Raf

Oh my God, he's not joking. You guys don't mind if I go back into retirement now, right? See you later everyone.

Helen Waite approves all credit applications. If you want credit, go to Helen Waite.

Because it's a DODGE, Mike. You're not asking because you want an answer. You're asking because you want to draw attention away from your own thesis. It's clever, but it's a dodge. I doubt your sincerity.

You know, I really used to think that to prove Mike's thesis wrong, I would have to present a strong case. Little did I know: To prove Mike's thesis wrong, all you have to do is allow him to present HIS case! So all Wierwille had to do is succumb to the devil spirit of sexual depravity once, and he was immune to it for a day, maybe two! Yep. That proves... plenty.

I don't recall asking you. Yes, yes, I know. I'm not meek to my teacher and I'm failing to master the material. YAWN. And an incorrect one. By dodging, evading, and refusing to admit an error is an error. Consider your dishonest "mastery" exposed. But then you stopped using your brain. I remember. You told us. I firmly disagree with your use of the word "yet."

I wrote... Mike replied... My reply: WordWolf is correct, but I'll put it more simply. My comments were qualitative, not merely chronological. They were not dealing with the timing of your answers, but the quality of them. Further, they were dealing with the fact that your method of dodging and delaying made an honest discussion impossible, as an honest discussion requires you to make an honest admission. You can make that honest admission tomorrow or a year from now, but until you do, the next step of the conversation cannot be taken. So no, I'm not rushing you. Take your time. But until you admit that errors are errors and not just ink blotches that accidentally fell onto the page and accidentally formed a major thesis, I will NEVER trust your honesty in handling this material. Clear enough for you, or should I use smaller words?

Mike, when we try to discuss the so-called "purity" of the books, you attack our integrity. When we try to discuss errors in the books, you attack the Bible. When we show inconsistencies in the book, you tell us we have to adopt your position in order to see things your way (well, DUHHH). Your reasonings are circular, your methods dishonest, and your canon impure and riddled with errors FAR more significant than those we've listed. It took you 32 years to come to us with this thesis, and I know you want us to take a fraction of that time to come to agree with you. But it takes far less time, and far more reason, to show that your thesis is flawed - and to see what those flaws are. But we can't argue with you. We can't even get you to admit that the book has mistakes introduced by the fact that their author was imperfect. I'm not talking about typos and ink blotches, I'm talking about flaws in its thesis and its conclusions. But we can NEVER get to those flaws, because you won't even admit that the black-and-white errors are errors. It's pathetic. Why should I trust your analysis on important matters when your analysis on simpler matters are so filled with deception, when indeed your very modus operandi is to dodge, evade and refuse to admit the black-and-white truth before you? Wierwille's works are less than perfect. They are NOT the God-breathed Word, even if they did help point many people to it. Your house is built on sinking sand. Keep the door open if you want, but don't expect me to walk through it anytime soon. And it's not because I'm not an "older grad." It's because I have enough sense in my head to see just how pathetically erroneous your thesis is.

I'll agree with you on certain points and disagree on others. 1. It does not take "revelation" to judge someone. Sometimes all it takes is evidence. That is, the testimony of more than one credible witness. I believe there is more than enough evidence to conclude Wierwille's attitude toward sex and sexuality tainted his presentation of God's Word on the subject. His written works are all but silent on the matter. He has his most devout followers thinking that "Victorian" (ie, BIBLICAL) attitudes about sex are somehow LESS damaging to individuals and society than rampant promiscuity. Laughable. 2. You claim to be unwilling to peer into other people's hearts, yet you judge our motives in coming to you with "actual errors." You mock our integrity and call us "unfit" researchers. Yeah, whatever. Some display of reluctance on your part. 3. Jesus NEVER tells us to wait for revelation in determining "judgments." He tells us very simply that we will know them by their fruits. He doesn't say "ye shall know them by what God tells you about their fruits." Revelation sometimes comes into play, but there are times you don't need revelation to tell you that someone is motivated by money and lust. All you have to do is look at the fruit of the person's life. 4. I totally agree that judging another person's eternal rewards is not my call. Or anyone else's on these boards. Any statement made to the contrary is speculation. 5. In criticizing the "Esteemed Panel of GS Cafe Character Judges," you sure leave the impression that you're above such behavior. As I've repeatedly shown, you're not. And by the way, in reference to your earlier post, I KNOW I'm not going to change your mind about Wierwille's character. I'm not out to change your mind on the subject. All I'm saying is YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, Biblically or otherwise, to criticize or condemn someone else's decision to dismiss your thesis based on their assessment of VPW's character.

FINE! You're still JUDGING. Period. Goodness, won't admit an error is an error. Won't admit that judging is judging. And hasn't used his brain in five years. Why am I arguing with this guy? :)-->

Sounds like judging to me. Sounds like judging Wierwille's critics as being less trustworthy than your own experience. Hey, you've got the right to do that. But you're still judging. So cut the hypocrisy.

Look, let's get this real clear... Wierwille's standing/state before God is between him and God. What God thinks of him and what God plans to do with him, I am in no condition to judge. But Wierwille's behavior left a lot to be desired, and it's an object lesson for us to look at his life and know how depraved people can be. The same goes for Solomon. The same goes for David. The same goes for countless other people. Mike has decided that Wierwille's behavior, the accusations against him, are not enough to dissuade him from his thesis. Mike is entitled to that point of view, but in exercising his right, he is just as guilty of JUDGING as the people he crticizes. He judges Wierwille's accusers. He judges those that disagree with him. He condemns the people he criticizes as... JUDGES! That's judging. Along comes Johniam, and accuses us of judging according to the flesh. He goes on to deride us by saying "Those folks (you know them) will NEVER understand." My, what an interesting JUDGMENT. He even writes of an assumption that we make (unless it's the Bible, it isn't the Word of God). I must congratulate Johniam on exercising his JUDGMENT. So, I'll say again, come off of your high horses, people. Mike's thesis rises and falls on its merits. The namecalling should end. Judging people does nothing but degenerate into endless finger-pointing that does NOTHING to answer the questions being raised.

Jesus said you'll know them by their fruit. Can you tell me how to know them by their fruit without exercising what you so derisively call "judgment"?

Any number of us could have told you that. With all due respect, Mike, you don't get the privilege of just declaring the matter settled. Each of us has as much right to weigh these matters as you do. And each of us has the right to come to a different conclusion. So, again, with all due respect to the 27 years you took to come to your erroneous conclusion, it did not take me NEARLY as long to come to a conclusion that is respectful of the Bible, respectful of Wierwille's presentation of the significance of the Bible, and the polar opposite of your sycophantic foolishness. So, I guess I'm done too: except I will continue using my brain, whereas you seem to have stopped using yours a few years ago.

The issue of discernment and judging is far more complex than the simple black and white ban imposed by Wierwille and company. It sounds SO PIOUS to say, "I'm not going to judge anyone." But refusing to judge anyone puts you in the position of being powerless to ascertain whether someone's behavior belies his pretty words. Jesus called people HYPOCRITES. We are to be imitators of Christ. We have Christ in us. When we see hypocrisy, therefore, we can call people on it without crossing any Biblical lines or mandates. Mike, Wierwille was a serial adulterer and abuser of women. I'm not judging him. It's a fact. Whether someone wants to consider that fact in determining whether to accept Wierwille's works as God-breathed is between them and God, and YOU, sir, have NO RIGHT to criticize them for exercising their Biblical responsibility to see to it that no one takes us captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy. Jesus said "by their fruits, ye shall know them." That means he expects us to recognize good fruit from bad, and he expects us to exercise a little (shudder) judgment in this area. Look, there are Christian ministers who are out to deceive us. The Bible warns us about them. Without "judgment" or discernment, we WILL be tossed about with every wind of doctrine, because we will be unwilling to "criticize" to the extent of cowardice. That's another reason TWI fell. So go ahead and tell me again that God is the one who judges, not me. But tell me, how do you know that God isn't the one allowing Wierwille's true legacy to be known? Use your brains, Mike. For once.

Sorry, I'm not with you on this one, Mr. H. In the book, Wierwille puts an ellipsis ("...") at the part where "ye think" should be, clearly indicating that he recognized those words are in the text. He skipped them because they were not central to his point. Does removing the words "ye think" substantively change the meaning of the verse? Does the alteration improve or detract from the point he's making in the PFAL book? My personal belief is that he could have left the words "ye think" in there without causing the confusion he apparently sought to avoid by omitting them. However, I am not prepared to call his editorial decision "an error." Not for the purposes of this forum.

Correction: Solomon wrote scripture too, but not while steeped in idolatry and disobedience to God. I'm not saying that to judge Solomon. Just stating a fact. Get it? You can recognize that someone was an idolater and disobeyed God without being their "judge." It's called discernment, and it's something God REQUIRES.

Fine. By the same token, even if God DID choose Wierwille in 1942, that is NOT evidence that Wierwille was worth following in 1985. I will agree, however, that God did not advise anyone to kill Wierwille when they had the chance. I don't know what that proves, but I guess it makes you happy. Still, I wouldn't be bragging about my obedience to Saul after he flipped his lid. And I wouldn't waste my time mastering the works of a man who twisted scripture to his own lustful ends. Mike, please come off your high horse: you are just as judgmental as those you criticize. You pass judgment on those who came to TWI too late to meet your Esteemed One face to face; you pass judgment on those who failed to pay heed to their Teacher; you pass judgment on those who refuse to see PFAL as something we need to master; you pass judgment on those "unfit researchers" who question the perfection of PFAL (and whether PFAL meets its own standards for "God-breathed" status). Wrap yourself in the mantle of the persecuted if you want to. Wrap yourself in the mantle of the righteous. But you are without question the most judgmental person I've ever encountered on these threads. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on April 11, 2003 at 19:43.]

Balaam/Baalam, whatever. I didn't do a spell check. The verse which says "holy men of God SPAKE" is specifically talking about scripture, not spoken prohecies. Balaam's prophecy in Numbers was not written by him. It was written by Moses, a holy man of God.

Mike, go to blazes. I mean, really, what kind of nonsensical accusation is this? Your whole post is nothing but an attempt to tear down King David's reputation in order to exalt VPW's. And you're tearing down Shaz and me in the process. How GODLY! All I was doing was responding to your claim that the examples of David, et al vindicate God's working through Wierwille. My, I seem to have touched a nerve in you, eh? What, afraid I'm going to call you names? I don't need to, Mike. I am not your judge, although you act as though you are mine (and certainly others'). By the way: David was a man after God's own heart. I presume that behavior to the contrary is going to be noted in God's Word. As for the 20-year old stories of VPW's repugnant behavior, I will believe them before I believe your sycophancy. Grow up.

Saul never wrote anything: therefore irrelevant. Did Baalam write anything? Not that I know of. Scratch the relevance of that question. The difference between David and VPW has been discussed ad nauseum (highlight: David's sin was horrible, he repented and paid dearly for it; Wierwille's sin was habitual and rather than repent of it, he excused it by denying the clear Biblical doctrine forbidding adultery in every administration). Solomon's an interesting case. You'll note that in the Bible, after Solomon rejects a godly course for his life, the Bible pretty much rejects anything else he has to say or do. So the question of whether he was a holy man or not is irrelevant because he certainly was at the time he wrote anything in question. When he was NOT holy, he never wrote anything that's accepted canon. If anything, he proves the case against Wierwille's works being God-breathed.

Thanks for catching the spirit of the original version of my post, mj. I thought I broke my promise not to get personal, so I edited it. I hope you're still amused by the edited version.

Don't worry, Mike, Your Secondary Thesis of Dr. (STD), which concerns who will believe your Primary Thesis of the History of the Prophetic Teacher's Hermeneutics (PTHPTH) is safe. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on April 10, 2003 at 20:56.]

The level of condescension in your thesis is astounding. Truly... Ok, maybe not astounding. How about... predictable, considering the icon you seek to validate.

Goodness, this is so annoying! Mike, the reason I reject your thesis has NOTHING to do with when I took PFAL, or the fact that I never met Wierwille. I reject your thesis because it does not stand to Biblical or logical scrutiny. It is disprovable on every major point, and most minor ones. Your only evidence is a reliance on circular reasoning: God spoke to Wierwille because Wierwille said God spoke to Wierwille, which is true because Wierwille said God spoke to Wierwille... Psst: There was no covenant of 1942. The reason for the similarities isn't Divine Authorship, it's plagiarism. The errors really are errors, and they go FAR beyond typos and ink blots. Oh, forget it.

I like Charles Stanley! Ok, granted, we never met, but he doesn't strike me as "false." Whatever that's worth.