What The Hay

Somewhere deep down in all of us, we all want to be the Superhero (Super-conqueror - Romans 8:37) The reason We don't, is because we are too afraid that others will only discover our "achilles heel". Yet, if we fail to walk by the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, do we then again become slaves to the law of sin and death? Has not the law of life in Christ Jesus made us free from the law of sin and death? "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you." "Therefore, brethern, we aredebtors, not to live to the flesh, to live after the flesh. "For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." Romans 8:11-13 The Word of God makes it very plain with the mind one serves the law of God, but with the flesh one serves the law of sin. (Romans 7:25) Being a Superhero then (more than conqueror) doesn't have anything to do with - how many people I have "helped", "witnessed to", "won to the Lord", etc. ad nauseum. All these things are the works of the flesh. Now these things may be Godly works, and they may bring me Godly rewards both in the present and the future, but they do not make me "more than a conqueror!" Being more than a conqueror has to do with destroying the works of the flesh - and that's putting off the old man, putting on the new - IN YOUR MIND, as the Word of God says. TWI forgot all about that! This is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT in the Word of God. YOU SERVE THE LAW OF GOD IN YOUR MIND - not in your flesh!!! When people got away from serving the law of God in their mind first, that's when things started going down the tubes. When did that happen? Your guess is just about as good as mine.

No Abigail, the achillies heel is the perfect analogy. All our hero's (comic book and real life) have their achillies heel. Superman looked very big an powerful, that is until he came into the presence of Kryptonite. To answer your question, So is it the woman's fault they are the achillies heel? Was it Kryptonite's fault Superman became weak and powerless? As the story goes, there were properties about Kryptonite that made Superman become weak and powerless. Perhaps on the surface that implies there were characteristics about the women VPW and LCM encountered that made them cater to their base instincts. But as the story goes, Superman recovered from his weakness when the "lead shield" was put between him and the Kryptonite. But there wasn't a lead shield between VPW or LCM and the women they took advantage of. Oh yeah, they always talked about the lead shield, the "renewed mind", but they never used it. (Ever notice that?)

Personally, I believe the people who still talk about VPW as if he was the biggest pervert of the century don't know him any better than those who constantly admire and sing praises about him. Both views about VPW, and even LCM, border on the extreme. Whatever experience you had with either man, somewhere along the line I believe most end up either embellishing the positive or the negative just to get their own personal viewpoint across to somebody else. Afterall, it is pretty hard to picture VPW only as a vile, woman chasing, alcoholic if all you ever saw him do was teach the bible to others. On the other hand, does teaching the bible to a bunch of people make someone impervious to temptation and therefore sinless? I have no problem with people who see VPW as their hero. Heck, he was my hero at one time too! But then, so was Superman when I was a little kid. But hay, even Superman wasn't completely perfect, especially when he got around Kryptonite. Does that mean some of you women are better than Kryptonite? I guess it does, if you ended up being VPW's and LCM's achillies heel! But have you ever noticed how all our hero's ended up having their "achillies heel" - their weak spot? But when I grew up, I also outgrew my need for "Superman". When you grow up spiritually you find you have outgrown your need for a spiritual hero as well. But for some people though, unfortunately, they just never seem to grow up.

I just read this from p3 of JCING by VPW. Research doesn't begin with the answers; it looks for the answers. I did not willfully choose to find what I have found. Also, my conclusion therefore is no Johny-come-lately idea set forth to be iconoclstic, splashy or controversial. I have written up my years of research not to be argumentative, neither am I apologetic. I simply want to set forth my study as a workman for God, realizing that if the research is a right dividing of God's Word, many who believe will be blessed. If my research is a wrong dividing of God's Word, then I stand before God as an unapproved workman. Either way I accept full responsibility... VPW from p3. of JCING. VPW has been dead, what? 18 years almost? It's amazing how people still keep bringing up his words just to have something to strive over, usually with no other pupose than to be argumentative and controversial with other people regarding something he wrote years ago. Apparently they missed or overlooked this passage which he also wrote, much less understood his meaning behind it. This passage doesn't come up very often in heated debates by any of VPW's critics though. Why is that? Probably because there ain't much in that passage one could reasonably argue over I guess. What's most ironic, this passage just happens to be taken from one of his MOST controversial books - JESUS CHRIST IS NOT GOD of all things! Still, I don't think anything could be more of a total waste of one's precious time than attempting to stand approved before men over something VPW wrote many years ago, regardless if you agreed with whatever he wrote or not! What was that verse in 2 Timothy 2:15 again? Study to show thyself approved unto men? Ooops, that aint right! So I made a big boo boo in the bible myself. What are ya gonna do, argue about it? That would be pretty foolish. Why? Because that error is pretty obvious, readily seen by anyone. But one can't argue over the obvious (but some still do) quite as easily as the "not so obvious", which is what the critics really pick up on to show themselves approved unto ... who? I came across a critics work a while back who was arguing with VPW over the four crucified with Jesus. They were insising it was only two crucified with Jesus. BTW, it was a very compelling argument the critic presented over the Greek meanings for the words heteros and allos (translated into the English word "other") one of the keys VPW uses to prove there were four crucified with Jesus instead of two. But the critic never dealt with this passage of scripture very well: Mathew 27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his [Jesus] teeth. The preceding verses, 41,42, and 43 make it obvious the chief priests, elders, and others who were passing by reviled Jesus, and the theives who were crucified with Jesus did likewise. The critic got all wrapped up and concerned over the "not so obvious" (the meanings behind the Greek words for heteros and allos) rather than choose to focus on the obvious. How could only two be crucified with Jesus, when Mathew 27:44 says both thieves railed him, while in Luke 23:39,40 only one of the malefactors railed him and the other defended him? But the critics seem to get around the obvious by making the theives out to be the same as the malefactors somehow. They also get around the obvious saying the Son of God means exactly the same thing as God the Son. Now that may be a different arguement, but still the same worn out unworkable reasoning. If thieves mean the same as malefactors, and Son of God means the same as God the Son, I certainly see how the critic came to the conclusion heteros means the same as allos. What I fail to see is what makes the critic think I can draw the same conclusions. If this is the best argument the critic has, they have only proven they don't understand the meaning behind English words very well, let alone Greek! Why should we believe they have some deeper understanding of the meaning behind Greek words? (Put simply, who's kidding who?) This critic hasn't convinced me of their conclusions, especially when their conclusions overlook (neglects may be a better word) the obvious things contained in the bible which are easily understood. One could argue the meanings "behind the Greek words in the bible" until h*ll froze over (well, you can argue the meaning behind English words too, lawyers do it all the time!) but it doesn't prove anything when you overlook the obvious. The more the critics argue and strive over the meanings behind the words, the less they seem to understand them apparently. It's bound to happen when you overlook and neglect the obvious, don't you know. I can't say I am in agreement with everything VPW wrote, only because I haven't read everything he wrote. So what if you agree or don't agree with what VPW wrote? And what if I agree where you don't agree, and you agree with him where I don't? It's only VPW, not God. Maybe he should have wrote a sequel to JCING and called it: "VPW Is NOT God!"? I got a feeling people wouldn't even agree with him on that one, and now wouldn't that be scary!!!