Mike

"Thus saith" statement #18 - The Way–Living In Love - ...since the first century... About 6 years later, Dr again explained his 1942 experience to Elena Whiteside and she quoted him in her book "The Way - Living in Love." The following is from pages 178-181. ******* "Then Rosalind left. It was the fall of the year. Kids were back in school already. It must have been September. I was sitting in my office, an old dentist's office just around the corner from the church where I served — I'll show you that too when we get there. I bet you it's still there, though I haven't been back here since I left. "I was praying. And I told Father that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. "And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others. "Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me." He shakes his head slowly smiling. "It's just too fantastic. People won't believe it. But He spoke to me just as plainly as I'm talking now to you." "But really, why is it so strange? When you think about it, you see in the Bible that all through the ages God talked to people. God talked to Moses, to all the prophets. God talked to Paul. All through the centuries, God has talked to people in times of great need. And that's what we have today — a terrific need. People are just so far from hearing and believing the Word of God. You don't get it in the theological schools. The Word is buried, just like it was in the time of Jeremiah. Oh, they had their priests, their higher echelons, their temples, their rituals. It all looked so religious, you know. But the Word of God was buried. Oh, they were teaching the people something -- they called it the Word of God maybe, but the Word was buried. God spoke directly to Jeremiah. "The Word is buried today. If there's no one around to teach it, God has to teach it Himself. You see, I am a product of my times. God knew me before the foundations of the world, just like He knew you and everyone else. We were all in God's foreknowledge from the beginnings. "God knew I would believe His Word. And every day I am more and more deeply convinced of this ministry which teaches people the accuracy and integrity of God's Word. Without this ministry the world would be in far greater spiritual darkness about His Word. There would be less light in the world. Where else but in this ministry do you find the Word of God so living and real? This is truly a time of terrific need." Doctor nods his head abruptly, as if to punctuate his urgency. "Well, I couldn't believe that God talked to me right then. You see, God's right here. He always has been here. He is still here. And God is willing and able to reveal everything to anyone or everyone. But we are just unable to receive it. We don’t believe it. It's like, you can't pour a gallon of water in a teacup. It's just not big enough to receive it, take it all in. You have to make the cup bigger first. You build up the container, and then you fill it little by little. He fills us a little bit at a time as we can take it. He knows how much we can take because God knows everything. God doesn't waste His revelation on people who cannot believe it. "Paul had to be tremendously built up to believe —receive — the mystery that had been hidden since before the foundations of the world. John, too, had to be built up to receive the revelation set forth in the book of Revelation. It's taken many years and a lot of trips and searching to build my believing to this point also. But God knows our hearts. "Well, on the day God spoke to me, I couldn't believe it. But then I came to the point by the next day where I said to myself — maybe it's true. So the next day I talked to God again. I said, 'Lord, if it's really true what you said to me yesterday, if that was really you talking to me, you've got to give me a sign so that I really know, so that I can believe.' "The sky was crystal blue and clear. Not a cloud in sight. It was a beautiful early autumn day. I said, 'If that was really you, and you meant what you said, give me a sign. Let me see it snow.’ My eyes were tightly shut as I prayed. And then I opened them. "The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling station on the corner not 75 feet away." Doctor relates this phenomenon in a joyous voice. The car swerves off the highway, onto a narrow black-top road, and the sign with the arrow reads: "Payne, 2 miles." The overcast sky turns restlessly over our heads, and the sparse sprinkling of snowflakes thickens on the windshield. Doctor laughs aloud. "It reminds me of that day in 1942. It reminds me of that other time it snowed." We pull into a sleepy, small midwestern town. Around two corners, we're by a one-story building, the front of which is a many-paned display window. "That's the old dentist's office that was my office," Doctor remarks. By now, the snow is swirling around us. At the corner stands the Marathon Gas Station. Doctor shakes his head from side to side. His face breaks into a ready smile. His eyes are blue, laughing or crying. "It reminds me of the day..." he trails off. "That's where I was sitting when I prayed to God to teach me the Word and show me how. And when I opened my eyes, it was snowing so hard I couldn't see those gas pumps right there." He points to the pumps a dozen yards or more from the window. A car has just pulled in. The dentist's office is deserted now, empty through the window.

rascal, that was a figure of speech meaning to cave in suddenly. **************************************************************** **************************************************************** **************************************************************** **************************************************************** “Thus saith” statement #17 - SNS tape #214 - Light Began To Dawn Since I'm doing Dr's "Thus saith the Lord" statements, why not include his accounts of the 1942 promise? Here is one such account from that piece titled "Light Began to Dawn" posted in an earlier thread. Actually, that's not it's original title, as this was taken from within the announcements on an old SNS tape #214, from October 17, 1965. ******* "And so, all of this stuff began to build. And so finally, as I kept praying, I just said to the Father, I said 'Father, teach me the Word––teach me the Word.' And one night, something happened, which to me is the greatest thing I don’t––I see only one experience that perhaps is greater than this in the Bible, and that’s the Apostle Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus. Outside of that, I see nothing in the Word that equals how God revealed Himself to me and talked to me and told me as plain as day: 'That if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to teach it to anybody since the first generation.' And of course at that time I thought, 'Now that’s a dandy!' 'Boy, if I learned this Word of God, everybody’ll listen to me, the whole church will be blessed. My denomination will grow by leaps and bounds because we’ll have the Word of God.' "And I thought that was terrific! But during the process of that revelation––and I can’t tell it all to you because we’re already closing off; but during the process of it, I said: 'Father, how will I know that this is You and that You’ll really teach it to me?' Because I had worked the Word in commentaries and the rest of it and I couldn’t understand it––couldn’t get it to fit. It happened to be bright sunshine like today––like it’s been today and yesterday––what we people refer to, I guess as 'Indian Summer'––beautiful day. And the sun was shining brightly; it was in the Fall of the year––gorgeous! And there wasn’t a cloud in the sky. And just on the inside of me it seemed to say, 'Well, just say to the Father, Well, if––if it’ll just snow––right now, you’ll just know that this is God talking to you.' But, you see I’d never had much experience with God talking to me, and this business of He saying to me, just as audibly as I’m speaking to you, that He’d teach me the Word if I’d teach it, sort of shook me. "I’d been expecting to hear from heaven for a long time, but I hadn’t heard that way before, you know. Ah, my ears were perhaps clogged up, since that time I’ve heard a lot of things––from Him. But, then I said, 'Lord, if this is really true, I’d like to see it snow.' And I opened my eyes––must not have been over three seconds, and I was sitting in front of the window looking East, the sun was––ah, West. The sun was in the West and there wasn’t a cloud in the sky ‘cause I could see the whole area. I closed my eyes when God said to me that He would teach me the Word if I’d teach it. And I said, 'Lord, to know that this is true, I’d like to see it snow.' And I opened my eyes and it was pitch––almost pitch black outside and the snow was falling so thick, I have never seen it fall that thick since that day. And I sat in that little office and I cried like a baby, because I guess it was about my time to cry, because I’d grown up but didn’t know the Word. "And from that day on and He’d promised to teach me the Word, I have tried with all my heart, from time to time––all along, to learn this Word. One of the reasons there are sections of the Word perhaps that I––I don’t know, because I do too much cement pouring and a few other items that have to be done and that have to be taken care of. But I am absolutely confident that there is no portion of God’s Word that God would not teach me and unfold to me if I studied the Word to show myself approved unto Him by rightly dividing it. "And that began the ministry that has cost me, sense-knowledge, more than anybody will ever realize––except those of us who’ve gone through it. It gives ya’ a whole set of new friends. It caused people, heads of my denomination, through various times when I appeared teaching, like in India, even to write letters against me that I was not a member of the denomination at all––and I’d been born in the lousy place. Isn’t that something? And I have them on file––have them in my files, you ought to see ‘em, I got a sheet this big. "These are prices you pay. Then you say, well, why don’t I reciprocate? Because, people, you can’t fight and work the Word too. You can’t be fighting all the time and trying to defend yourself against the unbelievers, because the unbelievers are many more than the believers. And we’ve got only one job to do, as far as my life is concerned, and that is to teach the Word. Whether anybody believes it or not, that’s not my responsibility. But to teach it is my responsibility, because He said He’d teach me the Word if I would do one thing––teach it. "Now in order to teach it, I have to study the Word; and when I study it, He shows it to me, then I can teach it." . . . .

ex10, Come ON! Hopeful for WHAT? That I'd suddenly cave and throw something away I cherish and have worked hard for, to see better than before? Please don't expect that from me. Expect my willingness to discuss, but not to submit and obey. The later expectation s so TWI-TVT like. When someone rejected my witnessing I learned to still be cheery to them. Tomorrow they might put a little water on the seed I planted. Many here have tried to get me to cave because they just have not seen the huge mountain of truth I've seen since I came back to PFAL.

I wasn't impervious! I pondered what she wrote for hours, and tried to respond accordingly. For you, the only results that count would be if I cursed God and died... figuratively. I don't expect dramatic results like that from you folks. I'd just like to be able to OFFER it to you withour a lot of soap operas. I know no one changes over night, especially if they've been posting and debating for years on something. Can't you be relatively happy that I don't COMPLETELY shun and avoid you folks like most TVT adherents do?

“Thus saith" statement #16 – 1967 Film Class seg 13 – I Thess 2:13 This next occurrence of I Thess 2:13 is longer, more spread out, and more subtle. It's Dr second handling of this verse in the class. This is near the end of segment 13: Let me show you something from I Thessalonians two thirteen, listen to this: I Thessalonians 2:13: 'For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.' You know, you may have the Word of God, you may know the Word of God but it does not work effectually in people. It does not work effectively with power until we do one thing. Believe. You believe that Word and lo and behold you speak that Word and it produces the same results today that it has produced at any time in the history of civilization since that Word has been given. You know, the Bible says that we are to abide in the Word. We are to abide in the Word and we're to let this Word abide in you. To the end that we abide in the Word this Word takes the Master's place in our lives through our renewed mind and then it becomes our vocabulary but it is God's Word. We speak, this is our vocabulary, we speak the Word but as we speak the Word it is God's Word. 'I thank my God that when ye received the Word which ye heard of us ye received it not as the word of man,' sounds like it, 'but as the Word of God which worketh effectually in those that believe.' This Word of God cannot be broken, that's right. Just cannot be broken, not one iota of it can be broken, for what God promised He is not only able but willing to perform and that whole Word fits like a hand in a glove. You see it is this Word of God that really thrills a man. In Luke chapter twenty-four. Matthew, Mark, Luke, let me just check this with you. Luke twenty-four listen to verse thirty-two:Luke 24:32: 'And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?' This was speaking about Jesus on the road to Emmaus after the ressurection as he spoke to these men. He opened unto them the scriptures. You see how their hearts thrilled, how their hearts burned within them because he opened to them the scriptures. I've never seen a man or a woman or a boy or a girl in these classes on Power for Abundant Living whose soul just has not thrilled with an effervescence and with an abundance and with a glow when this Word of God started to unfold, started to fit like a hand in a glove. It made sense and how their hearts burned within them. How they thrilled at the greatness of God's Word! *** I’d say this statement #16 is a little weaker than the other two like it, both of which were HOT! Seen alone, this one is extremely subtle. Seen with the other two, this one glows!

"Thus saith" statement #15 – 1967 Film Class seg 11 - I Thess 2:13 Interestingly enough, the preceding use of I Thess 2:13 in the film class was the THIRD time in the class Dr covered that verse. By the time that last session was reached, as described above in statement #14, Dr had TWICE already introduced the class to this verse and to Paul's authoritative teaching being "like" his own God-given authority. Here's the first such occurrence of I Thess 2:13 in the film class. This is segment 11: You see very few of us have gone back to the Word, we have gone back to men. And we have said well what did Kant say, what did Plato say, what did Aristotle say, what did this theologian say, what did this man say, what did this other person say? Class, back to the Word! The Word and nothing but the Word! For it's this Word which is the Will of God! That's right, bless your heart. Look at I Thessalonians, I Thessalonians chapter two; Acts, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians; the same trouble tonight I had before, this India paper is just a little to thin to find all these scriptures so quickly; but they're in here. I Thessalonians 2:13 listen to this: 'For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us,...' You see they received the Word of God which they heard of Paul it was Paul's vocabulary but what he was speaking was God's Word. But to the senses ears the people could have said, "well that's Paul talking, that's just Paul, yeah that's just Paul." Like they say, "oh, that's just Dr. Wierwille, yeah..." I've heard that, no, no, no. ...thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually [which effectually] worketh also in you that [do one thing--go to church every Sunday morning, sit in the front pew and shout glory hallelujah, believe in all the social action programs;] no a thousand times no. Works effectually in those who do one thing. What? believe.

Ladies, PLEASE! I'm not trying to suck anyone into anything. I’m just trying to show you that there's a lot to be learned IF YOU WANT TO LEARN. No one's keeping anyone here to inflict headaches. You all decide what to look at. Instead of looking at my posts, why not try PFAL sometime? ************************************************************* ************************************************************* ************************************************************* ************************************************************* "Thus saith" statement #13 – 1983 Magazine Article - fact & Christianity Here's another of the many well hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statements we can find in Dr's teachings. This one has never been in my previous posts here at GSC. It's from the Sep/Oct 1983 Way Magazine where Dr's article focuses on a short list of vocabulary words that need to be sharply understood. The list of words he handles in that article is: religion, Christianity, fact, truth, faith, believing, formed, made, created, body, soul, and spirit. The title of the article is "The Importance of Words in God's Word." The words "fact" and "Christianity" do NOT appear in the Young's Concordance or in the KJV, but they DO occur in the PFAL writings... a lot. This again is pretty subtle. That’s probably why I never posted it before. Alone it’s very weak, but taken with all these other statements it gains strength. ************************************************************* ************************************************************* ************************************************************* ************************************************************* "Thus saith" statement #14 - !967 Film Class seg. 66 - I Thess 2:13 This next "thus saith" statement has already appeared above in this thread as I discussed statement #2, but I purposely avoided distracting myself by avoiding pointing it out. I'd like to know if anyone saw this that follows already. If not, we can consider it a little hidden, can we not? This is the text from the last Session of the class, just before we were led into tongues. This time I'll boldly fontulate only that section for this statement #14 *** In that segment 66 of the '67 film class Dr says: "And, in my classes on Power For Abundant Living, nobody ever gets missed, because, if you're in this class, you've heard the Word, you've believed God's Word, God is always faithful. And nobody ever misses, if you'll do exactly what I tell you to do, right down to the minute detail. "It's like, in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember where the Apostle Paul said: 'I thank my God, that, when you received the Word of God which you heard of us, you received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the Word of God.' "Now, if you'll be as honest with God as that Word of God says, you too can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the power of God. But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille talking, you'll never get it." *** So this statement #14 is right in there with #2. We all heard it a maximum number of times in the film class.

"Thus saith" statement #12 – RHST Preface - prophecy Here is one that I think is real special. This one again is hidden where few go for a first reading let along a second and third. It’s in the Preface of "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today," page x in the 7th edition. There we read: "If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God’s best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book. It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted and comforted." *** Let's look at this paragraph closely, sentence by sentence. I'm stunned, even now after seeing it many times in the past. There's so much in here. "If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book." This exhortation applies to us now as much as it did back then. We were often told by Dr to master the class materials. This is just one more place. Here he used the word "study" which is used in II Timothy 2:15, our point of departure (PFAL p.115). *** "Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God’s best." This encouragement applies to us now MORE than it did back then. Connecting this sentence with the previous one leads to two possible understandings: either "this book" IS God's best, or/and "this book" is instrumental to receiving "God's best." Looks like both are true to me. *** "If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book." There it is again: This book is God's answer to the how of the power, just like the above sentence. God's answer is God's Word. God's Word is the power of God. Twice establishes it. We may find our answer while reading "this book." Or how about MASTERING it? *** "It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted and comforted." WOW!!! That's what prophecy does! This book, RHST, is prophecy! Hey! I didn't write the book! It's been sitting there all that time, unnoticed. Think how many other treasures await us, hidden there by God.

rascal, We've done the shopping cart comparison here before. I don't have time to repeat it now. *** You wrote: "We have filled ours buggies to capacity and are at home enjoying the bountifull feast." They why bellyache about my posting causing hurt? *** You wrote: "The pfal adherants that I am familiar with tend to be quite nasty to one another..." I believe it was TVT adherents, and Corps usually, that you found to be nasty. I did too. I try to keep these things in mind. In person I'm NOT the aggressive guy I have to be to face the kind of opposition I run into here at times. I prefer a gentle touch in my communications. The only times I've been aggressive in my private life is when my back was against the wall. I'm not proud of those days when I was often in the face of leadership in various ways. I was not well practiced at that kind of behavior and I didn't like it, but I thought it was my duty... back THEN. I can and would love to discuss these matters in a quiet, leisurely fashion. I’m open to PMs all the time.

rascal, Yes, I have, shut myself off from help from those who don't want to meekly work PFAL and apply it, but only after giving them a thorough hearing for many years prior to 1998. I shopped around and compared. It's YOU folks who are limiting your shopping, and prematurely cutting yourselves off from what God could do to help you in written PFAL.

Ex 10, You wrote: "Threw my stuff away a couple decades ago. __ And honestly, haven't missed it." One of my main points here is that you don't know what you're missing.

Ex10, You might be surprised if you actually do some yourself.

“Thus saith” statements #10 and #11 – RHST Intro to Appendixes Way in the back of the "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" book can be found an isolated "hidden" set of passages that, when I happened upon them just several years ago, could only think was "What are these passages doing all the way back HERE?" I could remember seeing them many, many years prior, back in 1972 in my first reading, but in those days EVERYTHING seemed so cosmic and amazing that it blended into the background in no time. But lately, when I came back to PFAL, this set of paragraphs totally astounded me in how oddly they seemed to be hidden in the back of the book. If you were specially attentive to my posting over the years, you might have noticed that in the middle of Dr’s 1979 Our Times article, "How the Word Works," Dr hints to us that doing word studies in the PFAL writings would be a useful thing to do. I don't mean normal Bible word studies with the KV and a concordance. I mean a PFAL word study, looking at previous usages (in PFAL, not in the Bible) of a word for deeper meaning. An example of a PFAL word study, only partially completed, was how we tracked down Dr's previous usage of the word "master" in other PFAL writings and thus gained a better understanding of how he used that word in his last teaching when he told us to “master” the material. Now, in these passages tucked away in the back of RHST, Dr will again hint to the usefulness of doing PFAL word studies. Watch close for the word studies issue to come up in the middle of all this, because there is a lot of action going on here. *** Let's look at the "Introduction to Appendixes" in RHST to see these TWO ways that Dr says, in essence, "Thus saith the Lord." One first point to keep in consideration is that the first such appendix is titled "The Word Receive" and is about dechomai and lombano. This will come up later. Now I'll reprint nearly the entire passage before I work on a line by line commentary. This is From "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" page 223 in the 7th edition 1982 (p.257 in the 6th ed. 1972). Hold on to your hats, this gets intense: “If we believe that throughout the Scriptures we have the words of God and not man, many difficulties will disappear. We must allow the Divine Author the rights and privileges claimed and operated by every human author -- that He may quote, adapt, or repeat in varied forms His own previously written or spoken words. God could have used other forms had He chosen to do so, but it has pleased Him to repeat His own word or words, introducing them in different contexts, with new applications and connotations. Thus it obligates us to study the context, the paragraph, and the section where the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see it is used in a different sense or not. “The greatest satisfaction of any Biblical scholar is to fathom what can be searched out from God's Word and to quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out.” Dr then briefly handles three words in Ephesians 3:8 and Romans 11:33, and defines the following two words found in them. He defines anexichniastos as “unsearchable, untraceable, cannot be explored or found out.” He then defines anexerunetos as “translated 'un-searchable' simply means inscrutable or incomprehensible, that which can be apprehended but not comprehended.” Next he writes: “These appendixes have been added to this volume for those who desire to search out and explore the deeper reason for the way in which God has set truth in perfect order in His Word.” *** Now let's examine the opening lines of the “Introduction to the Appendices” closely. "If we believe that throughout the Scriptures we have the words of God and not man, many difficulties will disappear." This is just as true with Dr's books as with the ancient scriptures. In fact, it's MORE true with Dr's books, because we don't really HAVE original scriptures to work with, just slightly mis-copied fragments, scholarly compilations, questionable translations, and religious versions. At best we only have man's translations, or versions like the KJV. If we had believed that Dr's books were of God, we would have obeyed his final instructions to master them, and the ministry would have straightened out, instead careening into the big meltdown. But we did NOT do this and as a result many difficulties appeared. I believe as we return to a meek receiving of the PFAL books "MANY DIFFICULTIES WILL DISAPPEAR." *** "We must allow the Divine Author the rights and privileges claimed and operated by every human author -- that He may quote, adapt, or repeat in varied forms His own previously written or spoken words. God could have used other forms had He chosen to do so, but it has pleased Him to repeat His own word or words, introducing them in different con- texts, with new applications and connotations." How many traditionalists want to confine God to the KJV or some other version? How many want to forbid God to re-issue, improve the surviving remnants, and forbid Him to further clarify to our culture HIS OWN original words, and forbid Him to teach us how to walk into the next administration? Many to most is the answer. Many to most people DO FORBID God these options. That's why we have "many difficulties." As a body we pretty much have all forbidden God the above liberties we would easily grant any human author. Tradition hates to admit the above. Tradition is a prison. The above sentences are talking about Dr's books, NOT the ancient scriptures and their derivatives. How do I know that? Next sentences (WITH MY CAPS and bold fonts): "Thus it obligates us to study the context, the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION where the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see it is used in a different sense or not." How many of people have Bible versions that are organized into paragraphs and sections? Not too many. How about none? Traditional Bibles are organized into books, chapters, and verses. Look in the table of contents of your Holy Spirit book. It's organized into chapters and SECTIONS and, or course, PARAGRAPHS. How many times have you ever heard anybody refer to a "paragraph" or a "section" in their Bible version? Oh, they COULD be referring to a Bible version. But then why didn’t Dr use the usual construction and say here "Thus it obligates us to study the context, the VERSES, and the CHAPTER where the same word appears...”? I believe he used the unusual construction of “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION” to alert us to something, that these words are primarily talking about the very book they appear in, "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today." Can “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION” also apply to a Bible version’s verses and chapters? Yes, as long as it's rightly divided via the PFAL guidance that started in 1942. These words can also apply to the other PFAL collateral books which are organized into "PARTS." This passage mentioning "PARAGRAPH" and "SECTION" are telling us that doing word studies within this very book, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today," is a worth while thing to do. Thus I count this as the hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #10. The phrase "...the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see it is used in a different sense or not." refers to the process of doing a PFAL word study. *** Now, let’s take a break. I am beginning to point out on this thread that often we seem to be finding things that were HIDDEN in Dr's books, and that this is a prime example, being tucked away in the very back of the Holy Spirit Book. Interestingly, the very topic of this passage centers on the HIDDEN element in God's Word. Also above, I made brief mention at the first that the appendix following this introduction deals with dechomai and lombano. In PFAL'77 (and I think also in the Advanced Class) Dr explained how God started revealing directly to him the teaching on dechomai and lombano. He explains that he was reading a text that was open to a place that had both dechomai and lombano on the same page. God showed him a vision and made the printed letters of those two words stand out inches above all the other words on the page to get Dr's attention. God used many means to deliver His Word to Dr "like it has not been known since the first century." God gave Dr revelation as to WHO’S research he should spend any time on, checking it out, and who's research should be avoided altogether. God also gave him revelation as to WHICH PARTS of an other researcher's material was to be accepted by Dr, and which to reject, and God's ownership of these revelations superseded all human copyright questions. Sometimes in this process God gave Dr phenomena like the vision of heightened letters of dechomai and lombano. And God gave Dr what he often described as a spiritual awareness. You know, the stuff we THINK we have at times too. In this "Introduction to the Appendixes" of the Holy Spirit book, Dr points out that a person can get some facts from 5-senses tracking, but some truths can ONLY come by direct revelation. What he's really aiming at getting to in the first Appendix , what he is introducing here is the Appendix on dechomai and lombano and the revelations God gave him on that subject. Coupling this PFAL’77 story of Dr’s about getting revelation on dechomai and lombano with what is written in this Introduction and Appendix I, is what brings me to believe what I said above about the unusual construction of “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION.” This background on dechomai and lombano helps set the tone that brings out the hidden “thus saith” statement #10 above, and #11 below. *** Next lines: "The greatest satisfaction of any Biblical scholar is to fathom what can be searched out from God's Word and to quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out." How many people can find a passage in the Bible that discusses "free will"? What Dr taught us about "free will" and "foreknowledge" and many other subjects cannot be easily traced in the Bible with great surety. Dr got the surety of those things by revelation, not by merely tracking them with his 5-senses in the Bible. There are many other items like this that I may someday write a post about, but here I will mention one more untrackable item. It's about what is coming in the NEXT two pages in the Holy Spirit book. The passage we're examining is the "Introduction to the Appendixes" and two pages later is Appendix I "The word Receive" on dechomai and lombano. Several paragraphs above I mentioned a little of how Dr got what he got on dechomai and lombano. He did not track down all of this information via his 5-senses; he got some by revelation. This information can't be totally figured out by scholars or by 5-senses methods. Scholars who are meek can read this book on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" and then they can "quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out." We can quietly accept the PFAL revelations on dechomai and lombano because they are from God. This is hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #11. *** "These appendixes have been added to this volume for those who desire to search out and explore the deeper reason for the way in which God has set truth in perfect order in His Word." We desire this deeper, spiritual understanding of God's Word. A 5-senses understanding is too limited to defeat the adversary, who has run the 5-senses realm for many centuries. By meekly searching out and systematically mastering the treasure God has provided in English for us in PFAL we will see "many difficulties disappear." We have the pure Word of God.

Ex10, I do appreciate being able to talk to you here on the board. I had claimed that the books are free of danger. You wrote: “There are tons of stories here at GS that contradict your assertion, Mike.” Yes, I know that and I contradict those stories. I argue against them. The TVTs that grew up around the written record on the law of believing DID get quite messy at times. Those verbal traditions were bad. The written teachings are not bad. *************************************************** *************************************************** *************************************************** *************************************************** Oakspear, You are correct. There is an element of circular reasoning, and thus what I’m saying about SOME of these “thus saith” statements is not a logical proof my assertions that Dr actually made of these claims. Furthermore, I’m EVEN LESS trying to prove that the claims I claim to have found are accurate, and that the PFAL writings ARE God-breathed. I’ve backed off trying to rigorously prove things many years ago. Remember, I’m mostly trying to show posters here that there are vast tracts of written PFAL still relatively virgin to them. Several of the “thus saith” statements here are solid, but most are subtle, and somewhat need a boost of meek believing to see most clearly. I mentioned this last year in the PT discussions from which these “thus saith” statements are being re-written for posting. In the preliminary version of this, in the 22 “thus saith” statements posted by WTH, you may see this circular reasoning caveat where I admitted before what you see now. I don’t mind admitting to the weak statements in my collection because of the existence of the strong ones. *** You wrote: “IMHO the "not all necessarily" line indicates that he thought that some of what he said would line up with the bible and be equivalent to "thus saith the Lord" just as Luther and the other men that he mentioned did the same. He is quite obviously putting himself in the category of men who could sometimes hit the mark and speak as God directed them, but that there words could not be counted on to be 100% god-breathed, that he reserved for the bible.” Yes, but the wording he uses for himself differs from the wording he uses for the others. He uses “not all” and he uses “necessarily” when placing himself in the list of men who have untrustworthy words compared to the pure words of God. I think you are back to leaning on the version of that sentence I offered before where those differing words are removed. In fact, it was while discussing this page 83 of PFAL with you a few years ago that I came up with that edited wana-be sentence: “Not what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed.” With the sentence edited that way THEN your analysis of Dr comparing himself with those men could be accurate. *** You wrote: “On another note, I have difficulty accepting your premise that the written PFAL was considered the canon of TWI, rather than just an aid to the filmed class. I recall Wierwille in the advanced class contradicting something that he taught in the foundational, saying that he ‘had to teach it that way’. It was about counterfeiting speaking in tongues. In the AC he say that it could be counterfeited.” First of all, he does faintly indicate in the class that there could be a LOUSY counterfeit. It’s “Boop, boop, boop, boop, beep, beep, beep, beep.” He also alludes to the possibility with the man who had a very gutteral sounding tongue unfamiliar in sound to Dr and he says “Do we have a counterfeit here?” Second, it’s of primary importance to me what is written in RHST or other writings, rather than what he spoke in the film class. I love to use tapes of his spoken teachings to help out here and there, but I don’t worry about occasional contradictions in the spoken record. The verbal teachings of Dr’s were primarily for those present or to who the tapes were directly sent, hence some verbal contradictions can be unraveled by observing “to whom” he was addressing. It seems that the AC and the film class fall into these categories. All that said, I am still VERY interested in what you or anyone else here remember from that AC on this issue of counterfeit tongues. Was it the ’79 AC on tape that you remember this from, or a live class? I'd like to track it down. ... and speaking of tracking down... that comes up in my next post...

LG, I see you’re allowing considering of the null set in the phrase “I eat.” I was not. Let me re-phrase my example. If I am eating an ititially whole pizza and I eat not all of it, then that means there is some left for another. Does that fix it? I was talking about pizza eatin people, so I didn’t consider allowing (in my example) someone not eating any pizza. Likewise, I was also not considering the possibility that Dr’s writings were could be the null set. I know he did write. *** In your second post I cannot see why you used the word "necessarily" in those examples. The word "necessarily" in each sentence implies a context that is unseen in each sentence. The usual construction would be without that word "necessarily" unless there was a story behind the sentence to support that word. I’m having a hard time communicating my thoughts here. Try again: Those four sentences stand alone as easy to believe if the word “necessarily” is removed. Try again: I think what you want those sentences to say is better said without “necessarily.” Try again: The sentence "Not all of the food I eat will be sushi" is a fine simple statement of fact. The sentence "Not all of the food I eat will necessarily be sushi" is confusing alone, and makes no sense as is. It begs a question. Precede it with “I am a professional sushi taster” and the set of two sentences state two whole facts. Simple fact: "Not all of the e-mail I send will be addressed to Mike." Confusing fact: "Not all of the e-mail I send will necessarily be addressed to Mike." Needed addition to justify "necessarily": "Mike pays me big bucks for every e-mail I send him." Simple fact: “Not all of the books I read will be written by Salman Rushdie.” Confusing fact: “Not all of the books I read will necessarily be written by Salman Rushdie.” Needed addition: “I am Salman Rushdie's personal secretary/editor.” Last try: If I were your editor, and you submitted those 4 sentences with the explanation you offered afterwards, I'd delete the word "necessarily" in all four of your sentences. If you then showed me additional sentences your reader was exposed to which were anything like the "needed additions" I offered above, then I'd back off from my urge to delete. *** Why are the special words “not all” and “necessarily” used to set Dr apart from all the others listed on that page 83 of PFAL? It’s the 1942 promise and him being appointed a spokesman.

doojable, I admit that the four Prefaces are weakly implied “thus saith” statements. In the 70’s I was sensitive to the then false charges that the ministry was cultish in it’s behavior. I’d read all the latest cult exposé books, and TWI sometimes had it’s own chapter. They had most of their facts completely wrong, and that made me feel good, but little things like these Prefaces and the way they were worded bothered me. Maybe it’s not poor grammar that bothered me, just poor PR in the face of a hostile world wanting to pin a cult charge on us. In those days I was strongly opposed to the idea that written PFAL was anything like God-breathed, and those Prefaces looked like they crossed at least a PR safety line, if not also a grammar line, making it look too much like Dr was making a veiled “thus saith” claim. [late edit: how about "style" instead of "grammar"? it looks like poor style.] In those days I’d have re-written those sentences, or at least inserted cult-charge deflecting text in between them. Now I see that Dr meant them to be that way, and that’s why they never were tweaked like may other lines were in those books. Not all of these many "thus saith" statements are strong like the first three, but some are.

Ex10, My fellowship is about an hour’s drive, and so I had about 2 hours this afternoon to contemplate (among other things) your recent posts here. It is the case that my posts here cause a stir. I’m sensitive to this, and have been since I started posting. In my first week I almost quit posting because I thought that stir was getting out of hand. I have brainstormed with various members of management, and with several prominent posters over the years about this need to minimize the negativities that my posting inevitably causes. I’m not committed for life to my posting style. I’ve often toyed with differing strategies and have backed off several times to re-consider my activities here. I’m not thinking of EVER ditching my activities with respect to the PFAL books, but I could quit posting altogether tomorrow or radically alter my posting style just as quickly. I’m open to discussion about these things, especially in private. In private there are less complications that need to be thought through before speaking. If it’s any consolation to you, I’m very much open to consider any situation, general or specific, as to any negative impact my style and frequency of posting may be having. The last thing I want to do is hurt anyone. You may disagree with me, but I believe that the positive impact of my posting can will eventually outweigh the negative. However, and this should console you, I recognize my responsibility to STILL minimize the negative short term impact of my posting whenever and wherever possible. *** May I repeat something? None of the negative situations that DID INDEED develop in the ministry can be traced to the written PFAL doctrines. The team that produced those writings, which I firmly believe included God Almighty, totally filtered out all the bs. A grad researcher who is well respected here, and who is recognized by many for spotting some deep errors in the ministry, told me that if I studied only written PFAL and implemented its application faithfully in my life, then I would do well. He too knows that there is no dangerous bs in them books. The danger of my message causing any kind of recurrence of the problems you remember in the ministry will simply not happen. There are those here who do fear those problems will recur, and I believe their fears can and should be calmed if I am to post here with minimal negative impact. If there is any more you’d like to discuss along these lines, may I suggest telephone? I’m also open to PM and public discussion, as each medium has it’s advantages.

“Thus saith” #9 – JCNG Introduction – appointed spokesman This statement can be seen at the end of JCNG's Introduction, where Dr claims Jesus Christ appointed him a spokesman. It's in the large italic print section. That Introduction closes thusly (but with my bold fonts): ******* Before closing, let me bare my soul. To say that Jesus Christ is not God does not in my mind degrade the importance and significance of Jesus Christ in any way. It simply elevates God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to His unique, exalted and unparalleled position. He alone is God. I do believe the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of man because he had a human for a mother; and he is the Son of God because of his created conception by God. So on the basis of the parentage of God alone, besides his choosing to live a perfect life, Jesus Christ is by no means a run-of-the-mill, unmarked human being. Thus, to say that I do not elevate and respect the position of the Lord Jesus Christ simply because I do not believe the evidence designates Jesus Christ as God is to speak the judgment of a fool, for to the very depth of my being I love him with all my heart, soul, mind and strength. It is he who sought me out from darkness. It is he who gave me access to God; even now he is my mediator. It is he who saved me when I was dead in trespasses and sin. It is he who gave me the new birth of God’s eternal life–which is Christ in me, the hope of glory. It is he who gave me remission of sins and continues to give forgiveness of sins. It is he who filled me to capacity by God’s presence in Christ in all the fullness of God’s gift of holy spirit. It is he who was made unto me my wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. It is he who called me and set me in the heavenlies. It is he who gave me his joy, peace and love. It is he who appointed me as a spokesman of God’s accurate Word; may I be found faithful in that calling. It is he who is all in all to me that I might give my all for him. It is he who is God’s only begotten Son. May I as a son of God live always to glorify the God whom men can only know from God’s written Word, the Bible, and from the declared Word, God’s Son, Jesus Christ. In spite of all my human frailties and shortcomings, I endeavor to love him with all my being. I love him and the one and only God who sent him. May His mercy and grace continue to be yours as well as mine, and may God be magnified by our testimony of Him who gave His Son that we might have life and have it more abundantly–yes, that life which is eternal and therefore more than abundant.

“Thus saith” #8 – OMSW p. 124 – many, many times This item has hardly ever been seen by grads. Here is a passage (my bold fonts) on page 124 of OMSW: "It’s a remarkable thing that God put His promise in the past tense—‘I have already given to you’—and He still does this today. Many, many times He puts in the past tense what still is the future for us." Does anyone know where those many, many places are? Dr says it's TODAY that God puts promises into the past tense that are still future FOR US. Dr can only be referring to the modern revelations from God, TODAY, that Dr was putting into written form FOR US GRADS. There's the hidden "Thus saith." Twice, in his last months, Dr urged us to re-think everything we believed. (I have produce the magazine documentation.) This should include the new birth and everything we think about it, including whether or not we have fully arrived at that blessing. This passage in OMSW should get us thinking bigtime. Some of the things we were totally sure of may need revamping or at least fine tuning, otherwise why would Dr challenge us to re-think everything? I nearly fell off my chair when I first read this passage in recent years. It leads to many answers as to why thing went so wrong for us. *** The only candidates for where Dr is referring to God doing this many, many times today is in the PFAL writings. The only place where Dr points to God's Word being alive today is in the PFAL revelations. Dr said (in an Our Times article) that if he knew any other place where he could get the Word he'd go there. Actually, certain facts that are used in PFAL he DID go to get, the last I know of being the star of Bethlehem work of Dr. Martin of Pasadena. But the only place that is ever acknowledged by Dr as modern (today's) God breathed writings, where God could many, many times do the past tense thing, is PFAL. The key words in the OMSW passage, to me, are "today," "many, many times," and "for us." *** Yes, well before Dr died he pointed out with increasing intensity that we needed to shift gears and focus on the written materials God inspired him to write. The days of trying to obtain God's Word from the ancient manuscripts was essentially finished by 1982, but when Dr announced this there was no corresponding action to change the direction of the ministry. *** In segment #6 of that AC Dr teaches that we can only become like minded (and thus enjoy community believing) by studying the same thing. Here's how he put it: "'Such as I have, I give' such as you have, you give. You can’t give, class, beyond what you’ve got. First Corinthians, one, ten - such an important verse of scripture, maybe so many of them are - I should all - have all of them put on charts but only put on, I guess, what I feel in my heart I’d like to have. First Corinthians, one, ten: 'Now I beseech . . .' The word 'beseech' means to implore - lovingly beg you. We have it here on this chart. "'. . . [implore - lovingly beg] you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Number one:] that ye all speak [and the word 'speak' is lalao - it literally means 'running off of the mouth” - so that we should all have the running off of the mouth - talking about] the same [what?] (thing), [Number two:] . . . that there be no [what?] divisions among you; [And number three:] but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind [nous] and in the same [what?] (judgment).” "And class, that can only be when we all speak the same thing on God’s Word. No one will ever qualify for first Corinthians one, ten, unless they get their heads and their hearts into the accuracy of the integrity and the greatness of God’s Word. How will we ever speak the same thing unless we study the same thing, people, and let the Word of God speak for itself. If you and I do not rightly divide the Word of God, there’s gonna be division among us." *** The only common thing for study and mastery we were given is written PFAL.

WordWolf, It looks like I've already done up 1-7 from the preliminary list. I didn't think it would go this fast. I'll work on the others soon.

doojable, You wrote: “if it was revelation it wasn't his message - it was God's.” Come on dooj, I know it wasn’t OWNED by Dr, but it was his job to speak it to us. *** You wrote: “These do not have to be equal statements to be true.” The way you are treating them is how I used to treat them. But then they are poorly written. If the two sentences weren’t meant to convey what I stated, why wasn’t the grammar cleaned up? *** It’s good to note that personal, incident specific revelation is different from doctrinal revelation. I agree that God wants to speak all kinds of personal, incident specific things to us. However, we are not always listening. In the OT, when “too” many people received spirit and were prophesying someone asked Moses to forbid such a violation of tradition. It had always been the case that only one head honcho got spirit. Moses reply was that if God had His way, ALL of Israel would have spirit and prophesy. But God doesn’t always get His way, not immediately. He must tolerate our sin, sickness and suffering, all of which are against His will. He must wait for us to be listening and grow to the point of being ABLE to hear His revelations. *** I agree that all sorts of TVT diddy’s grew out of signing up people for the class. But the bottom line was that it was in the class that people got maximum information, and developed maximum commitment. I first SIT from reading the PFAL and then RHST books, before I took the class, and I always felt a little robbed of the dramatic leading into tongues some others had. I got over it.

“Thus saith” statements #4, #5, #6 and #7 Volume Prefaces – “...it alone...” Now for a spot quiz: Who can point out the hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement in the Preface of the Blue Book? Hidden in the sense that it's not stated outright, like with the first three overt “thus saith” statements. Hidden in the sense that it's implied. You can't read it, but as you think it through the implication appears. There's a subtle implication the last two sentences in the Preface of BTMS convey. For years I used to wince with pain whenever I'd see them, thinking that they were incredibly poor writing style. When you put these two sentences together something is implied. *** Let's look at those two adjacent sentences in BTMS page ix and see what we can see. The sentences are: (1) "I know the contents of Volume I of Studies in Abundant Living will not only open up more of God's Word for you, but will also uplift you - mentally and physically and spiritually." (2) "Let us put God's Word in our hearts and minds for it alone can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world." Sentence (1) says the contents of BTMS will uplift us - mentally and physically and spiritually. That sounds like pretty complete upliftance. Upliftance from what? The world and it's darkness, of course. Sentence (2) says that ONLY God's Word can give us complete deliverance from the darkness of this world. Decades ago I would cringe while reading these two sentences. I thought it was poor writing to so strongly associate the contents of BTMS with God's Word. Now I see that it is right and proper. *** Aside from each individual Preface having specific opening lines regarding that volume's contents, the wording for each "Thus saith the Lord" statement is nearly the same for all three Prefaces. All three of these early volumes were released in book form in 1971. However, when Volume IV (GMWD) came out in 1977 there were two small but significant differences to be found in it's "Thus saith the Lord" statement. Here is that statement with the changes in my bold fonts: "...I know that the contents of Volume IV of 'Studies in Abundant Living' will not only unveil more of God’s Word for you, but, in doing so, will also uplift you - mentally and physically and spiritually. "Let us put God’s Word in our hearts and minds, for it alone can give us complete deliverance and dispel the darkness of this world." This is part of the evolution of revelation that was happening while we snoozed. God was making more available to us and telling us in a quiet and discrete manner. It was a secret. We’ll get into more of this later.

doojable, Dr not only found what those men wrote (by revelation), but he had to exclude a lot of others, and he had to exclude some of the error those men had mixed in with their valid revelations. He had to put it all together in one place. None of those other guys were able to do that. Dr had to believe to move his message around the world. None of those other guys could do that, ESPECIALLY when it came to moving it to us 70's hippies. So he didn't merely find it all pre-packaged and addressed to us in a form we could have accepted.

Ex10, Aren't you concerned that I take this too far in too wrong a direction? I think about that sometimes, and pray that I don't. I work to prevent it.

Ex10, Thank you for that prayer. We all need similar prayers. I pray that grads stop allowing their own rendering of God's Word and will on their own and that they return to what God supplied them. I realize that I can turn what I do into a love-less ego trip. I try to not do that. **************************************************************** **************************************************************** **************************************************************** **************************************************************** "Thus saith" #3 - PFAL page 83 - necessarily ... God-breathed WordWolf, This item WAS in the preliminary draft, but I know you’ll be hammering away a lot on this one, so I thought it would be good for everyone to see it set all alone in a single post. Plus I wanted to see it in colors. Often I posted on this page 83 of the PFAL book, and often others tried to deny it outright. After many rounds, I evolved a concise way of putting it all. Bold fonting the pertinent passage, here is what is actually written on that page 83 of PFAL: "The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let’s see this from John 5:39. “Search the scriptures ....” It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille’s writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, “Search the scriptures ....” because all Scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed." *** The key sentence is the last one. It's taken nearly word-for-word exactly from the '67 film class, so everyone was exposed to this sentence a maximum number of times. Here's how we heard it in the film class: "'Search the scriptures.' It doesn't say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of my denomination, no. It's says, 'search the scriptures!' Why search the scriptures? Because all scripture is God-breathed. But not all that V.P. Wierwille would write would of necessity be God-breathed, nor what Shakespeare said nor Kant nor Plato not Aristotle or Freud. But the scriptures; they are God-breathed. All scripture, all of it." *** How many times were we exposed to this sentence? Many. Yet it eludes us to this day. Why? What many posters tried to assert was that this key sentence in Dr's teaching to us was equivalent to the following sentence of their own composition: "Not what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed." But that's not at all the choice of words Dr used. What Dr said and wrote says the exact opposite of the above sentence. It’s the addition of just a few words, “not all” and “necessarily” that make the big difference. *** The ACTUAL sentence reads (with my bold fonts): "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed." The phrase "not all" implies "some." If I eat NOT ALL of a pizza pie, then that means there's SOME left for you. This means Dr's statement on PFAL page 83 asserts that... SOME some of what Wierwille writes will OF NECESSITY be God-breathed. Why “of necessity” must SOME of Dr’s writings be God-breathed? Because God appointed him as His spokesman. *** There were times when Dr would put something in writing and it was God-breathed, like when he wrote to US, his students. As he claimed in my TNDC p.34 quote above, every word he wrote to US, his PFAL students, was true. Then there were also times when he wrote something and it was NOT God-breathed, but just his flesh understanding, whether correct of incorrect. This passage on PFAL p. 83 troubles a lot of people. He’s just saying there that man’s word is untrustworthy, but God’s IS trustworthy. He says that, compared to God’s Word, man’s is faulty, every man’s, even great religious leaders’ words. He then goes one step farther and says (in effect) that even a man (himself) who is appointed as a spokesman for God, by God, has faulty words when he is not speaking (or writing) exactly what God commissions. So, all of written PFAL, what Dr told us to master, is worthy of mastery because THOSE writings are God-breathed. God inspired them and supervised them being printed and handed to us grads. *** I have verified my grammar and logic on this one sentence with two of Dr's editors, one of whom worked on the PFAL book and remembered well that one key sentence quite well. The other was a long time editor of the magazine. Both agree that this page 83 passage is a siognificant "Thus saith the lord" kind of claim, even though they didn't want to totally agree with my whole thesis that Dr's claim was accurate.