Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

WAYDALE REPOST: Rafael Olmeda's Original Blue Book Commentary


Recommended Posts

This is the original text of Rafael Olmeda's commentaries on "The Bible Tells Me So" (The Blue Book) from Waydale. This is reposted as a refresher for those who have not read Mr. Olmeda's original thread, and for those who would like to re-read it without wading through all the opposing viewpoints. Along with the chapters, there is one post that was a clarification of some of the points made in the previous posts at one point. The archivist apologizes that some of the formatting was lost in the translation.

God bless!




The Bible Tells Me So

Chapter 1 – Release From Your Prisons

What’s right with it…

In this opening chapter, we learn the importance of our own mindset in dealing with our problems. Recognizing fear,

worry, and anxiety as prisons from which we should be released was revolutionary for me, even though it’s not unique

to VPW’s doctrine. There are some very powerful and accurate statements in this chapter, including:



“In following God’s Word and in knowing His Son, we will not only be free, but we shall be free indeed.”

“Every influence which is not based upon the accuracy of God’s Word shall come to naught. Such influences lead only

to imprisonment.”

“Outside of Christ we cannot be free. Jesus Christ was the liberator who set us free. He is the head of the church.”

“The truth of The Word and of Christ is our light and power in life; this is our release from fears, worries

anxieties, frustrations, heartaches, headaches and everything else that comes along. This is our means to get out of

the negative prisons of self-enslavement intothe glorious liberty of children of God.”

"It is the introduction of light that dispels darkness, not the dwelling on darkness that introduces light."


What’s wrong with it…

This chapter fails in several ways. First, it rips numerous verses from their context in order to make a point about

“thinking positive.” The best example is the first. In quoting John 8:31, 32 and 36, VPW alerts us to the fact that

the truth of Christ shall make us free. But what about the missing verses? The missing verses answer a very

important question: FROM WHAT shall the truth of Christ make us free?

VPW’s answer: from self-condemnation, from bad thoughts and bad feelings based on sins committed ages ago: “The

prisons of our secret sins, things in our lives which we don’t want to share with any other person in the world...”

Jesus’ answer: “I tell you the truth. Everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the

family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” (John 8:34-36, NIV).

See the distinction? Christ was discussing freedom from SIN. VPW used those verses to discuss freedom from SIN

CONSCIOUSNESS, from self-condemnation, from feeling bad. Now, the Bible DOES teach freedom from those things, but

not in these verses. And the Bible teaches HOW to be released from these prisons. But the answer is NOT “clearness

and concern.” It is NOT getting a “positive, clear picture of your freed self.”

The answer to freedom from sin-consciousness and self-condemnation is mourning (Matthew 5:4) and godly sorrow (II

Corinthians 7:9-10). VPW takes us from the commission of sin straight to the rejection of sin-consciousness,

skipping the all-important aspect of godly sorrow, the genuine and heartfelt REPENTANCE of a humble heart who comes

to the Father and says, with sincerity, “I am sorry.”

You will NEVER be released from the prison of sin-consciousness or self-condemnation without mourning and godly

sorrow. The forgiveness is guaranteed by God (I John 1:9). Then, and only then, should you be free from


Another failure of this chapter is the centrality of the human will. Take the following statements for example:



“If you want to get rid of something today, you must focus, dwell on what you want.”

“If you want to get out of your prisons today, immediately change your thinking about your situation; change your

subject of focus. As you change your thinking, you will draw a mental pattern for the things you do want in your

life, which in turn will dispel and root out those things you do not want.”

“The release from one’s prisons depends upon two things: clearness and concern – the two “C’s” of release.”


Now, to VPW’s credit, he does eventually invite God into the picture, but it’s not central. It's very clear that the

solution starts with you and your mind and your framework and your mental picture and you you you you you and oh, by

the way, God. It should be the other way around (Matthew 6:33).

What if you pray for release and you do not get it? According to VPW, it’s because “you only momentarily changed

your mental image; you did not keep your picture in focus and allow the proper exposure time.” The focus is on the

process and how you ask.

According to the Bible, the answer is: “When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that

you may spend what you get on your pleasures.” (James 4:3) The focus is on your heart and intentions. God isn’t in

the business of giving us whatever we want. He’s in the business of giving us what He wants us to have.



“How have you mentally pictured yourself for the past week, month, year, ten years? The picture that you carry of

yourself with clearness and with concern is what you are. This law works for positive and negative thinking alike.”


I really like the above statement. There’s a lot of truth to it. But it’s not a law, and calling it a law doesn’t

make it a law. It’s very nice. It’s really nice. Copy it and stick it on your refrigerator. I LOVE THAT STATEMENT.

But it’s not a law.

VPW’s conclusion:



“When you find yourself in one of life’s prison’s, get a positive, clear picture of your freed self. Focus in on

the positive image and thank God that right now you have the answer. Keep confessing and believing positively

according to The Word, and your release will absolutely follow.”


My conclusion: When you find yourself in one of life’s prisons, PRAY. Get God into the picture as early as possible.

Ask Him what He wants you to do. Learn His will so that it becomes second-nature to you (something VPW also

suggests). If the prison is guilt, mourn your sin and God through Christ WILL comfort you. The “positive thoughts”

of God’s Will are stronger than anything you can conjure up in your mind.


Chapter 2 - How To Avoid Being A Failure

What’s right with it…

This is a really frustrating chapter. VPW begins with a worthwhile premise: God does not want any failures. He wants

His children to be successes. And VPW quotes several reassuring promises of God through Christ:

“Come unto me… and I will give you rest.”

“Lo, I am with you always…”

“I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”

What’s wrong with it…

The chapter on “How To Avoid Being A Failure” IS a failure. It is a failure because it does not define success or

failure! Without a definition of success, it is virtually impossible to succeed.

The majority of this chapter is devoted to the blatant and incomprehensible misapplication of a parable in Luke 15.

Please READ LUKE 15 before proceeding. I’ll wait…

I mean it…

No, really, go back and read Luke 15 or I’ll call you a failure.

Ok, you’re back? Good.

VPW uses the parable of the lost piece of silver to teach something other than what Jesus is teaching. Looking at

the parable in its context, we see that it is the second of three parables. The first is commonly and accurately

referred to as the parable of the lost sheep. The second is the lost piece of silver. And the third is commonly and

accurately called the parable of the prodigal son. Why are these names important? Because the focus of each of these

stories is the value of that which is lost.

VPW writes, “The second is a story of a woman who avoided being a failure because she found one little piece of

silver.” VPW is wrong. That is not what this story is about. Note all three stories: what do they have in common?

All involve something of value that is LOST (a sheep, a piece of silver, a son). All involve the FINDING or RETURN

of that which is lost (the sheep is found, the silver is found, the son returns). And all involve the REJOICING of

the one who lost the item or person in the first place (the shepherd, the woman, the father).

In all three cases, the thing lost is compared to a sinner, the return of the thing lost is compared to a sinner who

repents, and the one who rejoices is compared to God and the angels of heaven rejoicing when a sinner repents. (The

“Prodigal Son” contains all of these aspects, and adds the aspect of the jealousy of the son who did NOT waste his

inheritance: meaning the steadfast are to rejoice at the repentance of a sinner, not glory in their own


So this story has nothing to do with a woman who avoided being a failure. VPW took the emphasis off the importance

of that one little piece of silver (YOU) and put it on the woman trying to find the silver. A parable is supposed to

make a point, and using the parable to make ANOTHER point may be profitable, or it may not. In this case, VPW

completely missed the reason Jesus was telling the story.

The woman, in the story, is compared to God. The woman does not want to lose that piece of silver. God does not want

to lose YOU. The woman does whatever she can to find the piece of silver. God does whatever He can to get YOU back.

The woman rejoices when she gets the silver back. God rejoices when He gets YOU back. That is the lesson of this


Does the woman avoid being a failure by finding the piece of silver? Would God be a failure if you or I failed to

return to Him? If the answer to the first question is YES, and the answer to the second question is NO, then

clearly, the analogy no longer applies. So why emphasize the one aspect of the parable in which the analogy does not


VPW then writes, “We too can avoid being a failure by putting first things first.”

Huh? I agree with the statement, but it doesn’t flow logically from that parable. VPW goes on to quote Matthew 6:33

(Seek the kingdom of God first and all these things will be added unto you…), and concludes that if you seek

anything else first, all things will be subtracted from you. That’s faulty logic. It’s not what the Bible says at

all. It says seek the kingdom of God first, and these things (food, clothing, necessities) will be added to you.

Logic dictates, then, that if you DON’T seek God first, those things will NOT be added to you (that is, not by God).

There is no threat in Matthew 6:33. VPW’s threat has no biblical foundation.

VPW’s conclusion:



You are the one to now decide

Whether to believe Him or toss Him aside.

You are the one to make up your mind

Whether to accept Him or linger behind.

Take Him or leave Him, which will you do?

Believing is assurance of no failure for you.


My conclusion: Believing is assurance of no failure? Hogwash. Success takes work. It takes hard work. According to

VPW, success means you turn your house upside-down to find that one little piece of silver worth just a few cents.

Obedience to God and His Will is what assures success. So with all due respect to VPW, this chapter has a catchy

title and an uplifting conclusion, but as a study on How to Avoid Being a Failure, I give it an F.


Chapter 3 - Are You Limiting God?

What's right with it...

I really, really like this chapter. God is glorified throughout, and His grace really shines. To write everything I

like about this chapter, I would have to practically rewrite it. Here's the point: God wants to help us. He promises

to be there for us in every situation. He gets the glory. When we don't believe Him, we limit Him. So let's believe

Him and we'll see His Word come to pass.

What's wrong with it...

This is not a flawless chapter, but the benefits far outweigh the nits I'm about to pick.

VPW's discussion of kingdoms is not recognized by anyone anywhere. He made it up. It's nonsensical, and gets in the


The oft-repeated definition of righteousness is given. Practical error often accompanied this definition. I think

many Way believers were willing to say "I get to stand before God without any sense of sin, guilt or condemnation,"

always forgetting that it's our "GOD-GIVEN" right. Is VPW to blame for the practical error that accompanied this

definition? Partially, but not in this chapter.

VPW's conclusion:



Are you limiting God? Why not release the power of God that is latent within you, and believe God for the abundance

which He has promised?


My conclusion: VPW blows it with this closing paragraph. Throughout the chapter, the focus is on God, His ability,

His willingness, His grace, His mercy, HIM HIM HIM. Then, suddenly, at the close of the chapter, it's about the

latent power within YOU. Dang! Why? Why? Why? The chapter is not called Are You Limiting YOU? I wish I could find an

old manuscript somewhere that omitted the last paragraph of the chapter.


Part II: What We Believe = What We Are

I'm taking a moment here to address the fact that chapters 4 and 5 are a unit. What ties them together? The idea

that there is a "law" of believing.

Now, it is important to ask, what does VPW mean by "law?" Does he mean "general principle?" Or does he mean "an

edict which must be obeyed?" Or is it something even greater?

It is up to VPW to answer that question, so let's allow him to do so.

From PFAL, p. 32



The law of believing is the greatest law in the Word of God. As a matter of fact, it is not only the greatest law

in the Word, it is the greatest law in the whole world.





Believing is a law. As one believes, he receives. On the negative side, fear is believing; fear is believing in

reverse; it produces ill results.


p. 44



What one fears will surely come to pass. It is a law.



It is clear throughout the teachings of VPW that he thought "believing" an "immutable law" (Christians Should Be

Prosperous, p.2). Immutable laws are to be distinguished from the Mosaic Law. Immutable Laws never change. They

cannot be broken, ever, under any circumstances. A good physicist will tell you, for example, that an airplane does

not break the law of gravity. (That's right.) An airplane works in conjunction with the law of gravity and other

physical laws and principles in order to appear to defy the law of gravity. But you can rest assured, when that

plane is in the air, the law of gravity is still very much in effect for that plane and for everyone on it.

The Bible Tells Me So, p.29



The law of believing is dynamically powerful, yet so simple. The law, simply stated, is that what we believe for or

expect, we get. This applies in every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual. Thus it is this law which

basically controls the abundant life.


There is no question: VPW did not think "believing" was just some positive principle. It was not just some Biblical,

godly instruction. It was an IMMUTABLE law, a law that works whether you like it or not.

My position is that believing is NOT a "law." It is not a law because the basic statements governing this law are

not true.

"Believing equals receiving."

"What we believe for or expect, we get."

"Confession of belief yields receipt of confession."

There are so many exceptions to the above statements that to call the governing principle behind them a "law" defies


So I've taken a very long time to try to get to "The Synchronized Life" and "The Law of Believing" because I want to

make sure I don't discourage people from believing.

A lot of people have their opinions on the subject, and there's a thread somewhere on Waydale called "Is TWI's

doctrine of beliving abusive?" I won't pretend to go into all that detail, nor will I say I agree with everything

that's been written there, but I do believe VPW's emphasis on the "Law of Believing" was Biblically incorrect: he

overstates its impact and importance.

Allow me to present a thesis:

In the Greek, "faith" and "believing" are the same word. But in English, they are different words. The distinction

in English is this:

"Believing" places the emphasis on the mental action of the person who believes.

"Faith" places the emphasis outside the person who believes and onto the person or thing that is believed.

For years we called ourselves "believers." The emphasis was on us. It would be wonderful if we also called ourselves

"faithful" so that the emphasis could once again be placed on the One in whom we have faith: God.

It's just a thesis. It's helped me, and I hope it helps anyone else who made the same mistake I made.

It is not "the law of believing" that controls the "abundant life." It is the Faithfulness of God to His Word that

controls the abundant life. If God was not faithful to His Word, then we could BELIEVE His Word all we want, and it

would profit us nothing.

While we're at it, I think it was Mandii who brought up the point of "the abundant life." VPW's definition of

"abundant life" was that we would have abundance in this life.

PFAL, p.3



As I looked about me at the communities where I had served and among the ministers with whom I had worked, the

abundant life frequently was not evident. In contrast to these Christian people, I could see that the secular world

of non-Christians were manifesting a more abundant life than were members of the church.



How could the secular world be manifesting that which Christ came to make available if they do not accept Christ?

Clearly, the "abundant life" VPW sought and preached was a kind of life that is independent of faith in God (for

those who have no faith in God are manifesting it).

"The Law of Believing" and VPW's definition of "abundant life" are two of the most basic, foundational errors of The

Way International. They were held up above the very Word of God itself. Unbelievers manifest the abundant life, why

can't we? The law of believing works for saint and sinner alike! You don't even have to be a Christian!

John 10:10

The thief cometh not but for to steal (to steal what?), to kill (to kill who?) and to destroy (destroy what?). I am

come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

To steal, kill and destroy what? Check the context: the answer to all three questions is sheep. Not stuff. Not

material wealth. Jesus Christ came so that God's people may have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

He is not promising riches. He is not promising wealth. He is promising LIFE. A whole lot of life. Eternal life.

Jesus Christ didn't come to bring us away from God, kill us, and cast us into the lake of fire. He came to bring us

to God, give us (new) life and the rock-solid promise of an eternal inheritance.

It hardly seems credible to me that in John 10, Jesus took a moment to promise wealth to all who believe him.

"Follow me and you'll have more chariots than your neighbors?" I don't think so.

God Bless You.


Chapter 4-The Synchronized Life

What’s right with it...



Whatever a person believes is directly reflected in what he confesses.


Frame that statement. It’s a gem. Note that it does not say, "Whatever a person believes is directly reflected in

what he PROfesses." What a person CONfesses, or admits, is what that person really believes. What a person PROfesses

may or may not be what he believes: perhaps it is what he wants you to THINK he believes. But it’s the CONfession

that reveals someone’s true belief.

PROfession is what you say.

CONfession is what you say and mean and truly, truly believe.

Likewise, the exposition on Psalm 18:33 is just beautiful.



That is, He makes it so that my "hind feet" will track with my "front feet (representing the Word)." Thus, where

the Word has set its feet, there also will I put my feet.


VPW’s bold declarations of Romans 8 offer great encouragement.

Here’s another quote worthy of framing.



Confess from the heart, with your mouth, what has been confirmed by The Word. Confess what the Bible says you are,

not what you think you are, not what your next door neighbor says you are, not what your best friend my say you are.

Hold fast to what the Word says.


And for good measure:



I assure you that God will never bless you because of your goodness, but because of your believing.


That last one is tricky, because a so-called believer who doesn’t exhibit or manifest "goodness" may not really be a

believer, but the context here is key: God honors faith/believing. Good works may and should be an outgrowth of our

faith/believing, but God honors the faith/believing, not the works.

What’s wrong with it...

I drew a distinction in the above section between CONfession and PROfession. As you read through this chapter, I

want you to ask yourself, does VPW draw the same distinction?



When you begin to confess that Word, it becomes a reality in your life. Until that time you will be defeated by

satanic principalities on every hand because of your confession.


How can you confess something before it is a reality in your life? It’s one thing to say, "Believe God’s Word to the

point that it’s His Word you are confessing because what a person confesses is what he believes in his heart." It’s

quite another thing to say "Confess the Word and then, afterward, it will become a reality in your life." The Word

has to BE a reality in your life in order for you to confess it.



The next time evil or negatives come into your mind, immediately declare The Word and say, "I confess that I have

been delivered from the power of darkness by my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." Keep saying this and soon it will be

a reality in your life.


Perhaps VPW could have been more clear in defining the phrase "a reality in your life." As written, it could appear

that you confess first, then ultimately you would believe it. That’s a contradiction of "Whatever a person believes

is directly reflected in what he confesses."



What a person confesses in his innermost being is what he brings into manifestation in his life. If a person goes

through life confessing that he has great need, he will definitely have great need. If he confesses sickness, he

will continue to be sick and afflicted because of the law that what one believes in the depth of his soul absolutely

appears in his life.


As a blanket statement, this is just utterly false. How vile and contemptible this statement is! This takes

audacity! Attention everyone who’s ever been sick: IT’S YOUR FAULT! Attention everyone who has a baby with a birth

defect: IT’S YOUR FAULT! Attention to that mother whose kid was hit by a car: IT’S YOUR FAULT! How utterly cruel!

Where is this law written, that "what one believes in the depth of his soul ABSOLUTELY appears in his life?" Can

someone, anyone, supply a chapter and verse on this?

If you believe you are a failure, it doesn’t mean you will be a failure. It means you will be depressed. There are

many people who are very successful in many ways, but they believe they are failures and they are depressed. The

outward manifestation is not always an indicator of what’s going on inside that heart.

If you are diagnosed with cancer, it’s NOT because you were afraid you would get sick. It’s because we live in a

present, evil age and people get sick and people even die. Happens all the time, sadly.

There’s a devil, an adversary who takes cheap shots at all people, including God’s people. It’s not warranted. It’s

not fair. And it’s not God’s fault. And it’s not your fault. Sickness is not an indicator that your believing is off

in the depth of your soul. It’s an indicator that you are a descendant of Adam. And as I have said before: death is

not an indicator that you stopped believing. It is an indicator that you stopped breathing.

Now I know that Proverbs teaches "as he thinketh in his heart, so is he." But that statement does not mean a man who

thinks he's sick will be sick. It does not mean a man who thinks he's free won't be in bondage. It DOES mean that a

man who thinks he's content will be content. A man who thinks he's confident will be confident. A man who thinks

he's committed will be committed. It's a general statement, and as a general statement, it is true. There are many

ways to apply it accurately. There are many ways to apply it inaccurately. It is not presented as an immutable law

of life.

VPW gives three definitions of "The Synchronized Life."

Definition One:



The "synchronized life" is simply stated by this formula: confession of belief yields receipt of confession.


Definition Two:



If you stand upon the Word of God and you confess that Word, you become what the Word of God says. This is the

synchronized life.


Definition Three:



Know the Word, confess the Word and act upon the Word. That is what is meant by a synchronized life.


Definition one is a contradiction of the law of believing as defined in the PFAL class and in the introduction to

Part II of this book. Which is it? "Believing equals receiving" or "believing plus confession equals receiving?"

What’s with the sudden importance of confession? Has anyone else noticed how the law of believing takes a backseat

to your mouth during this chapter?



If you confess that you are a son of God and the Bible says that you are a son, then you are a son of God.


NO! If the Bible says YOU are a son of God, then you are a son, whether you confess it or not.



If you stand on the Word of God and you confess that Word, you become what the Word of God says.


You become what the Word says by your believing. Your confession doesn’t make it so. Your believing makes it so.



If the devil’s power is defeated, as it is, then his power cannot touch you when you believe The Word. But, you

must confess that you know the power of God in your life. You must confess what God says in His Word and then the

Word becomes a reality in your life. Whenever you dare to confess that you are what The Word says you are and act on

what The Word teaches, you will find that your prayers are answered.


Confession and believing are not synonyms. They may be closely related, but they are not synonyms. One involves a

mental action, the other a verbal action. Confessing the power of God in your life is not what brings the power of

God into your life: BELIEVING is. BELIEVING what God says in His Word is what brings it to pass in your life.

Prayers are answered because you BELIEVE God’s Word, not because you confess it.



So long as I cannot get my mouth and my heart coordinated on some point that is confirmed by The Word, I have no

power with God.


Not true. Your mouth has nothing to do with it. Coordinate your heart with the Word, and you have power with God.

Your mouth is not in the equation.

Why did I spend all this time on the subject? Because I believe that this chapter was written to emphasize the

importance of what you SAY, and it does so at the expense of what you BELIEVE. The major concept behind the chapter

is valuable and valid: we should get our hearts lined up with The Word, and when we do so, our mouths will follow.

But so many of us read this chapter and thought: I have to get my mouth lined up with the Word, and my heart will

follow. That is not necessarily true.



Determine now that you will never again make a negative confession. Learn what and how to confess.


Define "negative confession."

"Lazarus is dead." Was THAT a negative confession?

"One of you will betray me." Oooh, stop being so negative, Lord!

If reality is negative, confess the negative. Confessing the reality of a given situation is NOT a contradiction of

God's Word. Now, if Jesus had said, "Lazarus is dead, and there's nothing I can do to change that," that would have

been a negative confession that denies the power of God.

Without defining "negative confession," VPW's advice is bad advice. How many people ended up in utter denial of

reality because they were afraid to make a negative confession? (How ironic is that? AFRAID to make a negative

confession!) So they ended up making so-called "positive confessions" that they didn't really believe. Well, if you

"CONfess" something and you don't believe it, it's not really a CONfession, is it? It's more like a PROfession,

isn't it?

"Determine that you'll never make a negative confession" is really, really bad advice. Fortunately, VPW follows it

up with terrific advice (I cited it above in the "what's right with it" section).

VPW's conclusion:



As we act on the promises of God, they become real to us and are evidenced in our lives. Synchronize your believing

and confession on the promises of God's Word and you will manifest a more than abundant life in Christ Jesus.


My conclusion:

As usual, be cautious of VPW's definition of "abundant life." It is not a Biblical definition, by his own account.

God does require and expect us to believe Him and His Word. Confession of belief does not yield receipt of

confession unless your belief is grounded in either reality or truth. So believe God's Truth, and the "Synchronized

Life" is yours.


Chapter 5 – The Law Of Believing

What’s right with it…

When God makes a promise, in order for us to “receive” that promise, we have to believe God. That is the single

greatest lesson in this chapter. God wants us to believe Him. God expects us to believe Him. He requires it of us.

This cannot be emphasized enough. God wants and expects us to believe Him and His Word. It’s not about formal

prayers. It’s not about wild guesses or blind faith. It's not even about "positive thinking." It’s about BELIEVING




The evil of the world can never make you do evil or wrong unless you permit it through your own weakness of

character or lack of believing.


Yes sir!



God is always the victor over evil; but it is up to you to believe God and make His will your will.





Right believing is constantly knowing God’s power and presence are in you and with you in every situation.





Fear, worry and anxiety are types of believing. If you worry, have fear and are anxious you will receive the fruit

of your negative believing which is defeat.


Our fear, or our confidence, is absolutely a critical factor in determining the outcome of the situations with which

we are faced. If you face a situation with nothing but doubt, worry and fear, that does play a crucial role in how

you approach the situation and, in turn, may affect the outcome. I would rather not have an airline pilot who panics

at the thought of landing the darn thing. I want an airline pilot who is confident, who knows what he’s doing, who

believes without hesitation that he can get that plane on the ground without incident.

VPW is at his best when he plays up the importance of believing God.

What’s wrong with it…

Simply put, believing is not a law. You don’t necessarily receive whatever you believe. You often do not. What you

believe in the depth of your soul does not necessarily come to pass in your life. In fact, what you believe in the

depth of your soul is often inconsistent with reality or truth. For example, a singer may believe he (or she) is

remarkably talented. Most people who hear him (or her) don’t agree. When the performance is over, the crowd boos.

The singer believed he/she was doing a wonderful job. The crowd knew otherwise.

It is often necessary to confront ourselves because the images we carry in our minds about ourselves are not true to

reality, and only in confronting this discord can we do anything to change it. Believing you are smart doesn’t make

you smart. Believing you are polite doesn’t make you polite. Believing you are the spiritual head of God's people is

a guarantee that you are wrong.



There is power in believing. There is power in this world to which you and I as born-again believers have easy

access. This power will enable us to overcome our shortcomings and our difficulties, bringing release and victory to

our lives. This power is from God.


This is backwards thinking. There is no power in believing at all. The power is not in our believing, but in WHAT we

believe. If you believe you can find a way to turn brass into gold, you can work on that all you want. It’s never,

ever going to happen, no matter how much or how strong your believing is.

The “power” is not in believing, but in God. The power in this world to which you and I have access is not the power

of “believing,” but the power of God unleashed when we believe. VPW puts the emphasis on the believER and takes it

off the believED. It is a critical and consistent error.

The so-called “power” of believing is entirely dependent on the reliability of that which is believed. If I believe

error, then my believing will profit nothing. I could believe for a new car to show up in my driveway tomorrow. It

won’t happen unless I do other things necessary to make that happen.

Believing is a CRUCIAL factor in bringing things to pass in our lives, but it is not the only factor and there are

plenty of times in which it is not even the determining factor. It is absolutely crucial in bringing the promises of

God into fruition in our lives. We’ve got to believe God in order to, as VPW puts it, appropriate God’s promises.

Now get this: the power of God is so powerful, and the promise of God is so sure, that the only thing left to do is

believe. So in bringing God's Word to pass in your life, "believing equals receiving" makes a lot of sense. The

question is, do we really know what God's will is in every situation?

When you read this chapter, it is clear that VPW considered “believing” to be something that controls the outcome of

all situations. He’s wrong, because not all situations have the rock-solid backing of a promise from an Almighty


VPW concludes the record in Mark 9 several verses early. After that record of deliverance, the disciples come up to

Jesus to ask why they weren’t able to help the man, and Jesus responds, “This kind of miracle requires prayer and


VPW was right to point out that a lack of trust in God inhibited the disciples from being able to minister

effectively. But does “prayer and fasting” mean “fervent believing?” I ask because I do not know. I DO know that

Jesus’ answer to the question is not presented in this chapter, and it should have been. Why? Because VPW gives his

own (idios) answer to the question. The least he could do is provide The Lord’s answer so that we can see if the two

answers are consistent.

Let me make that clear: The disciples tried to help someone. They couldn’t. Jesus did. Why couldn’t the disciples


VPW gives the answer to that question WITHOUT giving the Lord’s answer to the VERY SAME QUESTION. That was a




In all the New Testament epistles, you will never find Christian believers urged to have faith; they already have

faith as believers, and they are encouraged to believe God and express what they already have.


Here VPW introduces, for the first time in this book, his unique distinction between “faith” and “believing.”

Biblically, they are the exact same word. To say New Testament believers are never told to have pistis because they

already have pistis, but instead they are told to have pistis, is simply preposterous.

New Testament believers are told to have faith repeatedly. Being told to BELIEVE GOD is the EXACT SAME THING as

being told to have faith! There is simply no distinction to be made. None.

But what about the verse that says we have all been given the measure of faith? And that other verse that talks

about a time “before faith came?”

The vast majority of occurrences of the word pistis are very clear about their meaning: believing/faith. It carries

a lot of weight when used of believing or having faith in God. There’s YOUR responsibility to BELIEVE, and there’s

the importance of THAT WHICH YOU BELIEVE, namely, God. To separate these meanings is unbiblical.

So those other verses (full measure of faith, before faith came) are the difficult verses that should be interpreted

in light of the clear verses that teach that pistis and pistis are the same thing.

Before faith came, we were kept under a schoolmaster (Galatians 3:23-25). What is faith in this context? Simply put,

faith was something new to believe: namely, Christ. That’s not so hard.

And we have been given the full measure of faith: we have, through faith, everything Christ came to make available.

Faith is faith. Believing is believing. Faith is believing. They are the same word. The distinction exists only in

English, and it is this, in my opinion: faith emphasizes WHAT or WHO you believe, while believing emphasizes THAT

you believe. Both are important.

VPW’s conclusion:



The word “believe” is a verb which connotes action. Therefore, believing the Word of God, taking the Word of God

literally and acting upon it, brings results. This is the law of believing and this is the action that will bring

release and victory to your life in every situation. “If thou canst believe, all things are possible [presently

available] to him that believeth.”


My conclusion:

VPW is inconsistent in his definition of “The Law of Believing.” This latter definition, which is hardly ever how he

defines it, is wonderful. Believing God’s Word brings the results promised by God. The power source is not your

believing/faith, but the promise of God. It’s like a light switch. A light switch does not turn the light on.

Electricity does. But without the light switch, I have no way of accessing that light bulb.

Telling someone to believe is like telling them to flip the switch.

Telling someone to have faith is like telling them to turn on the light.

You can’t turn the light on without flipping the switch.

And you can’t get God’s Will to come to pass in your life without believing.

Note: The following additions, inserted on 10/16, remain under the heading of "What's Wrong With It."



You may believe rightly or wrongly. Believing works both ways, and you bring to yourself whatever you believe.

Matthew 9 and Job 3 show the types of believing and their results.

Matthew 9:20-22

And behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him and touched the hem of

his garment:

For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.

But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith [believing] hath

made thee whole.

Job 3:25

For the thing which I greatly feared [believed] is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.


SIGH! Where to begin?

First, you do NOT bring to yourself whatever you believe.

Second, the woman did not BELIEVE to have an issue of blood for twelve years, did she? She did not believe for


Third, and this is important, Jesus said to that woman "your faith has made you whole." VPW changes "faith" to

"believing," thus offering a less than complete translation of the word "pistis." Yes, the woman's believing was a

part of it, but the greater part of it was WHO she believed. To see that, we would need to look at some other

verses. I'm not going to list them here, but if you read the gospels you will see that there were many occasions

when people got healed by touching the hem (or fringes, or tassles) of Jesus' cloak. (Matthew 14:35-36)


According to one prominent TWI offshoot, the answer lies in Malachi 4:2.

"But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings..."

Now, here my memory is failing me, and if anyone can help explain this more fully, please help me. My point is that

this woman with an issue of blood had a REASON to BELIEVE GOD. She didn't just pick an accessory and say "if I touch

it, I'll be healed." It doesn't work like that. She believed a promise of God and was delivered.

As for Job, VPW thinks there's something extraordinary about a parent being afraid something horrible might happen

to his children. News flash: Every parent's worst fear is that something will happen to his/her children. There was

nothing unusual in Job's "fear." It wasn't crippling him. It wasn't stopping him from living or from loving God.

In Job 1:1, Job is described as "blameless" (and that's BEFORE all the trials and tribulations). Yet VPW blames Job

for all the horrible things that happened to his children. VPW owes Job an apology.


Recaps and Reconsiderations


Taking into account the honest reproof of others who have posted, and looking with fresh eyes at the reviews I have

written so far, there are a number of things I would probably change or express differently. Rather than go back and

edit all the critiques to date, I thought I'd list a few things here.

Release From Your Prisons

I originally wrote: "The answer to freedom from sin-consciousness and self condemnation is mourning." This is a

remarkably incomplete statement. I should have written that the answr to freedom from sin-consciousness INCLUDES

mourning, which is an aspect to our walk that VPW routinely ignored.

I also wrote that VPW skipped from the commission of sin straight to the rejection of sin-consciousness. I don't

think God ever instructs us to reject sin-consciousness. Self-condemnation is wrong, but there's nothing wrong with

remembering the fact that you have sinned in the past, that those sins may have hurt people, and that they are


How To Avoid Being A Failure

I think it's fair to say I was really critical of this chapter and that I probably went a few steps too far. The

answer to "How To Avoid Being A Failure" IS included in the chapter, although in my opinion it is "buried." The

answer is Matthew 6:33. I think I glossed over it because VPW immediately followed his citation of that verse with

something I consider to be an unscriptural threat (seek other things first and these things will be taken away from


Is it okay to take the primary lesson of a parable, put it aside, and offer a secondary lesson? The answer has to be

"yes," as Anemone and MOG pointed out. I don't know if VPW's explanation of that parable is culturally accurate, and

I don't think it's the best example of someone putting "first things first." It seems to me that woman put the cares

of the world (ie, whether she would find the lost piece of silver) above far weightier concerns (are the children

fed?) all because her culture would have considered her an outcast if she didn't find the silver. Her husband would

have cast her out, and SHE was the one worried about being a failure? What happened to BE NOT CONFORMED TO THIS

WORLD (which is an intruction addressed to the church)?

I guess it's all a great big can of worms that don't really need to be opened as long as we use the parable to teach

what Jesus taught. The chapter did a terrific job of explaining why the lost piece of silver was significant, but

failed to tell readers that the significance of the silver was the WHOLE POINT of the parable, and that Jesus was

not giving a lesson on success. In that parable, we are not the woman looking for the silver. We ARE the silver. VPW

puts us in both positions. I personally think he was wrong to do so, and you can disagree with me on that, but I

CERTAINLY believe VPW was ineffective in making that comparison. Maybe I would give the chapter a D instead of an F.

Are You Limiting God?

If I was hard on the last chapter, I was a little too easy on this one. But just a little. Was it Laleo who pointed

out that spirit-filled Christians can and do talk about worry, anxiety, etc? That is, of course, correct.

Spirit-filled, walking Christians don't walk around with their heads buried in the sand screaming "My friend didn't

die from cancer lalalalala I can't hear you!"

I still believe VPW's explanation of "kingdoms" was a distraction, and if you skip those sentences while reading the

chapter, you will see that none of it is lost.

The Synchronized Life AND The Law of Believing

VPW was entirely to dependent on formulae. The fact is, God wants us to believe His Word. He promises to back up His

Word. If our experiences don't line up with His promises, we should not blame ourselves or our lack of believing. We

should ask Him why things did not go the way we thought they should. We should seek his guidance and His comfort and

His help. But I see nothing wrong in saying believing the promise of God is a vital, critical, nearly-indispensible

prerquisite for seeing that promise come to pass in your life. I say "nearly-indispensible" because God's a little

bit bigger than me, and just because I don't "rise to believe" Him, that doesn't mean He can't bring something to

pass anyway.

That's another reason believing is not a law. God can do, whether we believe or not. He can do something to

strengthen our faith. He is not bound by it.

Now, I WILL edit the segment on "The Law of Believing," so please go back and read it again. I'm certain you'll get

a kick out of the addition.


Chapter 6 - The Counsel of the Lord

What's right with it...


What's wrong with it...


This chapter was a pleasure to read again. In fact there were a few points when I laughed out loud, because I don't

believe the testimony of VPW or TWI came anywhere near the beauty of this chapter.



If you will notice the prayer life of most Christians, you will see that they try to direct the Lord as to what He

ought to do.


VPW wrote that with a straight face, I think. Come on, be honest, show of hands: how many of us directed the Lord as

to what He ought to do BECAUSE OF, not in spite of, TWI's name-it-and-claim-it brand of teaching? God, thank you for

the red curtains.

I need to point something out here: in reviewing these chapters, I am not planning to make many comments about

plagiarism. I am more concerned with the doctrine that is presented than I am with the source. When I feel

plagiarism has taken place, I MAY choose to compare and contrast VPW's presentation with the original presentation.

I can't foresee a specific instance to use as an example, but if it should happen, don't be surprised.

By the way, if you have evidence of plagiarism, please feel free to post it. I'm not up on those allegations, nor do

they particularly concern me. But others may find them profitable.

VPW's conclusion:



It is the Lord God who must direct our hearts unto His love to the end that we will make the same confession as

recorded in Psalms.

Psalm 73:22-25

So foolish was I, and ignorant; I was as a beast before thee.

Nevertheless I am continually with thee: thou has holden me by my right hand.

Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.

Whom I I in heaven but thee? And there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.


My conclusion:

Who am I to argue with the captain of the Enterprise?


Chapter 7 - God Rescued Us

What's right with it...

God sure did rescue us! This is another chapter full of gems. There are some things I'm not sure of (is the word

"translated" in Colossians 1:13 really "citizenship" in the Sanskrit?), but overall, this chapter gets much more

right than it gets wrong.

This is another case in which it would be difficult to spell out everything VPW got right. Just read the chapter: it

speaks for itself.

My favorite tidbit is the dead-on accurate translation of "delivered" from Colossians 1:13 as "rescued." Right on!

What's wrong with it...

I think these are minor quibbles, but someone else may find them more important.



This kingdom cannot be "the kingdom of his dear Son" for the Son has no kingdom of His own; the "kingdom" is the

kingdom of God. The word "of" should be "by." It is the genitive of origin.


Huh? Do we need to list the references to Christ as King? There's a lot of background to this, and I don't care to

get into it, but the fact is if you are King, then you have a kingdom. If God the Father installs Christ as king,

then the kingdom is Christ's, no? Is the kingdom of God something other than the Kingdom of His Son?

VPW had some odd definitions of Kingdom of God as compared to Kingdom of Heaven. The terms are absolutely,

indisputably synonymous in the Bible, but VPW believes otherwise. Oh well. (If anyone wants to debate this point,

I'll ask that we do it on sidebar, because it's such a minor point in the chapter that I don't want to clutter up

this thread with that discussion).

VPW's conclusion:



When He lead "captivity captive" and "gave gifts unto men," we were given the power to live victoriously even in

the realm of Satan, having the ability to manifest the power of God in the more abundant life. What a revelation to

the soul of man! What glory, what joy, what peace, what bliss! We are rescued now.


My conclusion:

As usual, we should be wary of VPW's definition of "abundant life." It's simply not Biblical. Our rescue and our

victory may or may not be manifested in this lifetime, but that doesn't make it any less absolute or certain. In

God's eyes, a sick Christian in poverty no less victorious than a rich Christian in perfect health. This is a really

terrific chapter. Don't let a few words spoil it.


Chapter 8 - You Are Righteous Now

What's right with it...

This chapter is subtle but clever in that there are a million things that could be wrong with it, but they are

almost all blunted by the chapter's context.



Many born-again believers are spiritually defeated in this life because of sin-consciousness. They have been saved,

but Satan comes to their minds and tells them they are not good enough for salvation because of the many years they

lived in sin.


By now I believe I have established a pattern of distrust of the term "sin-consciousness." The term does not appear

in the Bible. However, in the context of salvation, I believe VPW has properly applied the term in the opening words

of this chapter.

I do not believe there is anything wrong with being "sin conscious" in the sense of recognizing that something is a

sin, that sin is wrong, and that when you have sinned you have wronged God and, more often than not, some other

person. There is nothing wrong with being conscious of the damage sin does to your day-by-day walk with God in

Christ. There is nothing wrong with being conscious of the fact that walking in sin has a damaging impact on your

ability to be an ambassador for Christ.

BUT when that consciousness of sin keeps you far from God, when it keeps you from approaching Him, praying to Him

and having a real relationship with Him because you know you just don't deserve His goodness, then it is a bad

thing. I know I do not deserve God's goodness. That is why God had to make it so that I could approach Him in spite

of my sin.

We could go back and forth on the subject for years, but suffice it to say that in the opening of this chapter,

VPW's invocation of the error of sin-consciousness is well-conceived and well-applied. The follow-up is even better.



This spiritual antagonism and defeat comes when a person does not realize what has been given to him by Jesus



So the righteousness of which Wierwille speaks is not our own righteousness. It is a quality given to us by the

completed work of Jesus Christ. Who gets the glory? Christ. Bravo, VPW.

This righteousness which is given to us by God is very specifically (and somewhat erroneously) defined.



Righteousness is the God-given justification whereby a person stands in the presence of God without any

consciousness of sin, guilt or shortcomings.


One of the TWI offshoots altered the meaning of this particular righteousness to read "the God-given justification

whereby a person stands in the presence of God DESPITE any consciousness of sin, guilt or shortcomings." I like that

definition better because it is more humbling. I know I have no "right" to come before God and ask Him for anything,

except that He has GIVEN me that right.

Remember while reading this chapter that the righteousness of which VPW speaks THROUGHOUT is always in reference to

salvation. If we fail to see that, certain sentences and paragraphs will not make sense.



...so many Christians do all kinds of work to obtain righteousness, such as confessing their sins, teaching Sunday

School classes and keeping the ten commandments. Yet these good works do not make a person righteous. Righteousness

is obtained from God through the faith of Jesus Christ.




Your tears, your toil and all your prayers - your good works - will avail nothing. Righteousness is not by the

cross that you bear, but

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...


This was sort of a "book club" discussion on the blue book. A lot of people had strong opinions on it, and I actually changed my mind a few times because, get this, I was open to changing my mind.

The summary of this thread, and the threads which followed at GSCafe, can be found here:

10 Good things about the blue book

and here:

10 problems with the blue book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Whaaaat? Raf is THE most objective, contributor to this hallowed forum, imho.

I'm sure he would say you have the right to disagree. And you do of course. We all have our unique perspectives and opinions. But I can't think of anyone fairer to VP's work than Mr. Olmeda.

Rumor has it that the inspiration for Fox News Channel's slogan came from lurkers reading Raf's posts. :-)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hey Raf, I agree your a big trouble maker you ! How dare you have an opinion ! icon_eek.gif I'm gonna carry my bible to work and I don't care if people think I'm a jerk ! The Blue book wil sit at home ! Can I disagree to just disagree with your analysis of the BLUE book which always made me somewhat blue cause I thought I was alone in never really understanding it so thanks for your sharing and now I don't feel so alone ! Thank you your Revrenship ! icon_biggrin.gif:D--> I feel so freeeeeeeeee now ! icon_smile.gif:)-->

Edited by dougie73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of these things I'm really proud of. Some of them, I'd retract today. The important thing to me was about the process of going over everything with a critical eye.

By "critical," I don't mean "negative." Critical means looking for the good and the bad in things. If a movie critic gives a movie four stars and a thumbs up, he's still a critic. So I don't see "criticism" as a negative thing, necessarily.

If anyone is still reading those posts, do so with a critical eye (the same eye I tried to use in reviewing the book in the first place).

And prayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 9 months later...

but the fact is if you are King, then you have a kingdom.

Are we sure about that? In English, Kingdom stems from a meaning; a reign of a king. A man can be a king, but does he have the reign? In addition, the Greek behind "kingdom" means the "reign" part more-so than the king part if I read the books right.

a sick Christian in poverty no less victorious than a rich Christian in perfect health

Is that to say that every poverty stricken Christian with sickness may claim they are more than a conquerer? If that condition is also victorious, then is there no need to rise higher to victory?

Now, it is important to ask, what does VPW mean by "law?" Does he mean "general principle?" Or does he mean "an

edict which must be obeyed?" Or is it something even greater?

It is up to VPW to answer that question, so let's allow him to do so.

THIS MAY BE THE MOST INTERESTING FRAGMENT of the whole script above. What did he mean? And no answer.

In other words, from reviewing Dr. Wierwille's class and teaching plus several thousand hours in the scriptures, I too found a few minor discrepencies. But I realized that in the main contexts, most of what Dr. Wierwille taught was very reasonalble logic as long as people distinguished between grammar and symantics amd largely "idealism".

Even Jesus Christ taught in the realm of innacurcy from a technical and scriptural point of view. He used a parable to illustrate someone with consciousness in the grave trying to send a message up to the living.

(Actually, and this is in my writings on figures of speech; that's about the only use of the figure fable in the scripture.)

What Jesus stated for teaching purposes - grammatically - was unsubstantiated. No verse, no principle. So as a teacher, he took responsibility to speak in a way that technically was "wrong" to bring listeners up to par with God's will.

That's probably the greatest reason that many people get into trying to find discrepencies with Dr. Wierwille's writings. First, it's likely the best he knew to do. Second, allowing license to bend technicality with "idealism" to teach; then most of his teaching is fairly darn accurate.

If someone worked as hard to identify a figure, or ideal to give Dr. Wierwille the benefit of the doubt, the results would be much different. But most critics I've heard and read, always push the "envelope" to the extreme of technicality to try and prove something. Many times inserting their conclusion as superior.

So consider that - even Jesus Christ technically was inacurate, to teach the truth. Now how would you go about critiquing that? There are only two paths. Scratch and claw to tear him down and point to so-called accuracies, or, figure out how to show the overall profit of where he was headed.

If it was Jesus, would you have taken a crack at him for that, or supported him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, MD, you are equating criticism of VP's teachings to criticism of Jesus Christ himself. As absurd as this is, it doesn't surprise me. I will however say that, if you take a look at the claims made in PFAL from a broader perspective, rather than blindly following VP's cookie trail, you will begin to see it breakdown. And not in just a few minor discrepancies. There are numerous definitions and "laws" stated in PFAL that are not just not scriptural.

Some are even contradicted within the immediate context of the verses Weirwille used as proof texts.

If you would like to see some explicit and numerous examples, you can access another of Waydale thread, PFAL REVIEW at my old home page.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


a sick Christian in poverty no less victorious than a rich Christian in perfect health

Is that to say that every poverty stricken Christian with sickness may claim they are more than a conquerer? If that condition is also victorious, then is there no need to rise higher to victory?

I dunno about all of this.

It is kind of easy to make this kind of assessment sitting back in your easy chair in the good old U.S.A.

What about Christians in other parts of the world, our brothers and sisters- beaten, impoverished, kept illiterate- and worse? Is this all their fault because they somehow lack the power, or don't have "the magic keys"? I don't think so. Are they somehow less spiritual in God's eyes? Remember- they are BRETHREN, trying to do the best they can in the circumstances that they find themselves in.

Apparently, prosperity, as it has been defined- or alluded to, does not carry the guarantee of being filthy rich, or even being treated "nicely". The only thing that differs between us and them is CIRCUMSTANCES. Will I have to die for my beliefs? Probably not- but some of them- very likely. They are more than conquerers- the circumstances do not determine their beliefs or actions.

I wonder who really is richer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THIS MAY BE THE MOST INTERESTING FRAGMENT of the whole script above. What did he mean? And no answer.

What? The portion you quoted is IMMEDIATELY followed by the answer you claim is not there, in detail.

I do not propose that my conclusions are superior. I only propose that they are MINE. You may not realize this, but this thread was a lengthy discussion, not just me spouting off at the mouth. I was also quite willing to listen and adjust my views accordingly. I am not a better teacher than VPW. I am merely different, with different viewpoints. And I think you should consider those viewpoints. If you disagree with them, that's just dandy with me. As long as you're thinking, I'm happy.

You've come to the conclusion that much of what VPW taught was accurate. You'd probably be surprised to learn that I have come to a similar conclusion. But that would take away from your ability to criticize me as a "critic" who tries to establish his own conclusions as "superior."

"PROVE all things. Hold fast to that which is good."

Why don't you tell me how to do that without reasonably assessing what's right and what's wrong with what you've been taught?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is part of a big picture on these forums.

I get the impression that a few people respected VPW but that many people thought he had something sneaky up his sleeve.

Best I can tell, 98% of his class is correct. A vast majority. Maybe it seems like a lot of error because if he covered a 1000 verses and 2000 comments, even 50 aspects pointed out by people in a contradictive way would seem like a lot if that portion was rehearsed again, and again, and again.

My curiousity lies less in where people disagreed because that can't amount to too big of a mountain.

But how many people believe he was an energized minister for God with a pure-hearted ministry?

Because, I gather from the Word that Apollos was quite a man, yet needed some doctrinal correction - expounding more clearly.

In the aftermath of his teaching, I wonder what people dwelt on - his errors, or just moved on.

There's at least two ways to go after a man's teachings.

One thing must be made clear though, from where I'm at. Since 1983, I've heard reams and scores of complaints and accusations against Dr. Wierwille. But really, I never saw any evidence of someone proving ACCORDING TO THE WORD that he was corrupt in any way.

The Word does have a standard and verses about how to verify something bad, but also yet about how and why to conceal certain kinds of bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But really, I never saw any evidence of someone proving ACCORDING TO THE WORD that he was corrupt in any way.

Okay, let's start with something simple:

Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery.

Wierwille not only committed adultery, he condoned it, and in the Christian Family and Sex class, failed to teach against it. That he did so routinely and damaged lives and families for it is quite documented.

Is that "according to the Word" enough for you?

What we've done with Wierwille's works is no different from what he did with Bullinger's: took what he liked, discarded what he didn't. The only difference is, we were not all taught by Bullinger, so Wierwille had no need to document where he thought Bullinger was wrong.

But when you listen to ANY Christian minister, you do the same thing: you consider what he says that is right, but you also identify that which is wrong. You do this routinely, but you criticize us for doing the same with Wierwille. Why is that?

Why do you get to say that Wierwille is "98%" right? Is it because you've identified the 2% that is wrong? What gives you the right?

And speaking of Appollos, doesn't the Bible specifically say where and how he was wrong? So what's wrong with doing that with Wierwille's works?

You protest too much. You also failed to answer my question: how do we "prove all things" without identifying what's right and what's wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the impression that a few people respected VPW but that many people thought he had something sneaky up his sleeve.

Understatement of the year. Yes, I respected him. Personally, I had no reason not to. I had no idea of what he "had up his sleeve". Now to find out of his "activities" in the motor coach, the virtual and actual rape of MY sisters in the Lord- I feel, well, betrayed. Add to this the activities of good old Loy Martindale. While I was being berated over forgetting some kind of arcane protocol, or otherwise SMALL fault, good ole Loy was happily humping anything female at headquarters he could get his hands on, all with the full knowledge and consent of those who are now in power. It astounds me that anybody wishes to fellowship with them.

Do I trust them any more? I'll let you answer that question.

I've heard some arguments that "well, he may have been a rotten guy, but he sure was good with the bible". I think ninety-eight percent right on is a rather LARGE over-estimate. A person can't wallow in as much sin as these two guys did and not end up with some real yuck sticking to you on the inside. Proverbs says something to the effect of the adulterer being "unstable in ALL his ways". I wouldn't believe that the sun rises every morning on these guys words alone.

Reminds me of the prostitute in proverbs- just does what she wants, wipes her mouth, and says, "well, nothing really happened". "Well, I can still teach the bible.. that oughta fix everything.."

All things, at least for me, have to be independantly verified. As far a PFAL is concerned, I have spent enough time, worked it over enough to my satisfaction to know what I think works and want to keep, and have already thrown out what looks like hooey.

Both Wierwille AND Martindale were sexual predators. I would like to see it documented in the word where this is the right thing to

"conceal". And those in charge just kept letting an army of ladies keep right marching in the ole motorcoach, suspecting nothing until too late.

All who were aware of it were duty bound to cry "rape" as loud as they could. The few that did got their walking orders. Those that kept their mouths shut kept their jobs. Sadly,I never knew about this stuff. Would have saved me lots of time- but that "the ministry" if you can call it that- "be not blamed"- they just learned to live with evil.

As far as being energized- seems the worse ole Craig got, the less and less he got "energized". Pretty soon, ministry failures couldn't be HIS problem. Obviously, it was THE PEOPLE! Perhaps he had a genuine ministry at one time, I don't know. Sure forfeited it for a few pleasures.

I guess the real point is, you really can't separate the man, his character, and the message. All three must be known to really give a valid assessment. That is what you are finding here- I think folks are questioning EVERYTHING- and rightfully so.

Personally, I think the part that was good was "lifted" from other men's ministries, men who had character that was beyond reproach. Bullinger, Stiles, Kenyon, the list goes on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

NOT that it really needs to be said but I will say it anyway..

Thank you Raf for a very balanced look at this work.. For me IT was very helpful, giving me pause to reexamine some of the stuff that was taught and I took too much to heart. IT was also nice to see some of my questions that I had from the very begining of joining TWI addressed.

Mostly i want to thank you for a blanced look at what we were taught.. not just a trashing of it but a genuine look at what lines up with the bible and what doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 13 years later...

For the curious,

before there was the GSC, there was Waydale. 

As long ago as Waydale was material that disproved the ridiculous claim that pfal was "God-Breathed."

According to pfal, for something to be "God-Breathed", it has to be free of errors.

The Blue Book has a lot of errors.  This should not be very shocking, because the Blue Book never claims the Blue Book was "God-Breathed."


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.

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.


  • Create New...