“You even admit that there is little change from the 4th to the 8th centuries. You're right - NO ONE knows about the changes that occurred from the 1st century to the 4th. So if we have no evidence of change before, and evidence of little change later, why are you so convinced that there were such catastrophic changes? In addition, the quotes of the Scriptures in the early church writers, which were in fact earlier than the 4th century, also attest to the fact that there was no "catastrophic change" in the MSS prior to the 4th century. And again, not everyone forsook Paul.”
All his top leaders did forsake him and followers soon followed. It looks to me that even Timothy did in heart, though not immediately and not in overt actions. Timothy failed to make a dent and the Roman Catholic church took over catastrophically. Everything was lost for centuries in practice and that’s reason to suspect the earliest copies were botched. The persecutions testify that they had lost the power they once had learned, Peter talks in his dying last words how so many had lost it. The doctrines that did flourish were way out there, so it looks like a catastrophe to me.
********
You also wrote:
“Your explanation of why consisted of repeating that you started by assuming PFAL was God-breathed. But if you want anybody to take you seriously, you're going to have to deal with these questions. And I agree that's not the topic of this thread or the Snowstorm thread. That's why the threads were started in the Doctrinal Forum (the first one not even by me, BTW). You have dodged and avoided direct questions there even more than here.”
Who said I want ANYbody to take me seriously? I only expect the hungry and meek to take me seriously. Are you hungry, Mark? Are you starving to know what went wrong with our wonderful ministry, why it went from SO good a time to so bad? Are you meek with perplexity as to what went right, what went wrong, and what can we do about it? If so, then we can talk. If not, and you are satisfied with the theological system you have worked out, THEN BY ALL MEANS start a thread on it and help people with it.
Only those who are ready can follow me and get it, and from those who are not I do NOT have to put up with their interrogations and accept their challenges.
To them I can point out what was forgotten or missed, and this may help some get ready.
*******
Then you wrote:
“Then what is it that enables you to completely deny the plain factual errors in the supposedly God-breathed PFAL? You're STILL dodging the issue. It IS relevant to this thread because, for ANYTHING to be accepted as God-breathed and therefore worthy of being the only rule of faith and practice, it has to be at the very least shown to be without glaring errors and contradictions.”
Sometimes it’s more a matter of me plain denying you the opportunity to derail me with what YOU THINK are factual errors. This is where I invoke the right to dodge you and your distractions.
Other times I successfully work out the apparent errors for myself and move on to more exciting things.
I will not put myself under YOUR schedule to deal with what you think is important. I see that you are hopelessly biased and unable to hear what I say, so why should I bother working on apparent errors with you. It would endlessly sap my time. I could even be successful in working out one point with you, but instead of shifting gears and looking at PFAL differently, you’d surely move right on unphased to ANOTHER apparent error to sap still more of my time. Do you deny this? You could do so in ASCII type and I would believe your behavior to the contrary would better predict your future actions than any promise.
not really looking for the old "if you're not a christian, you're going to hell" type of discussion.
courtesy of Mike: the 1967 version that we all heard in segment 31 Session 7 of THE CLASS:
vpw contends that the truth must be your only rule for faith and practice.
the problem is, the truth is defined by him in PFAL, thereby making PFAL and all derivative teachings the truth which must be our only rule for faith and practice, thereby limiting us to one source for truth: twi. it's the pitfall we all fell into if we stuck around more than a couple of days.
truth isn't so easy to get an absolute grasp of, IMO. the final arbiter of truth is god, I suppose, if god exists. or math, if god doesn't exist. while we wait for the answer to that unknown, I wanted to explore vpw's assertion that we must have one rule for faith and practice.
Wow, well said. . . . . why pick this paticular rule. . . . or expose' of the "truth"? I am still trying to figure out why this is the "Right" one? Lots of guys out there make similar claims to have uncovered, dug up, shoveled out, or whatever. . . the true meaning. Many by some divine revelation.
They usually are in direct contradiction to the orthodox or traditional way.
How come being a VPite is the right way? Why is that the proper rule for faith and practice.
Why this speacial revelation and not another special revelation?
I just happened to fall into this cult. . . I was probably easy prey for the moonies too.
But that's going on the assumption that no one knew where it was buried. Bullinger, Stiles, and Leonard, and more importantly, Bible scholars that knew how to translate the languages and didn't try to push their theology, knew where to look for the buried treasure - in the MSS of Scripture that have been handed down for hundreds of years.
They each knew only SOME of the locations, but none of them could put it all together and successfully distribute it. Those are the jobs God gave to Dr and he got it done. Most of us would have never heard of those guys, let alone filter through them and put it together.
First of all, your description of first century church history is plainly from the VPW/TWI spin on it which I also was indoctrinated with. Since reading "real" church history I have found out that it was far from accurate. Since your mind is made up, I won't bother correcting the many errors in that one paragraph.
You asked, "Who said I want ANYbody to take me seriously?" One would assume, since you continue to post here, that you want at least SOMEbody to take you seriously. You said, "I only expect the hungry and meek to take me seriously." Well that would be included in "anybody." I still maintain that if you want "the hungry and meek" to take you seriously, you're going to have to deal with questions like how you can accept PFAL as God-breathed when there are demonstrable errors in it. Not just what I or some people think are errors, but plain demonstrable errors, like every source of information proves that a simple statement of fact that VP made is completely false. And it seriously hurts your credibility when you won't even address them. But that's your choice.
You say, "I see that you are hopelessly biased and unable to hear what I say." Most everyone on this board has said the same thing about you. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you would actually engage in honest discussion of real issues. You have demonstrated, and now admitted, that you don't wish to do so, and so have proven them right. So be it.
I posted this in the basement(So to speak) the doctrinal forums. . . but wanted to ask you here as well. . . . Why VP? There are lot's of guys just like him. . .
ho "Got" it???
geisha,
Why VPW?
No one else put the Epistles of Paul in front of me and made them live with their writings.
No one else showed me what Jesus had to go through for me.
One would assume, since you continue to post here, that you want at least SOMEbody to take you seriously.
Do you want me to count the number of times that I have RECENTLY posted that I post mostly to show that most grads' complaints about the written teaching we received are unfounded? There may be some of valid complaints about other situations in the ministry that were pretty bad, but even those can be exaggerated and after 30 years should be put to rest by now. But the complaints about the formal teaching are largely the result of having missed or forgotten large and crucial portions of that teaching. THIS I can show people here, and THEN maybe a few might want to look into it deeper with me.
Please, look back at my posting record and at how many times I have posted in essence exactly what I just posted, because this is JUST ANOTHER thing in the long string of things you have missed.
You are so focused on dragging me into your theological bla-bla-bla that the class was in error that you are INTENSELY BLIND to the content of what I am posting.
Really, go back and see what you missed. You may learn something.
No one else put the Epistles of Paul in front of me and made them live with their writings.
No one else showed me what Jesus had to go through for me.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. Fair enough answer, thank-you. You do understand though, that what you are claiming is something that must be true for ALL if it is truth. Further, because you see it as truth, you are using this perception to espouse your definition of truth. . . . PFAL.
If it is in fact the "Right" understanding that has been buried. . . . it is the right understanding for everyone. . . . no?
Mike, who are you? A prophet?
Have you ever seen "The Passion"? Mel Gibson did a fine job showing us all what Jesus went through for you. . . in detail. . . and living color. By your reasoning. . . Mel Gibson could be the one who got "It". . . .No? Yes? Maybe?
VP wasn't the middleman. . . at least according to scripture.
He drank like a fish and felt all women belonged to the king. What if he was just drunk when he thought he heard God?
Do you want me to count the number of times that I have RECENTLY posted that I post mostly to show that most grads' complaints about the written teaching we received are unfounded? There may be some of valid complaints about other situations in the ministry that were pretty bad, but even those can be exaggerated and after 30 years should be put to rest by now. But the complaints about the formal teaching are largely the result of having missed or forgotten large and crucial portions of that teaching. THIS I can show people here, and THEN maybe a few might want to look into it deeper with me.
Please, look back at my posting record and at how many times I have posted in essence exactly what I just posted, because this is JUST ANOTHER thing in the long string of things you have missed.
You are so focused on dragging me into your theological bla-bla-bla that the class was in error that you are INTENSELY BLIND to the content of what I am posting.
Really, go back and see what you missed. You may learn something.
Pardon me for saying so, Mike, but that's a wagon full of equine excrement.
The class is riddled with errors, not just disagreements over doctrine, real honest to goodness errors.
You dodge and dart because you really have no genuine answers.
I used to have a U.S. History teacher who demanded answers be given loudly and clearly.
He was fond of saying, "When in doubt, mumble."
Maybe we could rephrase that to, "When in doubt, dodge and dart."
Your sole purpose in posting here is to present what is, in essence, an "info-mmercial" for PFAL.
If someone is paying you to sell this garbage, I recommend you get the money up front and stash it in a secret bank account before your customers discover what a poison filled product you've been pitching.
Just one more question. . . an honest one. . . . you said "There may be some of valid complaints about other situations in the ministry that were pretty bad, but even those can be exaggerated and after 30 years should be put to rest by now"
What makes you say this? Did you ever hear rape likened to "soul murder"? There is a reason for that. How do you put THAT to rest? Given the lock box of guilt and shame which was heaped on the poor helpless spiritual peon hobos. . . . without some intense couseling. . . . serious medication. . .and years of recovery. . . . how do you do that?
It is always with someone. . . like any event in our pasts.
Is PFAL as truth. . . . taught by the one who inflicted such pain. . . really the way to put that to rest?
Close your eyes and listen to the teachings of great truth. . . . just put aside this is the one who murdered your soul?
If it is truth. . . it is true for everyone. . . no?
Do you want me to count the number of times that I have RECENTLY posted that I post mostly to show that most grads' complaints about the written teaching we received are unfounded?
Do you want me to count the number of times that I and others have responded to that point by saying that I/we HAVE in fact studied PFAL in great detail and found it full of errors? And when we enumerate those errors you refuse to address them and continue to say they don't exist or don't matter.
Well, errors may not matter, and in fact for many years, to me did not matter, as long as PFAL was presented as a class on the Bible, since man's works are imperfect. But when you now make the claim that PFAL is the perfect God-breathed Word of God, then you automatically open yourself up to a higher level of criticism. Nothing that has the amount of blatant errors of PFAL could seriously be considered the God-breathed Word and therefore one's only rule for faith and practice. This is what I have been saying all along, and you have been blowing off.
I would like to submit at this time that vpw's obvious psychological issues compelled him to negate the validity of internal debate because of his own discomfort with it, and to construct an artificial system requiring submission to a single source that replaces multiple centers of reference (or learning). such a system eliminates the need for critical thinking. it eliminates the need to study other points of view.
Do you want me to count the number of times that I and others have responded to that point by saying that I/we HAVE in fact studied PFAL in great detail and found it full of errors? And when we enumerate those errors you refuse to address them and continue to say they don't exist or don't matter.
Well, errors may not matter, and in fact for many years, to me did not matter, as long as PFAL was presented as a class on the Bible, since man's works are imperfect. But when you now make the claim that PFAL is the perfect God-breathed Word of God, then you automatically open yourself up to a higher level of criticism. Nothing that has the amount of blatant errors of PFAL could seriously be considered the God-breathed Word and therefore one's only rule for faith and practice. This is what I have been saying all along, and you have been blowing off.
No Mark, it's not quite symmetrical.
I have not repeatedly asked you if you studied PFAL, and not seen your posting that you have.
I simply do not respond to those postings, especially when I see you offer invalid examples of your "only rule." I think your study of PFAL was unsuccessful. I did see your posts.
You, on the other hand, fail to see many things that I post and indicate so in your postings to me. There is a difference.
How many times did I post that I wasn't trying to prove PFAL as God-breathed and how many times have you tried to engage me on same?
I strongly suspect you did your PFAL study the same way you read my posts, with your own agenda foremost and missing point after point.
I see the many points and challenges you give me and choose not to respond to them.
***
If you'd sit tight I'll eventually show you what we were taught on "only rule" and why your offerings were invalid.
Have you ever thought through how the relatives of Uriah, a literal murder victim,
must have felt in how to receive the Psalms of David? I have, and a lot.
Now it's time to move on to the goodies, that waysider is patiently waiting for.
No problem Mike, much is going on in this thread. To be honest, no I have not given it deep thought. Now, in turn, have you considered what the bible tells us to watch out for in ministers and teachers? What to avoid?
You don't need to answer, I realize you are making another point. I just hope you have thought through the requirements for a true minister.
I have not repeatedly asked you if you studied PFAL, and not seen your posting that you have.
I simply do not respond to those postings, especially when I see you offer invalid examples of your "only rule." I think your study of PFAL was unsuccessful. I did see your posts.
You, on the other hand, fail to see many things that I post and indicate so in your postings to me. There is a difference.
How many times did I post that I wasn't trying to prove PFAL as God-breathed and how many times have you tried to engage me on same?
I strongly suspect you did your PFAL study the same way you read my posts, with your own agenda foremost and missing point after point.
I see the many points and challenges you give me and choose not to respond to them.
***
If you'd sit tight I'll eventually show you what we were taught on "only rule" and why your offerings were invalid.
I've already responded to all of those claims, and you miss them as much as you claim I miss the points of what you write. There doesn't seem to be anything either of us can say at this point that won't sound like Monty Python's Argument Clinic: "No it isn't... Yes it is... No it isn't!"
One thing I have to comment on...
Have you ever thought through how the relatives of Uriah, a literal murder victim,
must have felt in how to receive the Psalms of David? I have, and a lot.
The big difference is that David repented when he was confronted with his sin, and some of those Psalms reflect his repentant heart. The same was not true with VP Wierwille.
If you'd sit tight I'll eventually show you what we were taught on "only rule" and why your offerings were invalid.
Mike, you're again engaging in circular reasoning. what we were taught on "one rule" is only valid if it's true. you can't prove it's true. therefore you can't use "what we were taught" to demonstrate that Mark's offerings are invalid.
Have you ever thought through how the relatives of Uriah, a literal murder victim,
must have felt in how to receive the Psalms of David? I have, and a lot.
Now it's time to move on to the goodies, that waysider is patiently waiting for.
No problem Mike, much is going on in this thread. To be honest, no I have not given it deep thought. Now, in turn, have you considered what the bible tells us to watch out for in ministers and teachers? What to avoid?
You don't need to answer, I realize you are making another point. I just hope you have thought through the requirements for a true minister.
I have answered this in years past, but maybe I'm due to answer it again.
When WE select pastors and ministers there are certain common sense and scriptural guidelines that we should follow. We do not have infinite wisdom, nor foreknowledge, nor the ability to read a person's heart, only their outward actions. We are often not so good at getting revelation accurate either. FOR THESE reasons the guidelines we are given when WE select leaders tell us to do it in such a way that we protect the flock, kind of erring on the safe side if any error is to take place.
Now when GOD selects a man to get a specific job done for Him, and it's a job that hadn't been done by anyone in thousands of years, and God is not hampered like we are. He has infinite wisdom, foreknowledge, and the ability to read a man's heart IN SPITE of his outward actions.
With all this in mind, do you think the guidelines for God are going to be the same for us? I don't. I think God is wise enough to not need the guidelines.
You see we did not select VPW to "put it all together" and distribute it around the world. God selected Dr to get the job done and it got done. Anyone hurt in the process would have probably gotten hurt some other way, and either way God is there to help them get healed if they want it.
I know hardly anyone has thought this through very far. This should be pondered for a while before a knee jerk rejection takes place.
Now I wonder how many older posters remember me answering this question years ago.
The big difference is that David repented when he was confronted with his sin, and some of those Psalms reflect his repentant heart. The same was not true with VP Wierwille.
We know David repented because scripture gives us this assurance.
Could you please give me the scripture that assures you that "The same was not true with VP Wierwille."
I like the level of assurance scripture authority gives us, and I'm sure that if you have one it'll get the spelling of Dr's last name correct.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
74
42
33
32
Popular Days
Feb 2
66
Jan 30
53
Feb 1
50
Feb 3
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 74 posts
waysider 42 posts
potato 33 posts
Bolshevik 32 posts
Popular Days
Feb 2 2009
66 posts
Jan 30 2009
53 posts
Feb 1 2009
50 posts
Feb 3 2009
23 posts
Popular Posts
potato
the snowstorm thread branches yet again... my question is: is it necessary in life to have one sole source for your rule of faith and practice? Mike seems to contend that everyone needs to have on
waysider
Would that include VP Wierwille? Would that include VP Wierwille?
geisha779
Wordwolf, So glad that is what you took away rom my heart felt and honest post. Because I reject this doctrine and do not have any interest in reading the theology. . . I am hiding and possibly afra
Posted Images
Mike
...SOON as in "be patient" ...
Be patient like Mark has been patient.
***
Ok, Mark, way back when you wrote to me:
“You even admit that there is little change from the 4th to the 8th centuries. You're right - NO ONE knows about the changes that occurred from the 1st century to the 4th. So if we have no evidence of change before, and evidence of little change later, why are you so convinced that there were such catastrophic changes? In addition, the quotes of the Scriptures in the early church writers, which were in fact earlier than the 4th century, also attest to the fact that there was no "catastrophic change" in the MSS prior to the 4th century. And again, not everyone forsook Paul.”
All his top leaders did forsake him and followers soon followed. It looks to me that even Timothy did in heart, though not immediately and not in overt actions. Timothy failed to make a dent and the Roman Catholic church took over catastrophically. Everything was lost for centuries in practice and that’s reason to suspect the earliest copies were botched. The persecutions testify that they had lost the power they once had learned, Peter talks in his dying last words how so many had lost it. The doctrines that did flourish were way out there, so it looks like a catastrophe to me.
********
You also wrote:
“Your explanation of why consisted of repeating that you started by assuming PFAL was God-breathed. But if you want anybody to take you seriously, you're going to have to deal with these questions. And I agree that's not the topic of this thread or the Snowstorm thread. That's why the threads were started in the Doctrinal Forum (the first one not even by me, BTW). You have dodged and avoided direct questions there even more than here.”
Who said I want ANYbody to take me seriously? I only expect the hungry and meek to take me seriously. Are you hungry, Mark? Are you starving to know what went wrong with our wonderful ministry, why it went from SO good a time to so bad? Are you meek with perplexity as to what went right, what went wrong, and what can we do about it? If so, then we can talk. If not, and you are satisfied with the theological system you have worked out, THEN BY ALL MEANS start a thread on it and help people with it.
Only those who are ready can follow me and get it, and from those who are not I do NOT have to put up with their interrogations and accept their challenges.
To them I can point out what was forgotten or missed, and this may help some get ready.
*******
Then you wrote:
“Then what is it that enables you to completely deny the plain factual errors in the supposedly God-breathed PFAL? You're STILL dodging the issue. It IS relevant to this thread because, for ANYTHING to be accepted as God-breathed and therefore worthy of being the only rule of faith and practice, it has to be at the very least shown to be without glaring errors and contradictions.”
Sometimes it’s more a matter of me plain denying you the opportunity to derail me with what YOU THINK are factual errors. This is where I invoke the right to dodge you and your distractions.
Other times I successfully work out the apparent errors for myself and move on to more exciting things.
I will not put myself under YOUR schedule to deal with what you think is important. I see that you are hopelessly biased and unable to hear what I say, so why should I bother working on apparent errors with you. It would endlessly sap my time. I could even be successful in working out one point with you, but instead of shifting gears and looking at PFAL differently, you’d surely move right on unphased to ANOTHER apparent error to sap still more of my time. Do you deny this? You could do so in ASCII type and I would believe your behavior to the contrary would better predict your future actions than any promise.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Wow, well said. . . . . why pick this paticular rule. . . . or expose' of the "truth"? I am still trying to figure out why this is the "Right" one? Lots of guys out there make similar claims to have uncovered, dug up, shoveled out, or whatever. . . the true meaning. Many by some divine revelation.
They usually are in direct contradiction to the orthodox or traditional way.
How come being a VPite is the right way? Why is that the proper rule for faith and practice.
Why this speacial revelation and not another special revelation?
I just happened to fall into this cult. . . I was probably easy prey for the moonies too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
They each knew only SOME of the locations, but none of them could put it all together and successfully distribute it. Those are the jobs God gave to Dr and he got it done. Most of us would have never heard of those guys, let alone filter through them and put it together.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Mike,
First of all, your description of first century church history is plainly from the VPW/TWI spin on it which I also was indoctrinated with. Since reading "real" church history I have found out that it was far from accurate. Since your mind is made up, I won't bother correcting the many errors in that one paragraph.
You asked, "Who said I want ANYbody to take me seriously?" One would assume, since you continue to post here, that you want at least SOMEbody to take you seriously. You said, "I only expect the hungry and meek to take me seriously." Well that would be included in "anybody." I still maintain that if you want "the hungry and meek" to take you seriously, you're going to have to deal with questions like how you can accept PFAL as God-breathed when there are demonstrable errors in it. Not just what I or some people think are errors, but plain demonstrable errors, like every source of information proves that a simple statement of fact that VP made is completely false. And it seriously hurts your credibility when you won't even address them. But that's your choice.
You say, "I see that you are hopelessly biased and unable to hear what I say." Most everyone on this board has said the same thing about you. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you would actually engage in honest discussion of real issues. You have demonstrated, and now admitted, that you don't wish to do so, and so have proven them right. So be it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
geisha,
Why VPW?
No one else put the Epistles of Paul in front of me and made them live with their writings.
No one else showed me what Jesus had to go through for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe you could just post a synopsis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Do you want me to count the number of times that I have RECENTLY posted that I post mostly to show that most grads' complaints about the written teaching we received are unfounded? There may be some of valid complaints about other situations in the ministry that were pretty bad, but even those can be exaggerated and after 30 years should be put to rest by now. But the complaints about the formal teaching are largely the result of having missed or forgotten large and crucial portions of that teaching. THIS I can show people here, and THEN maybe a few might want to look into it deeper with me.
Please, look back at my posting record and at how many times I have posted in essence exactly what I just posted, because this is JUST ANOTHER thing in the long string of things you have missed.
You are so focused on dragging me into your theological bla-bla-bla that the class was in error that you are INTENSELY BLIND to the content of what I am posting.
Really, go back and see what you missed. You may learn something.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. Fair enough answer, thank-you. You do understand though, that what you are claiming is something that must be true for ALL if it is truth. Further, because you see it as truth, you are using this perception to espouse your definition of truth. . . . PFAL.
If it is in fact the "Right" understanding that has been buried. . . . it is the right understanding for everyone. . . . no?
Mike, who are you? A prophet?
Have you ever seen "The Passion"? Mel Gibson did a fine job showing us all what Jesus went through for you. . . in detail. . . and living color. By your reasoning. . . Mel Gibson could be the one who got "It". . . .No? Yes? Maybe?
VP wasn't the middleman. . . at least according to scripture.
He drank like a fish and felt all women belonged to the king. What if he was just drunk when he thought he heard God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Pardon me for saying so, Mike, but that's a wagon full of equine excrement.
The class is riddled with errors, not just disagreements over doctrine, real honest to goodness errors.
You dodge and dart because you really have no genuine answers.
I used to have a U.S. History teacher who demanded answers be given loudly and clearly.
He was fond of saying, "When in doubt, mumble."
Maybe we could rephrase that to, "When in doubt, dodge and dart."
Your sole purpose in posting here is to present what is, in essence, an "info-mmercial" for PFAL.
If someone is paying you to sell this garbage, I recommend you get the money up front and stash it in a secret bank account before your customers discover what a poison filled product you've been pitching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mike,
Just one more question. . . an honest one. . . . you said "There may be some of valid complaints about other situations in the ministry that were pretty bad, but even those can be exaggerated and after 30 years should be put to rest by now"
What makes you say this? Did you ever hear rape likened to "soul murder"? There is a reason for that. How do you put THAT to rest? Given the lock box of guilt and shame which was heaped on the poor helpless spiritual peon hobos. . . . without some intense couseling. . . . serious medication. . .and years of recovery. . . . how do you do that?
It is always with someone. . . like any event in our pasts.
Is PFAL as truth. . . . taught by the one who inflicted such pain. . . really the way to put that to rest?
Close your eyes and listen to the teachings of great truth. . . . just put aside this is the one who murdered your soul?
If it is truth. . . it is true for everyone. . . no?
Doesn't fit like a hand in a glove for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
"vpw made it live for me through pfal. because it lives for me, pfal must be true. because pfal is true, it must be god-breathed."
very, very subjective judgment.
that would be nice. I'm not going to read pfal again.
oh, and thanks to those of you who've tried to bring that thread back wherever it wandered off to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
geisha,
Forgive me for not engaging in total.
Have you ever thought through how the relatives of Uriah, a literal murder victim,
must have felt in how to receive the Psalms of David? I have, and a lot.
Now it's time to move on to the goodies, that waysider is patiently waiting for.
Here is another portion of Session Six of the class:
What about the religious field? Alright, here's a young child.
Dad and mother belong to a certain denomination so this child is brought
up in that denomination. And when the child let's say is nine or ten or
eleven years old it visits with another boyfriend or girlfriend and goes
to their Sunday school and church. And there that morning it's a
different denomination. He hears it from a different viewpoint and it
contradicts what he's been taught in his own church. Now he has two
opinions in his mind. Two things lodged up there.
Then let's say later on he goes to another church of another
denomination. And speaking about the same passage of scripture he now
hears a third viewpoint. These are all centers of reference outside of
the individual seeking.
... ... ...
So here I am in the religious field. And I go on to college then I
go on to seminary let's say. And I study under all these men every one
of the men I study under, every theologian I read is a center of
reference for learning outside of the individual seeking. They are all
lodged up here in my mind.
And I have up here a tremendous amount of confusion. Oh, I won't
admit this to anybody. But everybody that's ever passed through it
knows it. Because he's never quite sure of any one thing. Because
here's a great professor who said one thing and an equally great
professor on the other hand said something which absolutely contradicted
what this professor said. So I have this in my mind. I'm confused but
I won't admit this because I want everybody to think that I'm not
confused that I'm the man that has all the answers you know. But I'm
really confused.
So through the process of elimination again in my mind and in
cataloging these things. Let's say that I come to the conclusion that
in my way of thinking in my pattern of life and in what I believe is
true; Martin Luther had the greatest curb on truth and the accuracy and
I then in turn become what we call a Lutheran. That's right.
... ... ...
All through the understanding of how the senses operate in the
natural man. And how the five senses seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting
and touching that all of those five senses account for the information
that comes to the human mind. And this is why we believe what we
believe.
Now knowing logically that we have to have a center of reference,
every person, and I put it in the singular because this is truth. We
have to have at least one center for learning which is outside of the
individual. But most of us have had multiple centers; we are confused
in a multiple way.
This knowing how the law of learning operates and how this thing
works I came to the conclusion many years ago that for me this Word of
God, this Bible--not the King James version, but THE Word of God which
was given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy
spirit--that this Word of God is my only source for truth outside of the
individual seeking.
So FINALLY we're getting to the teaching on "only rule"
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Do you want me to count the number of times that I and others have responded to that point by saying that I/we HAVE in fact studied PFAL in great detail and found it full of errors? And when we enumerate those errors you refuse to address them and continue to say they don't exist or don't matter.
Well, errors may not matter, and in fact for many years, to me did not matter, as long as PFAL was presented as a class on the Bible, since man's works are imperfect. But when you now make the claim that PFAL is the perfect God-breathed Word of God, then you automatically open yourself up to a higher level of criticism. Nothing that has the amount of blatant errors of PFAL could seriously be considered the God-breathed Word and therefore one's only rule for faith and practice. This is what I have been saying all along, and you have been blowing off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I would like to submit at this time that vpw's obvious psychological issues compelled him to negate the validity of internal debate because of his own discomfort with it, and to construct an artificial system requiring submission to a single source that replaces multiple centers of reference (or learning). such a system eliminates the need for critical thinking. it eliminates the need to study other points of view.
very convenient for the lazy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No Mark, it's not quite symmetrical.
I have not repeatedly asked you if you studied PFAL, and not seen your posting that you have.
I simply do not respond to those postings, especially when I see you offer invalid examples of your "only rule." I think your study of PFAL was unsuccessful. I did see your posts.
You, on the other hand, fail to see many things that I post and indicate so in your postings to me. There is a difference.
How many times did I post that I wasn't trying to prove PFAL as God-breathed and how many times have you tried to engage me on same?
I strongly suspect you did your PFAL study the same way you read my posts, with your own agenda foremost and missing point after point.
I see the many points and challenges you give me and choose not to respond to them.
***
If you'd sit tight I'll eventually show you what we were taught on "only rule" and why your offerings were invalid.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
geisha,
Forgive me for not engaging in total.
Have you ever thought through how the relatives of Uriah, a literal murder victim,
must have felt in how to receive the Psalms of David? I have, and a lot.
Now it's time to move on to the goodies, that waysider is patiently waiting for.
No problem Mike, much is going on in this thread. To be honest, no I have not given it deep thought. Now, in turn, have you considered what the bible tells us to watch out for in ministers and teachers? What to avoid?
You don't need to answer, I realize you are making another point. I just hope you have thought through the requirements for a true minister.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ya know, I'm just curious.
What does PFAL say we should expect of our ministers and teachers?
Seems like we ought to go there and see if it's going to be our "only rule---".
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I've already responded to all of those claims, and you miss them as much as you claim I miss the points of what you write. There doesn't seem to be anything either of us can say at this point that won't sound like Monty Python's Argument Clinic: "No it isn't... Yes it is... No it isn't!"
One thing I have to comment on...
The big difference is that David repented when he was confronted with his sin, and some of those Psalms reflect his repentant heart. The same was not true with VP Wierwille.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
Mike, you're again engaging in circular reasoning. what we were taught on "one rule" is only valid if it's true. you can't prove it's true. therefore you can't use "what we were taught" to demonstrate that Mark's offerings are invalid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Not a bad idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
IIRC, you have to turn to Order My Steps in Thy Word for at least part of the answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I have answered this in years past, but maybe I'm due to answer it again.
When WE select pastors and ministers there are certain common sense and scriptural guidelines that we should follow. We do not have infinite wisdom, nor foreknowledge, nor the ability to read a person's heart, only their outward actions. We are often not so good at getting revelation accurate either. FOR THESE reasons the guidelines we are given when WE select leaders tell us to do it in such a way that we protect the flock, kind of erring on the safe side if any error is to take place.
Now when GOD selects a man to get a specific job done for Him, and it's a job that hadn't been done by anyone in thousands of years, and God is not hampered like we are. He has infinite wisdom, foreknowledge, and the ability to read a man's heart IN SPITE of his outward actions.
With all this in mind, do you think the guidelines for God are going to be the same for us? I don't. I think God is wise enough to not need the guidelines.
You see we did not select VPW to "put it all together" and distribute it around the world. God selected Dr to get the job done and it got done. Anyone hurt in the process would have probably gotten hurt some other way, and either way God is there to help them get healed if they want it.
I know hardly anyone has thought this through very far. This should be pondered for a while before a knee jerk rejection takes place.
Now I wonder how many older posters remember me answering this question years ago.
We know David repented because scripture gives us this assurance.
Could you please give me the scripture that assures you that "The same was not true with VP Wierwille."
I like the level of assurance scripture authority gives us, and I'm sure that if you have one it'll get the spelling of Dr's last name correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't need a scripture to tell me the man was unrepentant.
His lifestyle was a manifestation of his attitude toward repentance.
But since you insist:
As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.