Raf

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.

And my reply: Actually, no, this pretty much lines up with what Wierwille taught about the Bible. His reverence for the perfection of the book is well-known, and your attempt at historical revisionism here is, umm, amusing. But if it makes you happy, I will change the word "standard" to "threshold." Wierwille set a low threshold for what constitutes an actual error. Deal with it. Straw man: show me an ink blotch that we've listed as an error. That makes one of us. Straw man again: if you can establish that one of the errors we've actually pointed out is a printer's error, I'm open to that possibility. I'd say the same for a proofreader's error. But NOT to the editorial process between Wierwille and his editorial staff. That's just outright evasion on your part. If this was the work of God, then the editorial process was protected by Him. You can't have it both ways. Either it's an imperfect work due to the flaws of Wierwille and the editorial staff, or it's the undiluted Word of God. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Fundamentally dishonest. I concur. None of the errors we've pointed out fits this description (okay, maybe one or two, but certainly not ALL). That makes your argument pure straw, man. FINE, THEN ADMIT AN ERROR IS AN ERROR. Once you get honest about that, which you have NOT been, we can move on to more substantive matters. But your patent lack of integrity in dealing with actual errors leads me to believe you are going to be JUST AS dishonest on weightier matters such as the law of believing, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, the right-dividing of administrations (dispensations), the lordship of Jesus Christ and other, more crucial matters. I can't even get you to admit there IS a pronounceable name for God in the Old Testament, despite what Wierwille said about the subject. Why should I trust you on ANY OTHER more substantive issue? It remains my contention that Wierwille was wrong about FAR MORE than little things here and there. I've focused on "actual errors" solely for the purpose of having you admit that, yeah, Wierwille can have made mistakes. But unlike you, I believe those mistakes are errors, not just typos or ink blots. Actually, that is Wierwille's position. It may not be PIVOTAL that we know which rendering is God-breathed, but only one rendering is. Mike is accusing ME of taking Wierwille too literally. Mark your calendars, folks. I'm going to celebrate the anniversary of this date next year. Bullsh.t. I think that's the kind of arrogance that led to the fall of TWI. One does not need to hold Wierwille's works to be God-breathed in order to appreciate that some of it had great value. One does not need to consider him some latter day prophet to recognize that there were times when he taught the Bible and, shudder, was right. Your "ants on the trees" analogy, borrowed from What the Hay, is an IGNORANT one, and really, is the fatal flaw in your whole thesis: your notion that one must accept all Wierwille taught as God-breathed or reject it all as raving lunacy is plain WRONG. There were times when Wierwille taught on certain subjects that he was wrong: substantively, crucially wrong. There were other times when he was substantively, crucially right. On the importance of believing, he was right. On the "LAW" of believing, his communication was flawed. On the role of fear, he was often right. On the role of fear in the life of Job, he was dead wrong. My relationship with God does not revolve around a pressing need to master the works of VPW. In fact, mastery of Wierwille's books not even on the list of things to do. All that is required of Wierwille is to do the same as you would any other preacher who claims God spoke to him: prove all things, hold fast to that which is good (a process which, by its very definition, requires us to identify that which is good, sift it out of that which is NOT good, and discard the bad). That's how I "master" PFAL: by recognizing its flawed origin and nature but refusing to discard whatever good that came from its presentation. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on April 11, 2003 at 10:31.]

Mike actually had something interesting to say on another thread that actually applies more to this thread. I'm taking the liberty to transfer his statement here in order to keep the other thread from straying off topic.

Mike, A discussion on what constitutes an error is off-topic for this thread. I'm tempted to answer your post, but not here. If you REALLY care to have an HONEST discussion about what ACTUALly constitutes an ERROR, and whether we've been nitpicking more than pointing out real mistakes, then you know where to take that conversation. This conversation was substantive. Let's keep it that way. P.S. I edited the post where I pointed out your "former/latter" mistake. EDIT: I couldn't resist: I moved Mike's post above to the actual errors thread, and replied there. FYI. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on April 10, 2003 at 16:18.]

you got your "former" and "latter" mixed up, which, come to think of it, doesn't surprise me at all. EDITED: (for those reading: I'm not crazy here. Mike actually did get "former" and "latter" mixed up in the preceding post. He fixed it after I pointed it out). Mike, you assume Wierwille was correct in what he taught, and you're setting out to prove to us that he taught a coherent doctrine on our relationship with Christ. That's where you and I are different (again). I assume Wierwille taught something, then set out to establish whether that which he taught was correct. To each his own. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on April 10, 2003 at 15:47.]

Actually, the person who imposed that standard on the Bible is VPW, not me. One preoposition out of place, and it CRUMBLES. That's what VPW said about the Bible. I'm only guilty of applying that same standard to VPW's written works. I think the remainder of your thesis is hogwash. Impossible or rare to have a true understanding and relationship with Christ without the PFAL writings? Hogwash. Believe it if you want, and I wish you well, but that thesis is nonsense.

Honest observation, no criticism intended or implied: I see two things being discussed here, simultaneously. First, whether Wierwille presented a coherent doctrine concerning our fellowship with Jesus Christ. Second, whether his presentation/doctrine was correct. Am I reading this thread correctly?

mull mull mull... all right. none of my bidness. I'll shaddap. Carry on.

I'm going to agree with Zix on this one. The question of whether VPW laced his teaching with a "ubiquitously hidden" thesis may not be doctrinal, but the presentation and discussion of his doctrine on our relationship with Christ is, by definition, a doctrinal discussion.

WordWolf: I am well aware of his theory, old friend. Thanks for the reminder. Mike's having fun believing God gave us His Word in pure form. Fine, let him have his fun. Let him take as much time as he wants. Five years. Five more years. If he's honest, he'll come to an honest conclusion. If he's deluded, then logic won't penetrate his thinking. Such is life. LarryP: I could get all the credibility with Mike right now by abandoning reason and honest questions. "Believe first, then you see." Wierwille didn't write the books....God wrote the books...Wierwille didn't write the books...God wrote the books... Now come on, this thread is not about MIKE. It's about the errors. Let's stay on topic. :)-->