Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Is PLAF theopneustos, god-breathed?


So_crates
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, So_crates said:

Again, the only thing WE'RE getting out of them is the usual: "They prove PLAF is God-breathe because I say they prove PLAF is God-breathe."

Are you starting to see a pattern here?

YES!  The pattern is:
I say these 22 statements do NOT prove PFAL is God-breathed. Period. Then I also say they do prove 2 tiny but useful items. Can you name those two “being proved” items? Then I name them. Then someone complains that my 22 statements do NOT prove PFAL is God-breathed.

Then the pattern repeats.

I say these 22 statements do NOT prove PFAL is God-breathed. Period. Then I also say they do prove 2 tiny but useful items. Then I name them. Then someone complains that my 22 statements do NOT prove PFAL is God-breathed.

Then the pattern repeats again.

I think this is about the 5th or 6th time.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now a legitimate complaint against me is that after my first 3 sledgehammer statements, the rest are getting weaker and weaker. That pattern repeats with the next one, so I think I’ll skip it for now. This one and the next few are strong again.

 

 


#14 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement



This next "thus saith" statement has already appeared above in this thread as I discussed statement #2, but I purposely avoided distracting myself; I avoided pointing it out. I wonder if anyone noticed this when it happened. If not, we can consider this statement a little hidden, can we not?

This statement is the text from the last Session of the class, just before we were led into tongues. When I wrote up statement #2 this same section of the film class was quoted, but I used bold fonts and ALL-CAPS in it to point out the the context of that statement #2. This time I'll boldly fontulate only areas of that class quote 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."


***

He actually DOES say the words "It's like..." there. We will soon be able to placed audio links in places like this so the recorded audio can be heard again.

So this statement #14 is right in there with #2. We all heard it a maximum number of times in the film class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Mike said:

YES!  The pattern is:
I say these 22 statements do NOT prove PFAL is God-breathed. Period. Then I also say they do prove 2 tiny but useful items. Can you name those two “being proved” items? Then I name them. Then someone complains that my 22 statements do NOT prove PFAL is God-breathed.

Then the pattern repeats.

I say these 22 statements do NOT prove PFAL is God-breathed. Period. Then I also say they do prove 2 tiny but useful items. Then I name them. Then someone complains that my 22 statements do NOT prove PFAL is God-breathed.

Then the pattern repeats again.

I think this is about the 5th or 6th time.

That's bull$hit, Mike. You don't even come close to proving ANYthing, not even two tiny items.

Everyone else: if you let Mike have the last word, he might then stop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rocky said:

That's bull$hit, Mike. You don't even come close to proving ANYthing, not even two tiny items.

Everyone else: if you let Mike have the last word, he might then stop.

The 2 things are VPW told us he believed the PFAL writings were God-breathed, and that we all missed him telling us this, because many of the statements were very subtle, and some not-so-subtle ones were placed in elementary locations, thus eluding advanced students.

I'm thinking of stopping (at least for a while) after I finish the 22 statements.

Besides, I gotta put more time into the other areas of my life. This soaks me for hours.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites


 
#15 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement



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.


 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
#16 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement



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 more subtle 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!

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike said:

The 2 things are VPW told us he believed the PFAL writings were God-breathed, and that we all missed him telling us this, because many of the statements were very subtle, and some not-so-subtle ones were placed in elementary locations, thus eluding advanced students.

I'm thinking of stopping (at least for a while) after I finish the 22 statements.

Besides, I gotta put more time into the other areas of my life. This soaks me for hours.

Blah blah blah...

I am glad you're realizing you need a life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dodge. Distract. Challenge right back. But never admit an error is an error.

That is a fundamentally dishonest tactic unworthy of the label "Christian."

Wierwille's books are god-breathed, except the ones written by committee, regardless of the fact that he himself took personal responsibility for the final product.

We've reached the point, I think, where identifying you as "dishonest to the core" is not "namecalling" but a fair and objective description of your conduct on this board.

You'e not an honest debater, and that makes discussion with you a profit to no one.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, here's the basic problem with the whole idea that PFAL is God Breathed:

It relies entirely on circular reasoning. By that, I mean the premise is based on self verification.

Person 1.) "PFAL is God Breathed."

Person 2.) "How do we know?"

Person 1.) "It says so right in the  PFAL text."

Person 2.) "How do we know this claim in the PFAL text is accurate?"

Person 1.) "Because the PFAL text is God Breathed."

 

 

It's like the TV  commercial that was popular a while back.

Person 1.) "You can't lie on the internet."

Person 2.)" How do you know?"

Person 1.) "I heard it on the internet."

 

There would need to be outside evidence to give any sort of credence to the premise.

It's just that simple.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is also simple is that it is a testable thesis. It actually gives you the methodology to test it. And it fails. Therefore, it is a false thesis. It takes breathtaking dishonesty to say otherwise. Ooh, look!

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mike said:

The 2 things are VPW told us he believed the PFAL writings were God-breathed, and that we all missed him telling us this, because many of the statements were very subtle, and some not-so-subtle ones were placed in elementary locations, thus eluding advanced students.

By hiding the statements, and listening to your reasoning for them being hiddden, I have to conclude you think God uses trickery and deception--the same tactics as the devil. You refuse to even address this issue with nothing but more circular logic.

 

Quote

I'm thinking of stopping (at least for a while) after I finish the 22 statements.

Oh, Mike, did you know my writing is God-breathe?

You missed my Thus sayeth the Lord statement a page or two back:

Mike, God himself could come down from heaven and tell you it was an error and you still wouldn't be convinced.

I said it again, in a slightly different way,  a few posts later, which establishes it

I hid them because I know you like puzzles.

Edited by So_crates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Raf said:

Wierwille's books are god-breathed, except the ones written by committee, regardless of the fact that he himself took personal responsibility for the final product.

 

Not the implication I had in mind.

The fact that the book was written by committee meant that there were quite a few more middle men (like proofreaders and printers) than normal. More possibilities for tiny errors to creep in. THAT was the context of my committee comment.

Raf you missed the context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, So_crates said:

By hiding the statements, and listening to your reasoning for them being hiddden, I have to conclude you think God uses trickery and deception--the same tactics as the devil. You refuse to even address this issue with nothing but more circular logic.

 

Do you think God did wrong by hiding The Mystery? 

In your theology, did God deceive the devil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mike said:

Do you think God did wrong by hiding The Mystery? 

We're not talking about the Mystery, are we? Did he claim the Mystery was one thing, and then made it something else? That's what we're talking about with PLAF.

Quote

In your theology, did God deceive the devil?

The bible says God is not a man, he can't lie to us. 

The bible also said the mystery was a secret, which mean it wasn't spoken of.

So, the answer is no, he didn't decieve the devil. There was no mention of the mystery. He didn't claim it was one thing (put a false label on it) then make it another.

There's a huge difference

(Do you always argue with God-breathe writings? See my previous post for my two sledgehammer statements)

Edited by So_crates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory as a whole can not be tested. Therefore, one must test the individual components. This is something we have done, many times over, on several of the individual points. Those points have been proved to be invalid. Therefore, I must conclude that the thesis, as a whole, has been disproved.

Edited by waysider
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mike said:

The 2 things are VPW told us he believed the PFAL writings were God-breathed, and that we all missed him telling us this, because many of the statements were very subtle, and some not-so-subtle ones were placed in elementary locations, thus eluding advanced students.

 

The other thing your implying by claiming God hid these statements and the reason thereof is that God doesn't trust us. He trusts us with his spirit, he trusts us with the greatest secret in the world, but this---no way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The week end is here and the life I already have beckons. I will read these when possible.

I have a quick question. Did anyone here attend PFAL '77 ?

IF so, do you remember much about how VPW handled "all without distinction" ?

I was there, and I remember very deliberately looking at his face for that segment and not my KJV. I remember VERY well what and how he said it, because I had spent 5 years wondering (like others did then) if that was a mistake in the class and book.

SPOILER ALERT!  He changed it to "all with distinction." Mistake?  That depends on how you look at it and what surrounding evidence may eventually roll in. If you want to think the film and book are a mistake and PFAL'77 is correct, I could care less.

I am looking in a surprisingly different direction, so it shouldn't be surprising that I find things surprising things.

...to be continued. I'll show you why it is not a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, waysider said:

The theory as a whole can not be tested. Therefore, one must test the individual components. This is something we have done, many times over, on several of the individual points. Those points have been proved to be invalid. Therefore, I must conclude that the thesis, as a whole, has been disproved.

I agree...and I wanted to add - this thesis is so preposterous... so utterly laughable that I think even wierwille would have said so himself...

..even though he was delusional, a megalomaniac, a plagiarist, a sexual predator, etc. he had enough smarts as any good con man that he usually attempted to gain validation by getting a degree-mill “doctor” title, exaggerating and fabricating his achievements in ministering, research and phenomena...

In the corps program I never got the idea that PFAL was to take the place of or supersede the Bible...rather it (PFAL) was touted as the only interpretive tool that guaranteed you would rightly divide the word of god....the essence of PFAL - like its “creator” wierwille is parasitic - and as such has very little intrinsic value - because it leeches off whatever is genuine - and percolating it all into a magnificent platform for a cult-leader...

that’s why I don’t think the frame of thought in wierwille’s works was designed to really work on its own...it needed a driver who knew where he was going....next stop cult-world !

it was a platform for a charlatan...a good con man does not stick a gun to your head to rob you under threat to your life...rather a good con man wins your confidence - and you willingly hand over your money...for folks like me - getting involved when I was young and naive - not knowing much of what gives credibility or validity in academics or biblical research - I was a good candidate to get suckered in by wierwille’s pretenses.

 

 

 

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...