accusing David of wanting to behead the prophet, falsely stating that the King had a right to any woman in the country, and falsely stating that it was only afterthis correction that David was called a man after God's own heart (Which Raf has already pointed out is a contradiction of the Bible), he had te audacity to talk about having examined a verse of Scripture in its depth--when he never even cited any!

Had any mainstream preacher done this we would have ridiculed him mercilessly. Somehow, we let "The Man fo God" got away with it unchallenged.

Peace

JerryB

Actual errors

Here a couple more big' uns.

1)God can only speak to what He is.

VP asserted, based on no Scriptural evidence that I can recall, that God, being spirit, can only speak to what He is. He built this into the doctrine about Jesus briding "the chasm between the natural man and God" and then, into the battle of the sense vs revelation faith doctrine. All of this is based on the absurd and incorrect teaching that God Almight can't communicate with anyone who doesn't have holy spirit in or upon them.

According to VP's teaching, Adam and Eve lost the spirit immediately when they sinned. But Genesis 3:9-13 indicate that God spoke with both Adam and Eve right afterward. He also had a lengthy conversation with Cain right after he murdered Abel. Did Cain have holy spirit upon him? There's no Biblical evidence to support this.

There's also the problem of God communicating with un-annointed folks like King Abimelech (Gen 20:3)and Laban, Jacob's crooked father-in-law (Gen 31:24) by dreams.

Is a dream an avenue of the five senses? Nope. What your mind experiences in a dream is neither seen, nor heard, nor felt, nor smelt, nor tasted. It's beyond the five senses. So according to the Bible, God spoke to people who didn't have holy spirit in or on them by an avenue other than their five senses. He didn't "come into concretion". So VP's assertion that God can only speak to what He is, and the subsequent doctrine about a chasm between the natural man and God is bunk. BUNK I say!!

2)The Image of God is spirit

This relates to the erroneous definition of bara that someone else has already brought up. Dovetailed with Dr's tortured body-soul-spirit, formed-made-created masterpiece is the assertion that God created the spirit He put in Adam & Eve and that it was in this spirit category that He made man in his image. He quoted Genesis 1:27 which says, " So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

It all sounds pretty good unless you back up and read verse 26.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

According to VP, the word made [asah] refers specifically to the soul of man. Yet here in verse 26 it's used in conjunction with the word "image" which VP says is spirit. What so amazes me about this particular error regarding Genesis 1:27 is the fact that it's so blatantly wrong, because the contradicting evidence is right next to it! but I (we?) believed it for years.

Oh well. As I said, those two are biggies, imho, because they are the foundation for two or three other doctrines, which are also erroneous.

Relinquishing the soapbox. :)-->

Someone mentioned Private Interpretation. I think this is one of the major factual errors, becauase it's the foundation of the whole "How the Bible interprets itself" doctrine.

Dr. Weirwille quoted II Peter 1:20 and then went on that memorable tirade about Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup saying what they think a scripture means. His definition of "private interpretation" is a person expressing his thougts about the meaning of the Scripture.

The problem is, this is exactly the opposite of the context and usage of the phrase "private interpretation". The context is about how we GOT the truths we believe, not what we THINK about them. Peter is asserting that ... "...the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. "

Verse 20 means that the Word didn't come by Moses, John, Isaiah et al making it up. It wasn't contrived by a bunch of conmen, it was given by revelation.

Weirwille's twisting of the context and subsequent "I don't give a care what you think!" statement paves the way for him to tell us to turn off our minds, not to try to apply logic and reason to his teachings and to just let him "unfold it" for us. Anything less than humble acquiescence to his revealing of the mathemeatical exactness and scientific precision of God's mathcless word was Private Interpretation.

We got so thoroughly bamboozled by this error, that the twisted phrase was reduced to the acronym "PI".

Anyway, that's one that definitely should be added to the list I think.

Peace

JerryB

Wordwolf said

"I still haven't worked that business about the

"outer darkness" yet, but I have it pencilled

in for further study. If you've worked it in

detail, I'd love a copy."

Please forgive my clumsiness. I've forgotten how to do those nify quote brackets you guys use. :)-->

I haven't worked that any further, but I have discovered and error in it. I equated the Kingdom of God/Heaven with the New Heaven and New Earth That is, I equated being cast out of the Kingdom with the verse in Rev 22:15. That can't be, cause the Kingdom ends before the New Heaven & Earth according to I Cor. 15:24-28. So, I still believe that some Christians will not enjoy their eternity, but I don't think the "mist of darkness" fate mentioned in II Peter can be equated with Jesus' prophesies about some folks being cast out of his Kingdom.

And Rafael, the quote about "linguistic ledgerdemain (sp?) and a degree of intrepidity is from a Star Trek movie. The Undiscovered Country I think. They were trying to rescue Kirk and McCoy in a stolen/borrowed/rented Klingon ship and had to pass for Klingons in order to get past the sentries.

Do I get a cookie? :D-->

Peace, y'all

JerryB

"I miss Jerry Barrax. Here's another Jerry Gem.

quote: VP insists Nathan was hesitant to reprove David because he was afraid David would have him beheaded. There is nothing in the Scripture to support such a claim.

Wow. It's true:"

Rafael, I don't have the words to say how touched I am to see this. I had thought the PFAL Review project was long forgotten. I still wish I had finished it or could get back to it even two years after its interruption, but I'm still immersed in work and family issues.

I don't visit the GS regularly. I was just passing by, so to speak and I find this.

Anyway, thanks so much for remembering.

Peace!

Jerry Barrax