I tend to agree with the last sentence; that seems logical. But I disagree with the prior paragraph. Comparing what someone thinks is speaking on tongues in 1100 B.C. to what occurred on the day of Pentecost and beyond is folly. That happens when a secular definition of speaking in tongues is made, then someone assumes that all without exception occurrances of speaking in tongues is exactly the same (i.e. essentially meaningless) without taking into consideration that the biblical occurrance of SIT on the day of Pentecost and beyond was totally different and in a totally different context than what occurred in 1100 B.C.
In addition, Wierwille claimed that "tongues" could not be counterfeited yet he states, in PFAL, that, on at least one occasion, he faked tongues by repeating Greek words.
In addition, Wierwille claimed that "tongues" could not be counterfeited yet he states, in PFAL, that, on at least one occasion, he faked tongues by repeating Greek words.
Which proves that if a person wants to engage in a fake, they may do so. Doesn't mean the genuine is fake though.
In addition, Wierwille claimed that "tongues" could not be counterfeited yet he states, in PFAL, that, on at least one occasion, he faked tongues by repeating Greek words.
Even I have to stick up for VPW on this one.
When VPW said it cannot be counterfeited, I'm pretty sure he meant spiritually. It's not that man couldn't pretend to be speaking in tongues, it's that Satan couldn't slip in and provide the utterance. If you're genuinely speaking in tongues and not faking it, then it's of God, not of the devil. If you're faking it, you're faking it.
I do see a distinction there.
Take a look at the much discussed question 8 in the RTHST book, the question he ripped off wholesale from Stiles. You know, the one with the "faith blasters"?
Is it possible for a Christian to receive false tongues or a false spirit when believing for the holy spirit?
The answer is a loud and clear no. As a matter of fact, speaking in tongues is the only manifestation which basically Satan cannot counterfeit. When I am asked that question, I know that person has come into contact with those whom i term "faith blasters," who go about making statements which have no foundation in Scripture.
See? Didn't say man can't fake it. Said Satan can't counterfeit it. Big difference. To me, anyway.
He did say Satan could not counterfeit it, not that it couldn't be faked.
But that brings us back to this:
"Speaking in tongues is the believer's external manifestation in the senses world of the internal reality and presence of the holy spirit."
On that particular occasion when he faked speaking in tongues, it was not an external manifestation in the senses world of the internal reality and presence of the holy spirit. It was an external manifestation of his ability to fake it. What else did he fake?
So, Steve, you really want me to waste my time on you too?
Why do I get the impression that that statement has all the feel of a John Wayne one-liner? "Be careful there p-i-l-grim, or else I'll waste my time on ya!"
He did say Satan could not counterfeit it, not that it couldn't be faked.
But that brings us back to this:
"Speaking in tongues is the believer's external manifestation in the senses world of the internal reality and presence of the holy spirit."
On that particular occasion when he faked speaking in tongues, it was not an external manifestation in the senses world of the internal reality and presence of the holy spirit. It was an external manifestation of his ability to fake it. What else did he fake?
Not only that, but even when someone isn't consciously faking it, there is no guarantee that it's genuinely of God. There are instances of non-Christians speaking in "tongues." Someone could say it's not really speaking in tongues if it's not of God, but that's like saying counterfeit money isn't really money. Of course it isn't, that's what makes it a counterfeit. But if it looks like Biblical speaking in tongues, but isn't, then it's a counterfeit. I don't remember where or when it was said that it couldn't be counterfeited, but I'm reasonably sure there was no Scripture reference given.
When Peter saw the household of Cornelius speak in tongues, it was all the proof he needed that they were born again.
From that, Wierwille inferred that speaking in tongues is incontravertible proof (and by extension, that it couldn't be counterfeited, because if it could, it wouldn't prove anything).
Agree or disagree, but from a layman's perspective, I consider that a Biblical basis for the statement.
Was it the speaking in tongues, or "magnifying God" that convinced Peter & the others? I think we assume that it was the speaking in tongues, but if so, how did they know that they were magifying God? But even if it wasn't the SIT, I wouldn't put it in the category of a blatant error, just an honest (IMHO) interpretation of what was written.
Part of why I bring this up is that from our 2009 vantage point we sometimes think that speaking in tongues, defined as "speaking a language that is unknown to the speaker" was new and unuique to the new church, when it had been fairly common among prophetic and ecstatic groups of that time. Now if you want to redefine speaking in tongues to restrict it to Christians as a manifestation or gift of the spirits, okay, but I don't think that the people of that time saw it that way. None of the other manifestations/gifts are unique to Christianity.
Thanks for the reply. I am sorry about my message box, I will get to it this weekend.
Raf and others. . . . .
SIT can be faked. . . a statement of fact and no real debate there. But, everyone faking it? Those who had a genuine experience yet lived lives that did not produce the good things of God. . . . Love, Joy, Peace, longsuffering, peace, goodness, meekness, faith , temperance, and so on. . . . or even a faith that produced an intimate relationship with Jesus. . .could be looked at in a different way. We all know them. . . .
Could it be? Honest thought here. . . if there is such a thing as a true believer in Christ. . . that there are by default. . .opposing false belivers?
There might be other considerations. VP actually did give us a take on the gospel that was different than traditional understanding concerning Jesus. He gave us a version of Jesus rejected by the Church as a whole. You don't have to dig very hard to understand this. If changing an element of Jesus. . . changes the gospel message as it is traditionally understood. . . could it not follow . . . we actually missed the greatness of what was done on the cross? The true gospel message? JUST A THOUGHT!!
Not taking one side over the other, one could still consider the verses in 1 Corinthians 11 with objectivity and come up with another explanation for the SIT phenomenon in TWI.
Word Wolf. . . . bear with me here Please. . . I have a point to make. . . .
If there is such a thing as another Jesus and another gospel. . . . the logic follows. . . another spirit? With fruit that is born from the operation of it? Ungodly, morally perverted, deny Christ, defile the flesh, rebellious, dreamers, ignorant, self -destructive, fault finders, self-seeking, ARROGANT, mockers, worldly minded, without the spirit, self-willed, unreasoning animals, stains and blemishes, having a heart trained in greed????
If you ever read much about what other Christians write concerning TWI followers. . . one word that comes up continually is arrogant. Proud of our knowledge of the scriptures, but something was surely lacking there. . .
These fruits line up much more clearly with what many of us were or became in TWI. . .
Not to say we were not sincere in our belief in Christ as we were taught Him and also NOT to say that people did not have an earnest heart to seek Him.
Just a thought. Not a personal affront to anyone!!!
Steve L,
The LAST person on these forums ANYONE is going to convince PFAL is the revealed gospel or whatever to. . . is ME. LOL. . . . but, I can tell you pretty much verbatim what the class says. . . or I used to be able to. . . been awhile. Remember, we used to have to be ready at anytime to step in should the equipment break down! I was a good wayfer. . . I took them seriously. Wasted youth.
I still remember believing like Mike. I do empathize with him and since I was there and walked the same path. . . I relate! :)
Here's one that might best be described as conflicting rather than blatant error.
You be the judge.
In session # 9, on the introduction page, there is a chart that shows God, The Giver, who is Holy Spirit, giving the gift of holy spirit, which is God in Christ in you, which is power from on high. It then shows that there are nine Manifestations in the Senses World. These nine manifestations are depicted in a fan shape that visually implies they are of equal importance. Page 49 further reinforces this concept of co-equality as such. "INTRODUCTION: The manifestations of the gift from the HOLY Spirit, which is power from on high, are nine in number. No more. No less. They are not set in order, but simply listed in I Corinthians 12: 8-10." The chart appears again on page 3 of Interpretation Of Tongues And Prophesy (1971). Page 15, in contrast, shows a pyramid shaped chart with Kinds Of Tongues being the foundation upon which the rest of the pyramid is built.The implication is that that the others can't be accessed without first forming a base by speaking in tongues. This is further enforced on page 10 of the Advanced Class syllabus where we read: Keys To Walking By The Spirit, key # 3. "Speaking in tongues daily is prerequisite to revelation. II Corinthians 4: 16."
In addition, we are told on page 61 of the PFAL syllabus, item 4. "It (SIT in private prayer life) is to be edified. I Corinthians 14: 4." The implication here is that this scripture is telling us SIT is some kind of spiritual "mashed potatoes" that with help the inner spirit gain addition strength so the other manifestations may be operated. How can someone make the inner spirit stronger when it says in Colossians 2:9,10 "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him".? There is even a chapter in The Bible Tells Me So titled "Complete In Him", that "examines" this particular passage.This chapter begins with this statement: "We are complete in Christ then we are truly complete."
Conflicting messages throughout the whole PFAL series regardless of one's personal theological leanings.
Error is error whether it's a book about the Bible or a book about carburetors.
The LAST person on these forums ANYONE is going to convince PFAL is the revealed gospel or whatever to. . . is ME. LOL. . . . but, I can tell you pretty much verbatim what the class says. . . or I used to be able to. . . been awhile. Remember, we used to have to be ready at anytime to step in should the equipment break down! I was a good wayfer. . . I took them seriously. Wasted youth.
Hi geisha,
Well, you certainly handled that graciously!
Had I been you I’d have been a bit insulted by that kind of “warning” from Steve. He does that periodically like it’s his duty to protect the supposedly helpless. It comes from two posters complaining about me 5 years ago who were very frustrated with being unable to break me in PMs. Of course, the dozens of posters with whom I have since had friendly PM disagreements are totally ignored in his warnings. Even the two that complained went on later to more friendly PMs with me after their initial fuming, but this is also ignored by him. It’s a sad commentary that I have to endure such breakdowns in civility.
I still remember believing like Mike. I do empathize with him and since I was there and walked the same path. . . I relate! :)
Thank you for verifying that my current belief is nothing new.
The interesting thing is that the path you NOW walk is quite familiar to ME.
I had plenty of the same thoughts that are expressed here at GreaseSpot during the years 1985 to ’98, as well as some in even earlier years. Many of those thoughts were kicked off by a personal visit to San Diego by DWBH in 1987. The meeting he conducted was like a live version of GreaseSpot. Then ten later annual visits by John Lynn maintained the momentum of that verbal thought that is common here now typed out.
I simply came BACK to believing in PFAL’s Godly inspiration by carefully noting the written version. I noticed you cited being very familiar with the spoken version, as we all have. It was a close study of the written material that re-won my heart in 1998, having discovered that it was far richer than my earlier, more casual examinations had revealed.
We should talk again sometime. Maybe if Steve were willing to chaperone we could do it in PMs.
Agape,
Mike
PS - On the matter with SIT not being counterfeitable by Satan - my impression focuses on how SIT is proof TO THE INDIVIDUAL HIMSELF doing the SIT, and not so much to others. That was the context. We were being assured that we’d get the right thing and not something diabolical nor useless.
When VPW said it cannot be counterfeited, I'm pretty sure he meant spiritually. It's not that man couldn't pretend to be speaking in tongues, it's that Satan couldn't slip in and provide the utterance. If you're genuinely speaking in tongues and not faking it, then it's of God, not of the devil. If you're faking it, you're faking it.
I do see a distinction there.
Take a look at the much discussed question 8 in the RTHST book, the question he ripped off wholesale from Stiles. You know, the one with the "faith blasters"?
See? Didn't say man can't fake it. Said Satan can't counterfeit it. Big difference. To me, anyway.
Here's a thing for me that reveals a blatant PFAL error. It is a simple point in the scripture, but for me it has represented years of learning how TWI leadership actually worked because of how my former splinter group leader handled this information. I think I'll go into these events some more on a different thread. Anyway, here's the point....
Ephesians 5:25-32 (Lamsa version)
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved his church and gave himself for it,
That he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water and by the word,
In order to build for himself a glorious church, without stain or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
So should men love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own body, but nourishes it and cherishes it, even as Christ does for his own church.
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they to shall be one flesh.
THIS IS A GREAT MYSTERY; BUT I SPEAK CONCERNING CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH.
_____________
Now that I've seen this point get started in a group I feel very confident in saying that if we are "the church the body of Christ" that is very evident that we are his body as we are also "the church of the bride of Christ."
IT ISN'T A DIFFERENT CHURCH. IT IS TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF REFERING TO THE SAME LORD WITHIN THE MARRAIGE ANALOGY. We are his bride, his flesh and his bones.
The interesting thing is that the path you NOW walk is quite familiar to ME.
I had plenty of the same thoughts that are expressed here at GreaseSpot during the years 1985 to ’98, as well as some in even earlier years. Many of those thoughts were kicked off by a personal visit to San Diego by DWBH in 1987. The meeting he conducted was like a live version of GreaseSpot. Then ten later annual visits by John Lynn maintained the momentum of that verbal thought that is common here now typed out.
I simply came BACK to believing in PFAL’s Godly inspiration by carefully noting the written version. I noticed you cited being very familiar with the spoken version, as we all have. It was a close study of the written material that re-won my heart in 1998, having discovered that it was far richer than my earlier, more casual examinations had revealed.
We should talk again sometime. Maybe if Steve were willing to chaperone we could do it in PMs.
Mike,
I tend to doubt, albeit in a gentle way, that you are familar with the path I now walk. What leads me to that conclusion is really quite simple. Jesus. We have a much differing understanding of Jesus. I could never go back to PFAL or any TWI teaching, as I truly believe it is built on a faulty foundation. An aberrant understanding of Jesus.
For the record, and humor, I would not let JAL within 100 yards of me unless I carried wolfbane, garlic or pepper spray.
Mike, I really do believe that VP was what the bible refers to as a false teacher. Not only is it evidenced in his behavior and lifestyle, but it is exposed with no room for doubt, in his teachings. Before you talk to me about accusations and folly concerning his behavior, I would just kindly tell you I had my own run in with him. Nothing as catastrophic as the accounts I have read here. . . . but enough to convince me they are true. It was not a fatherly chat he was after from me.
We read the same verse and see different things. This was brought home to me recently during a conversation I had with an ex-way person. It was nearly impossible to communicate an a more orthodox understanding, as there was a real curtain there that precluded this person from seeing anything other than what they already had learned in PFAL.
It is not a few blatant errors here or there. It is an entire perspective that kicks in as we read the most simple of revelations concerning God. An over all wrong understanding.
If I could encourage you in anything. . . it would be to find a kind , bible believing church, with a pastor, minister, or priest, who is patient. That is a good sound piece of advice. Search out a ministry that deals with Christian ex-cult people. Off the top of my head I am hard pressed to think of any. . . :) but even a group that embraces apologetics would be good. They are ready to give a defense of traditional Christianity. . . what we rejected in TWI. . . maybe hear them out? Their understanding of Jesus and the actions and behavior in their lives that results from this.
I understand your concern. If it's any consolation to you I have ALL ALONG sought out and employed perspectives from other churches and organizations. It's only in the last ten years that I have focused on one thing. I guess I look at PFAL from a perspective so different than what I saw in the Corps leaders that I feel God has helped me see past the errors that bogged down so much of that leadership. If my present fellowship were anything like I saw in the Corps I'd be out in a flash.
I've looked at Jesus from many angles. My Catholic background helped there a lot. What I now look at is how we can become like him. This is the message I see in written PFAL. I feel that what you remember if the ministry is a mix of a small portion of the written message and a large portion of the verbal traditions that grew and grew and deformed as they went. All I can say is that the pure part can still be found in the written record, while the corrupted part has withered away as it should have.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
25
16
11
13
Popular Days
Jan 29
28
Jan 27
10
Feb 1
9
Jan 30
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Mark Clarke 25 posts
Mike 16 posts
geisha779 11 posts
waysider 13 posts
Popular Days
Jan 29 2009
28 posts
Jan 27 2009
10 posts
Feb 1 2009
9 posts
Jan 30 2009
9 posts
oldiesman
I tend to agree with the last sentence; that seems logical. But I disagree with the prior paragraph. Comparing what someone thinks is speaking on tongues in 1100 B.C. to what occurred on the day of Pentecost and beyond is folly. That happens when a secular definition of speaking in tongues is made, then someone assumes that all without exception occurrances of speaking in tongues is exactly the same (i.e. essentially meaningless) without taking into consideration that the biblical occurrance of SIT on the day of Pentecost and beyond was totally different and in a totally different context than what occurred in 1100 B.C.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In addition, Wierwille claimed that "tongues" could not be counterfeited yet he states, in PFAL, that, on at least one occasion, he faked tongues by repeating Greek words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Which proves that if a person wants to engage in a fake, they may do so. Doesn't mean the genuine is fake though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
He said it could NOT be faked.
But, admitted that he, himself, had occasion to fake it by repeating Greek words.
So which is it?
Did he lie when he said it couldn't be faked or lie when he said he faked it or just lie to those present about what he was actually doing?
********************
Page 60---PFAL syllabus.
4. it is not a gift of languages.
a. That you could speak in a desired tongue at will, for instance Greek.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Which was proven erroneous when he faked it.
I agree with you on that error in PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, there ya go!
What other things did he proclaim that were proven erroneous?
The guy had the credibility of a Chia Pet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
in addition to my short list at the beginning of this thread
it seems he got the Humpty Dumpty reference wrong
...
re: Speaking in Tongues...
perhaps not so blatant, but i cant help but see
that neither the PFAL version
nor the other non-biblical studies of glossalia
have much at all to do with the "tongues" experiences of pentecost or acts
though i still use the form of "glossalia" i learned in PFAL in my prayer life
and find value in it, in spite of the misunderstanding
i also "speak in tongues"
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Even I have to stick up for VPW on this one.
When VPW said it cannot be counterfeited, I'm pretty sure he meant spiritually. It's not that man couldn't pretend to be speaking in tongues, it's that Satan couldn't slip in and provide the utterance. If you're genuinely speaking in tongues and not faking it, then it's of God, not of the devil. If you're faking it, you're faking it.
I do see a distinction there.
Take a look at the much discussed question 8 in the RTHST book, the question he ripped off wholesale from Stiles. You know, the one with the "faith blasters"?
See? Didn't say man can't fake it. Said Satan can't counterfeit it. Big difference. To me, anyway.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I stand corrected.
He did say Satan could not counterfeit it, not that it couldn't be faked.
But that brings us back to this:
"Speaking in tongues is the believer's external manifestation in the senses world of the internal reality and presence of the holy spirit."
On that particular occasion when he faked speaking in tongues, it was not an external manifestation in the senses world of the internal reality and presence of the holy spirit. It was an external manifestation of his ability to fake it. What else did he fake?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Sincerity. Integrity. Scholarship. Godliness.
All of the above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Why do I get the impression that that statement has all the feel of a John Wayne one-liner? "Be careful there p-i-l-grim, or else I'll waste my time on ya!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Not only that, but even when someone isn't consciously faking it, there is no guarantee that it's genuinely of God. There are instances of non-Christians speaking in "tongues." Someone could say it's not really speaking in tongues if it's not of God, but that's like saying counterfeit money isn't really money. Of course it isn't, that's what makes it a counterfeit. But if it looks like Biblical speaking in tongues, but isn't, then it's a counterfeit. I don't remember where or when it was said that it couldn't be counterfeited, but I'm reasonably sure there was no Scripture reference given.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
When Peter saw the household of Cornelius speak in tongues, it was all the proof he needed that they were born again.
From that, Wierwille inferred that speaking in tongues is incontravertible proof (and by extension, that it couldn't be counterfeited, because if it could, it wouldn't prove anything).
Agree or disagree, but from a layman's perspective, I consider that a Biblical basis for the statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Was it the speaking in tongues, or "magnifying God" that convinced Peter & the others? I think we assume that it was the speaking in tongues, but if so, how did they know that they were magifying God? But even if it wasn't the SIT, I wouldn't put it in the category of a blatant error, just an honest (IMHO) interpretation of what was written.
Part of why I bring this up is that from our 2009 vantage point we sometimes think that speaking in tongues, defined as "speaking a language that is unknown to the speaker" was new and unuique to the new church, when it had been fairly common among prophetic and ecstatic groups of that time. Now if you want to redefine speaking in tongues to restrict it to Christians as a manifestation or gift of the spirits, okay, but I don't think that the people of that time saw it that way. None of the other manifestations/gifts are unique to Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mike,
Thanks for the reply. I am sorry about my message box, I will get to it this weekend.
Raf and others. . . . .
SIT can be faked. . . a statement of fact and no real debate there. But, everyone faking it? Those who had a genuine experience yet lived lives that did not produce the good things of God. . . . Love, Joy, Peace, longsuffering, peace, goodness, meekness, faith , temperance, and so on. . . . or even a faith that produced an intimate relationship with Jesus. . .could be looked at in a different way. We all know them. . . .
Could it be? Honest thought here. . . if there is such a thing as a true believer in Christ. . . that there are by default. . .opposing false belivers?
There might be other considerations. VP actually did give us a take on the gospel that was different than traditional understanding concerning Jesus. He gave us a version of Jesus rejected by the Church as a whole. You don't have to dig very hard to understand this. If changing an element of Jesus. . . changes the gospel message as it is traditionally understood. . . could it not follow . . . we actually missed the greatness of what was done on the cross? The true gospel message? JUST A THOUGHT!!
Not taking one side over the other, one could still consider the verses in 1 Corinthians 11 with objectivity and come up with another explanation for the SIT phenomenon in TWI.
Word Wolf. . . . bear with me here Please. . . I have a point to make. . . .
If there is such a thing as another Jesus and another gospel. . . . the logic follows. . . another spirit? With fruit that is born from the operation of it? Ungodly, morally perverted, deny Christ, defile the flesh, rebellious, dreamers, ignorant, self -destructive, fault finders, self-seeking, ARROGANT, mockers, worldly minded, without the spirit, self-willed, unreasoning animals, stains and blemishes, having a heart trained in greed????
If you ever read much about what other Christians write concerning TWI followers. . . one word that comes up continually is arrogant. Proud of our knowledge of the scriptures, but something was surely lacking there. . .
These fruits line up much more clearly with what many of us were or became in TWI. . .
Not to say we were not sincere in our belief in Christ as we were taught Him and also NOT to say that people did not have an earnest heart to seek Him.
Just a thought. Not a personal affront to anyone!!!
Steve L,
The LAST person on these forums ANYONE is going to convince PFAL is the revealed gospel or whatever to. . . is ME. LOL. . . . but, I can tell you pretty much verbatim what the class says. . . or I used to be able to. . . been awhile. Remember, we used to have to be ready at anytime to step in should the equipment break down! I was a good wayfer. . . I took them seriously. Wasted youth.
I still remember believing like Mike. I do empathize with him and since I was there and walked the same path. . . I relate! :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here's one that might best be described as conflicting rather than blatant error.
You be the judge.
In session # 9, on the introduction page, there is a chart that shows God, The Giver, who is Holy Spirit, giving the gift of holy spirit, which is God in Christ in you, which is power from on high. It then shows that there are nine Manifestations in the Senses World. These nine manifestations are depicted in a fan shape that visually implies they are of equal importance. Page 49 further reinforces this concept of co-equality as such. "INTRODUCTION: The manifestations of the gift from the HOLY Spirit, which is power from on high, are nine in number. No more. No less. They are not set in order, but simply listed in I Corinthians 12: 8-10." The chart appears again on page 3 of Interpretation Of Tongues And Prophesy (1971). Page 15, in contrast, shows a pyramid shaped chart with Kinds Of Tongues being the foundation upon which the rest of the pyramid is built.The implication is that that the others can't be accessed without first forming a base by speaking in tongues. This is further enforced on page 10 of the Advanced Class syllabus where we read: Keys To Walking By The Spirit, key # 3. "Speaking in tongues daily is prerequisite to revelation. II Corinthians 4: 16."
In addition, we are told on page 61 of the PFAL syllabus, item 4. "It (SIT in private prayer life) is to be edified. I Corinthians 14: 4." The implication here is that this scripture is telling us SIT is some kind of spiritual "mashed potatoes" that with help the inner spirit gain addition strength so the other manifestations may be operated. How can someone make the inner spirit stronger when it says in Colossians 2:9,10 "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him".? There is even a chapter in The Bible Tells Me So titled "Complete In Him", that "examines" this particular passage.This chapter begins with this statement: "We are complete in Christ then we are truly complete."
Conflicting messages throughout the whole PFAL series regardless of one's personal theological leanings.
Error is error whether it's a book about the Bible or a book about carburetors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi geisha,
Well, you certainly handled that graciously!
Had I been you I’d have been a bit insulted by that kind of “warning” from Steve. He does that periodically like it’s his duty to protect the supposedly helpless. It comes from two posters complaining about me 5 years ago who were very frustrated with being unable to break me in PMs. Of course, the dozens of posters with whom I have since had friendly PM disagreements are totally ignored in his warnings. Even the two that complained went on later to more friendly PMs with me after their initial fuming, but this is also ignored by him. It’s a sad commentary that I have to endure such breakdowns in civility.
Thank you for verifying that my current belief is nothing new.
The interesting thing is that the path you NOW walk is quite familiar to ME.
I had plenty of the same thoughts that are expressed here at GreaseSpot during the years 1985 to ’98, as well as some in even earlier years. Many of those thoughts were kicked off by a personal visit to San Diego by DWBH in 1987. The meeting he conducted was like a live version of GreaseSpot. Then ten later annual visits by John Lynn maintained the momentum of that verbal thought that is common here now typed out.
I simply came BACK to believing in PFAL’s Godly inspiration by carefully noting the written version. I noticed you cited being very familiar with the spoken version, as we all have. It was a close study of the written material that re-won my heart in 1998, having discovered that it was far richer than my earlier, more casual examinations had revealed.
We should talk again sometime. Maybe if Steve were willing to chaperone we could do it in PMs.
Agape,
Mike
PS - On the matter with SIT not being counterfeitable by Satan - my impression focuses on how SIT is proof TO THE INDIVIDUAL HIMSELF doing the SIT, and not so much to others. That was the context. We were being assured that we’d get the right thing and not something diabolical nor useless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
geisha - If Mike starts pitching his "advanced Christ formed within" spirit to you, remember what you yourself wrote above about "another spirit".
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Advanced Christ"????
You mean there's a version that's more complete than the completely, completely, complete version?
Who'd a thunk it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Good point Raf, thanks for clearing that up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Here's a thing for me that reveals a blatant PFAL error. It is a simple point in the scripture, but for me it has represented years of learning how TWI leadership actually worked because of how my former splinter group leader handled this information. I think I'll go into these events some more on a different thread. Anyway, here's the point....
Ephesians 5:25-32 (Lamsa version)
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved his church and gave himself for it,
That he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water and by the word,
In order to build for himself a glorious church, without stain or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
So should men love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own body, but nourishes it and cherishes it, even as Christ does for his own church.
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they to shall be one flesh.
THIS IS A GREAT MYSTERY; BUT I SPEAK CONCERNING CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH.
_____________
Now that I've seen this point get started in a group I feel very confident in saying that if we are "the church the body of Christ" that is very evident that we are his body as we are also "the church of the bride of Christ."
IT ISN'T A DIFFERENT CHURCH. IT IS TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF REFERING TO THE SAME LORD WITHIN THE MARRAIGE ANALOGY. We are his bride, his flesh and his bones.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
The interesting thing is that the path you NOW walk is quite familiar to ME.
I had plenty of the same thoughts that are expressed here at GreaseSpot during the years 1985 to ’98, as well as some in even earlier years. Many of those thoughts were kicked off by a personal visit to San Diego by DWBH in 1987. The meeting he conducted was like a live version of GreaseSpot. Then ten later annual visits by John Lynn maintained the momentum of that verbal thought that is common here now typed out.
I simply came BACK to believing in PFAL’s Godly inspiration by carefully noting the written version. I noticed you cited being very familiar with the spoken version, as we all have. It was a close study of the written material that re-won my heart in 1998, having discovered that it was far richer than my earlier, more casual examinations had revealed.
We should talk again sometime. Maybe if Steve were willing to chaperone we could do it in PMs.
Mike,
I tend to doubt, albeit in a gentle way, that you are familar with the path I now walk. What leads me to that conclusion is really quite simple. Jesus. We have a much differing understanding of Jesus. I could never go back to PFAL or any TWI teaching, as I truly believe it is built on a faulty foundation. An aberrant understanding of Jesus.
For the record, and humor, I would not let JAL within 100 yards of me unless I carried wolfbane, garlic or pepper spray.
Mike, I really do believe that VP was what the bible refers to as a false teacher. Not only is it evidenced in his behavior and lifestyle, but it is exposed with no room for doubt, in his teachings. Before you talk to me about accusations and folly concerning his behavior, I would just kindly tell you I had my own run in with him. Nothing as catastrophic as the accounts I have read here. . . . but enough to convince me they are true. It was not a fatherly chat he was after from me.
We read the same verse and see different things. This was brought home to me recently during a conversation I had with an ex-way person. It was nearly impossible to communicate an a more orthodox understanding, as there was a real curtain there that precluded this person from seeing anything other than what they already had learned in PFAL.
It is not a few blatant errors here or there. It is an entire perspective that kicks in as we read the most simple of revelations concerning God. An over all wrong understanding.
If I could encourage you in anything. . . it would be to find a kind , bible believing church, with a pastor, minister, or priest, who is patient. That is a good sound piece of advice. Search out a ministry that deals with Christian ex-cult people. Off the top of my head I am hard pressed to think of any. . . :) but even a group that embraces apologetics would be good. They are ready to give a defense of traditional Christianity. . . what we rejected in TWI. . . maybe hear them out? Their understanding of Jesus and the actions and behavior in their lives that results from this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi geisha,
I understand your concern. If it's any consolation to you I have ALL ALONG sought out and employed perspectives from other churches and organizations. It's only in the last ten years that I have focused on one thing. I guess I look at PFAL from a perspective so different than what I saw in the Corps leaders that I feel God has helped me see past the errors that bogged down so much of that leadership. If my present fellowship were anything like I saw in the Corps I'd be out in a flash.
I've looked at Jesus from many angles. My Catholic background helped there a lot. What I now look at is how we can become like him. This is the message I see in written PFAL. I feel that what you remember if the ministry is a mix of a small portion of the written message and a large portion of the verbal traditions that grew and grew and deformed as they went. All I can say is that the pure part can still be found in the written record, while the corrupted part has withered away as it should have.
Agape,
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Mike, to be like him, shouldn't we preach a message that sounds like the one he preached?
Simple question: What would you say is the crux of the Gospel Message that Jesus preached?
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.