Raf

Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike. Mike. Mike? Mike! Oh Mike.

Oooh, a waytoogoodone from The End. Well done. Well done. Karl, You need to bear in mind the purpose of this thread: There's someone going around promoting hte belief that PFAL is "God-breathed," on par with scripture, no contradictions, etc. In fact, all of Wierwille's writings that we have fall under that category, in this person's eyes. Then there's another person who FOOLISHLY stated that, to paraphrase, "people who say there are documentable errors in PFAL are like deaf people proving that music doesn't exist." So the purpose of this thread is to point to errors that cannot be chalked up to differences in interpretation. Errors so fundamental and blatant that there's no room for argument, as long as both sides are being honest. 2+2=5 is an error, and unless you are burying your head in the sand (or elsewhere), you have to be able to see the mistake. Four crucified? I think Bullinger built a fairly good case, but to be honest, I stopped CARING about that issue about five or six years ago. Notice that I stayed away from the meaning of "sabachthani." I thought Vic did a good job of showing the root word there, and I can't simply dismiss it as an actual error (my rules, I make 'em up). So I heartily encourage you to come up with a list of likely errors, a list of strange doctrines (like when Judas hanged himself. I ripped on that one way back when I was reviewing the Blue Book. Hooooo-weeee that was fun). Anyway, I would think that such threads would be more at home in the Doctrinal section of the Greasespot Cafe. I think this is a borderline doctrinal thread, but it really is more at home in this "About the Way" forum. Maybe I'm just being anal.

Hey, Plots, thanks. I read that earlier, but I have to admit, I fail to see the distinction. Wierwille taught that ekklesia meant "a group of people who have gathered for a specific purpose." I don't see how that's different from what Nida writes above. Please elaborate, if you can. Meanwhile, here’s two more actual errors from the same page of PFAL (p. 119). In PFAL, Wierwille writes: In truth, the word is orthotomeo. The word orthotomounta does not occur in the New Testament. In PFAL, Wierwille writes: In truth, the word “study” in II Timothy 2:15 would more accurately be translated “endeavor.” It does not mean “study” in the way Wierwille uses it. The NIV translates it “do your best.” So does the Contemporary English Version. The New Living Translation renders it, “Work hard.” It does not mean “study.” Wierwille deliberately uses a mistranslated word to prove his point. The point was valid, but the error remains.

I never meant to imply otherwise. In the case of anablepto/eidon, it was a correction. But that was not intended to be a blanket statement. As for Abraham, I'm still not with you, George. I think Wierwille was referring to foretelling or forthtelling information from God. I'm sure there were times when Abraham looked up at the sky and said, "looks like rain," and sure enough, it rained. That's not prophecy, not by Wierwille's definition. HOWEVER! Abraham DID relay God's promise to his servant. In Genesis 24:7, he says that God told him "Unto thy seed will I give this land." That's foretelling, even by Wierwille's definition. God told Abraham, Abraham told someone else. And it was concerning a future event. So Abraham did foretell. Wierwille's statement regarding Abraham does not appear to be in the book, as far as I can see. If anyone can correct me, feel free.

Because I'm on the Internet. Call later.

double post

Back to "The Fact." Earlier in this discussion, I asked Mike to address the problem of Wierwille's contradiction with regard to the term "all without distinction." To briefly summarize: In PFAL, p. 65, Wierwille writes "all WITHOUT distinction means everyone in a certain designated class or group." However, in Jesus Christ is Not God, p. 94, he writes, "all WITH distinction means that there are no exceptions within a certain group." In other words "all WITHOUT distinction" and "all WITH distinction" mean exactly the same thing. I call this a contradiction, while Mike thinks it's only an apparent contradiction. Mike's reply was that the words "the fact" on p. 94 of JCNG help establish that we're dealing with a senses observation. Mike, I challenge you to expand on this utterly meaningless distraction to make it relevant to your point. The term "the fact" is dealing with the second half of John 1:3, and by that time Wierwille is discussing "all without exception" again. It has NOTHING to do with "all with distinction," and thus has nothing to do with the substance of this contradiction. On the basis of this ONE CONTRADICTION alone, by your standard, you must conclude that either JCNG or PFAL is NOT God-breathed. So, which is it?

must....resist...posting...

Shouldn't we all be in church?

Oh for Vic's sake. Permission granted. There, happy now?

I've been waiting a LONG time for this... GAMALIEL WAS WRONG!!!! Think about it: according to his statement, the only doctrines and movements that survive are those that have God's blessing on them. All others will come to nought. Trinitarianism has endured through the centuries. By Gamaliel's standard, it must be of God. Islam has survived for centuries. By Gamaliel's standard, it must be of God. Gamaliel's statement is quoted supportively by far too many Christians. It's a great quote, but ultimately, it proves nothing. The endurance of a viewpoint is not proof of its divine authority. P.S. Ditto to what Oakspear said above. That post to mj WAS creepy. If I may be so bold, OCD, please calm down. If MJ wants to complain to Paw, she should do so. Let "the proper authorities" handle it.

Wow. You folks have given me much to answer. Okay, Word Wolf (if anyone hasn't figured it out yet, Word Wolf and I are old friends)... I was debating the anablepto - eidon inconsistency. In the class, he says Enoch did not see (anablepto) death. In the book, he says Enoch did not see (eidon) death. For both, he provides the same meaning. Remarkably enough, Vine's bears this out. The two words are synonymous. Does this count as an "actual error?" Yes and no. In my original post, I wrote that I'm talking about errors mostly from the book, but from the class too. So it is an actual error by that definition. But from the definitions of those who worship PFAL (the book) as God-breathed, the answer would be no. He got it right in the book, and that's what matters. I do recall the "atheist" statement, and yes, it did get under my skin. Wierwille said its impossible to be an atheist because that means you don't believe, and not believing IS a belief. Well, that's just stupid, poor grammar. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe... IN GOD. Of course it's possible to not believe in God. The Bible ADDRESSES it. How could it be impossible? I can't find that reference in the written edition, so it's an actual error in the spoken class, at the least. By the way, earlier reference was made to the account of Nathan and David, and I thought I'd clear it up once and for all: Wierwille discusses the conversation between God and Nathan without indicating that he's embellishing on the Biblical record. I'm troubled at this as an actual error. AS WRITTEN, it is an actual error. Wierwille says it happened. There's no evidence that it happened. None at all. Wierwille made it up. For those of us who are logical, this is a dismissable offense. But for those who have abandoned logic in favor of worshipping a document its own author told us not to worship, it would appear that God is revealing to Wierwille, for the first time in history, the details of what led to Nathan's confrontation with David. Absurd? Absolutely. But remember, we're dealing with an opposing viewpoint that is marked by absurdity. So I'll leave the Nathan-God conversation off the list of actual errors. The statement that every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king, on the other hand, counts as an actual error. Wierwille is making a statement of historical and cultural reality. His statement is false on every level: historically, culturally, and ESPECIALLY Biblically. It is indefensible. Okay, back to current events. ABRAHAM! Word Wolf, didn't you once find an example of Abraham FOREtelling? I can't find it now, but didn't you? I'm going BATS trying to find it. With all due respect to George, I don't think "God will provide" is an example of Abraham foretelling. I think it's an example of Abraham lying. Regarding Faith and Believing: I'm finding it hard to tell if this is an interpretation error or an actual error. I'm torn. I think it's on the line, one foot on either side. I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER IN MY MIND that this is an error. Wierwille's distinction between faith and believing is foolish and arbitrary. The question is where it fits in MY foolish and arbitrary distinction between interpretation errors and actual errors. So, since there IS a definite article in the "before (THE) faith came" text, and the presence of the definite article is indisputable; and since the presence of the definite article DOES alter and clarify the meaning of the sentence, I am going to say this is an actual error. The "closest anyone came to being born again is... almost" also counts as an actual error. The Felix or Festus comment is a spoken error in the class. I honestly don't recall the 3x3 denials statement. I remember "twice thou shalt deny me thrice," but that could be from any number of sources. My jury is still out on "breathed in." Again, I believe it's an error, but one of interpretation. I do believe the greatest error one can commit is breaking the first and great commandment. All sins are derivatives of it. The statement that there are no degrees of sin is likewise an interpretation error, if it's an error at all. God meted out different punishments for different sins. Some punishments were more severe than others. We may conclude, therefore, that some sins are more severe than others. However, when it comes to the statement "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," the degree of sin doesn't matter. The tiniest little sin, and you fall short. The four crucified and the six denials are obviously errors of interpretation (assuming they are errors at all). As strongly as you feel, Karl, I'm sure you'd agree. George: Regarding the order of the church epistles never changing: I'll call that an actual error, on the condition that someone can name or number the manuscript in which they are in a different order. I'll get to work on that too. Mortify=blow to smithereens (someone mentioned this earlier). Good catch. Definitely a spoken error. Is it in the book? (Mortify, in Biblical usage, simply means "kill.") Thanks for playing.

In fact, it is more logical, considering that time was passing and that false doctrines about the Messiah were popping up all over the place. Authoritative accounts of the Lord's life and doctrine were needed. Amen. The word "learning" in Romans 15:4 is the same word as "doctrine" in II Timothy 3:16. Those scriptures contain OUR DOCTRINE. We are not to exalt the epistles over the gospels. We are to put all scriptures in their proper place. I do not reject dispensationalism, but I do reject nonsensical statements. Diminishing the legitimacy of the gospels because they are written about a period before Pentecost is silly. It's for our doctrine. I know there are many things that were required of believers before Pentecost that are not required after Pentecost. That's great. But we learn about those differences not by diminishing the Old Testament and the Gospels, but by studying the Epistles AS WELL in order to gain an understanding of what changed, how, and why. Amazingly enough, Wierwille held to the law like a pit bull when it came to tithing, (although the rules changed on that subject) but not to adultery (although the rules remained the same on that subject).

Very nice, sirguess. Mike, you claim that you did not quote the statement on page 116 out of context. I offer the following: The statement you quote is in the second paragraph following that statement. Therefore, it is SPECIFICALLY regarding "how to receive" in terms of speaking in tongues. It is specifically NOT a declaration that everything Wierwille writes is God-breathed. Your refusal to see that does not change the statement or its context.

... Wierwille writes: Piece of cake. Since they were written after Pentecost, they are ADDRESSED TO a period after Pentecost. Had Wierwille written "the gospels are ABOUT a period before Pentecost," he would be correct. However, he did not say ABOUT, he said TO. And God has a porpoise for everything He says, where he says it how he says it, etc etc etc. Further, is it correct to say they are addressed solely to Israel or Gentiles? Luke may be ABOUT a period before Pentecost, but there is no question whatsoever that it is written TO and FOR practicing Christians. It is an effort to separate the truth of the gospel of Christ apart from the lies that were being spread by the early church heretics (people like the Gnostics, for example). So, at the very least, Luke is written TO the church. Therefore, Wierwille's statement that it is written to Israel or the Gentiles, but "never to the church of God" is false, according to Luke 1:1-4. I therefore stand by my statement. I believe Jesus was simply quoting Psalm 22. There are references to Psalm 22 all over the accounts of the crucifixion. There's no reason to believe he wasn't calling attention to the Psalm in the midst of his suffering. I don't think he was questioning God's presence at all. Expressing pain? Maybe. But doubt? Not at all. Four crucified is a matter of interpretation, not "actual error." You may not believe it, but it's an interesting argument to say the least. Sirguessalot: Stop bothering me. I have a right to my opinion and a right to express it :D--> Hope you catch the joke there, sir. Faith, faith, faith. Actual error, or an error of interpretation? As a non-master of Greek, I don't know what to say. I'll leave that to the expertise of others. My common sense tells me that "faith" is a noun, and that "believing" is the nominative form of a verb. Is that what a gerund is? I forgot all those meanings as soon as the final exams were over. I will say this, Karl: any criticism that uses the word "gerund" is an interpretation error, not an actual error. Remember, these are my rules, I make 'em up. BAAAAhahahahahaha. Okay, seriously: Wierwille's absurdity becomes very easy to refute once you substitute the word "pistis" for the translated words in his argument. So, here it is, the gospel according to Victor Paul Wierwille: Before Pentecost, it was not available for people to have pistis, because pistis did not come until Jesus Christ came to make it available. They could have pistis, but they could not have pistis. So whenever you read the word pistis before Pentecost, it's pistis, but when it's after Pentecost, it's pistis. Got that? I don't agree with Wierwille's distinction between "faith" and "believing." But it IS an interpretation of the statement in Galatians: "before faith came." I think it's an absurd interpretation, but that's my opinion. I'd still put it under an error of interpretation, but I'm open to be persuaded with a little more evidence (complete with documentable sources) if you don't mind, Karl.

Why not just take a syringe, dip it into a vat of crisco, and inject it directly into your vena cava?

Of course I have your book, dumb dumb. :)--> I recall that Wierwille did a teaching. I recall that Martindale ran with it. What I did not recall is whether any form of Wierwille's original teaching survived in written form. The answer appears to be no. Therefore, as much as I would include "athletes of the spirit" as an actual error, it is not exactly what I'm getting at with this thread.

Like I said, I'm remarkably easy to find. I appreciate your respect for me, Mike, but it is inaccurate to call myself a "leader" in any context regarding a discussion of The Way International. I never made any such claim, and hope you and others understand that about me. Here's my relevant bio. It's because when we ask you to support the thesis that Wierwille's writings are God-breathed, you quote him. I also think it's recognized that you believe Wierwille's claims regarding the promise of 1942 came to pass, as evidenced by the benefit to your life. I disagree, as evidenced by the lives of many people he hurt and abused in God's name, but that's not the subject of this discussion. Ha ha. I know that was a typo, or a Freudian slip. What you meant to say, of course, was that his claims prove he was either extremely right or extremely wrong. And here is where we have our most profound disagreement. I believe when Wierwille wrote that not all that he writes will necessarily be God-breathed, he challenged us to sort out that which is God-breathed from that which is not. He made NO claim to divine inspiration in his writing. Rather, he claimed that when and where he was in agreement with God's Word, the Bible, then his writing was just as valuable. He did not look at his written work as "perfect" or "divinely inspired," and in fact he personally revised his written work more than once. The Bible teaches us to PROVE ALL THINGS, and hold to that which is good. This includes PFAL. We are to prove it, all of it. We don't need to discard the new birth because we disagree with the law of believing. We do not need to embrace fear because we reject Wierwille's "analysis" of Job 3:25. We do not need to believe the trinity just because Wierwille can't get his "all without/with distinction" story straight. You would have us embrace every jot and tittle in Wierwille's books, or throw it all out like so much toilet paper. I REFUSE to buy into your extremist interpretation of Wierwille's words. I fail to see any place in the print or tape record in which he insisted that PFAL or any of his other written work is on par with the Bible, or in your estimation, even MORE trustworthy than the Bible itself. I do not see anyplace where he attributes divine authorship to PFAL. Your worship of his written material is an abdication of your responsibility to prove it against the standard of the Bible. In your eyes, PFAL IS the standard by which the Bible is to be judged. Mike, that worries me. It is the polar opposite of the best Wierwille stood for. No one, not one person alive, subscribes to this ridiculous theory, except for you. Don't you see? If Wierwille had meant for people to believe that, he would have TOLD someone. More than one person would be believing it and trying to convince others. It's one thing to teach that PFAL is a unique and valuable tool. It is quite another to teach that it is the God-breathed word. It is not. Wierwille said it is not. Wierwille felt free to revise it because it is not. I wish I could get that through to you, but 27 years of convincing yourself otherwise cannot be undone in a thread or a conversation. Wierwille made mistakes. Some were minor. Some were major. Wierwille got some things right. Some were minor. Some were major. I reject your insistence that one must embrace ALL or NOTHING. I think that's hogwash, and I think it's an abdication of our responsibility to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. You know what I feel like sometimes? I feel like a fish that got away with the bait. I wasn't hooked. I wasn't reeled in. I wasn't hurt. Thank God. Others were. That's a part of Wierwille's legacy, as much as the people he blessed. But me? I got the bait, and I recognize the difference between the bait, which is actually food, and the hook, which is the harmful stuff that happens if I swallow the bait blindly without regard to everything else around it. Get it? No, the best response is the Biblical one: PROVE ALL THINGS, HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD. Is there an echo in here? Perhaps because it's not necessary, Meek Master Mike. I see them all proving all things and holding... oh forget it. Hello, McFly, your shoe's untied. Once again, I reject your false choice. It is not a matter of discarding it all or embracing it all. It is a matter of proving... sigh. No, sir, I disagree with you. YOU melted them away. The damage Wierwille did to people's lives is a fact, something YOU refuse to look at any longer strictly because it does not conform to your idolatrous worship of his writings and, in many ways, his character as well. Mike, what can I tell you? You have convinced yourself of a logical model that does not hold. You tell us that we MUST choose option A or B. The simple fact that there are countless other options escapes you. Why? I do not know. I believe you are GRAVELY misinterpreting Wierwille, to the detriment of his words and God's Word. I wish I could make you see that, but like I said before, 27 years of convincing yourself otherwise cannot be undone by logic, common sense, scripture, or even the words of Wierwille himself.

Mike, I obviously need to take more time to read your comments, but on a cursory reading, I have to say you're off base. To say that Wierwille's words were applying to more than just that particular instruction he was giving because they are written in a book simply fails to take into account the CHAPTER in the book in which the words are written. Read that three times fast. In other words, Wierwille was teaching people how to speak in tongues, and he spoke those words. Fine. In converting that teaching into written form, he included the same words (well, DUH, that's what "converting the teaching into written form" means). We cannot say, after the fact, that Wierwille's statement on that page refers to other statements in other chapters, particularly when he himself stated that not everything he writes will be God-breathed. Dr. Wierwille never intended for us to exalt his words to the level of Scripture. His own words prove that, and I believe your interpretation of his denial twists his words to the extent that you interpret them to say the polar opposite of what Wierwille was trying to communicate. As for EWB and sirguessalot: Mike has every right to speak his mind, and I have no problem with him doing so. By his own words, his position is extreme. It is my belief that his POSITION deserves an extreme response. I wish you would fight for my right to continue this dialogue as much as you fight for his right to express his views. If Mike feels PERSONALLY insulted by anything I've written, let him say so. I have said before and will say again that my problem is with his POSITION, not his person. The closest I come to insulting him as a person is in criticizing the way he sometimes expresses his opinion, which I've criticized as insulting and arrogant. If he thinks that is a personal attack, he has not told me. Mike, I'll have more to say, maybe, when I give your post a more thorough reading.

You did. Thanks. Regardless of where you stand on dispensationalism (administrations), I think we can all agree that the words of Jesus Christ are worth studying if we are going to call ourselves Christians. I mean, duhhhhh. :)--> The Living Epistles Society

If adding to the Word, subtracting from the Word, and changing the Word leaves you with man's word and not God's Word, I'll have to give this one to you. In PFAL Wierwille writes about the "more than abundant life." In truth, the scripture from which he's quoting speaks of Christ coming that we might have life, and that we might have it more abundantly. Adding the word "than" makes it man's word, not God's word. The MEANING of "abundant life," in my opinion, falls under interpretation: although I disagree with Wierwille's interpretation, I'd say it's just on the other side of the line from "actual error." I'd put this under interpretation. I agree with you, I think Wierwille butchered the account of Abraham and Isaac. But it's an interpretation (the way I see it). Remember, as George Carlin used to say, these are MY rules. I make 'em up. (Which is to say, feel free to disagree with me). As for Athletes of the Spirit: Is there any written account of Wierwille's doctrine, where the writing/editing/publication was overseen by Wierwille? (I think it's logical to not include the books that were edited posthumously by Chris Geer, as Wierwille did not WRITE them).

If Wierwille said it does, you'd probably believe it. Karl, Great to see you, lad. You definitely deserve credit for helping with the list. Athletes of the spirit, indeed.

Abigail, The context of that statement was Wierwille teaching people to speak in tongues. I don't think he meant for it to apply to anything else. The Living Epistles Society

No complaints here.

Actually, if I may interject at this point: This is what I meant in the first post when I said I'm looking for actual errors. If you agree that there can be differences of opinion, no matter how strongly you hold your opinion, that is not the kind of error I am interested in exposing. I'm looking for 2+2=5 errors. I'm looking for verifiable, undeniable, indisputable, matter of fact errors. It's no secret that I think the Law of Believing is a bunch of hooey, but I do not list that as an actual error. You don't believe Wierwille was right about "they ceased saying the will of the Lord be done." Fine, but that's not what I mean by an actual error. I think we need to get down to brass tacks, bottom line mistakes: errors that can't be disputed. "Apistia" is used several times to mean people who do not believe even though they know enough to believe. That is a direct contradiction of Wierwille's statement in PFAL. No room for argument or disagreement. There is a word "lama" in Aramaic. Period. No room for error or disagreement. David was called a man after God's own heart BEFORE the Uriah/Bathsheba mess, not afterward as Wierwille wrote. Let's try to stick with actual errors, ones that are not subject to interpretation. I know it's easier for me to see my rules, seeing as I made them up, but I hope people understand what I'm trying to say here.