It implies nothing of the sort. "Not all" allows for the possibility of "some," but does not imply any.
If I eat NOT ALL of a pizza pie, then that means there's SOME left for you.
That's a complete flip in logic. According to your logic about Wierwille's works, what you should be saying is that if you eat not all of a pizza, then that would imply that you ate some. But that's not so. I didn't eat all of the pizza my local Dominos made tonight. That doesn't imply that I ate any of it. In fact, I didn't. I haven't had pizza in months.
This means Dr's statement on PFAL page 83 asserts that...
SOME some of what Wierwille writes will OF NECESSITY be God-breathed.
No, it doesn't. It asserts only what it says, that not all of what he writes will of necessity be God-breathed. That allows for the possibility that some of what he writes could be God-breathed, but does not imply that anything he writes is God-breathed.
None of the rest of your "thus saith the Lord" examples are worthy of my time, because they include similar logical failings and also rely on the presumption that what Wierwille wrote is true. Even where it were or could be, your distortions would render the resulting sense of it unreliable at best, and (as is frequently the case) completely contrary to what Wierwille himself actually said.
Not all of the food I eat will necessarily be sushi.
Not all of the e-mail I send will necessarily be addressed to Mike.
Not all of the books I read will necessarily be written by Salman Rushdie.
Not all of the shots I fire from guns will necessarily be aimed at people.
All of the above are true statements but I have never eaten sushi, addressed an e-mail to Mike, read a book written by Salman Rushdie, or aimed a gun (much less shot it) at anyone. I don't anticipate that I will ever do any of those things, but all are possible and the statements allow for all possibilities, but imply none of them.
My fellowship is about an hour’s drive, and so I had about 2 hours this afternoon to contemplate (among other things) your recent posts here.
It is the case that my posts here cause a stir. I’m sensitive to this, and have been since I started posting. In my first week I almost quit posting because I thought that stir was getting out of hand. I have brainstormed with various members of management, and with several prominent posters over the years about this need to minimize the negativities that my posting inevitably causes.
I’m not committed for life to my posting style. I’ve often toyed with differing strategies and have backed off several times to re-consider my activities here.
I’m not thinking of EVER ditching my activities with respect to the PFAL books, but I could quit posting altogether tomorrow or radically alter my posting style just as quickly. I’m open to discussion about these things, especially in private. In private there are less complications that need to be thought through before speaking.
If it’s any consolation to you, I’m very much open to consider any situation, general or specific, as to any negative impact my style and frequency of posting may be having. The last thing I want to do is hurt anyone.
You may disagree with me, but I believe that the positive impact of my posting can will eventually outweigh the negative. However, and this should console you, I recognize my responsibility to STILL minimize the negative short term impact of my posting whenever and wherever possible.
***
May I repeat something? None of the negative situations that DID INDEED develop in the ministry can be traced to the written PFAL doctrines. The team that produced those writings, which I firmly believe included God Almighty, totally filtered out all the bs.
A grad researcher who is well respected here, and who is recognized by many for spotting some deep errors in the ministry, told me that if I studied only written PFAL and implemented its application faithfully in my life, then I would do well. He too knows that there is no dangerous bs in them books.
The danger of my message causing any kind of recurrence of the problems you remember in the ministry will simply not happen. There are those here who do fear those problems will recur, and I believe their fears can and should be calmed if I am to post here with minimal negative impact.
If there is any more you’d like to discuss along these lines, may I suggest telephone? I’m also open to PM and public discussion, as each medium has it’s advantages.
I admit that the four Prefaces are weakly implied “thus saith” statements.
In the 70’s I was sensitive to the then false charges that the ministry was cultish in it’s behavior. I’d read all the latest cult exposé books, and TWI sometimes had it’s own chapter. They had most of their facts completely wrong, and that made me feel good, but little things like these Prefaces and the way they were worded bothered me.
Maybe it’s not poor grammar that bothered me, just poor PR in the face of a hostile world wanting to pin a cult charge on us. In those days I was strongly opposed to the idea that written PFAL was anything like God-breathed, and those Prefaces looked like they crossed at least a PR safety line, if not also a grammar line, making it look too much like Dr was making a veiled “thus saith” claim.
[late edit: how about "style" instead of "grammar"? it looks like poor style.]
In those days I’d have re-written those sentences, or at least inserted cult-charge deflecting text in between them. Now I see that Dr meant them to be that way, and that’s why they never were tweaked like may other lines were in those books.
Not all of these many "thus saith" statements are strong like the first three, but some are.
I see you’re allowing considering of the null set in the phrase “I eat.” I was not.
Let me re-phrase my example.
If I am eating an ititially whole pizza and I eat not all of it, then that means there is some left for another.
Does that fix it?
I was talking about pizza eatin people, so I didn’t consider allowing (in my example) someone not eating any pizza.
Likewise, I was also not considering the possibility that Dr’s writings were could be the null set. I know he did write.
***
In your second post I cannot see why you used the word "necessarily" in those examples. The word "necessarily" in each sentence implies a context that is unseen in each sentence. The usual construction would be without that word "necessarily" unless there was a story behind the sentence to support that word.
I’m having a hard time communicating my thoughts here.
Try again:
Those four sentences stand alone as easy to believe if the word “necessarily” is removed.
Try again:
I think what you want those sentences to say is better said without “necessarily.”
Try again:
The sentence "Not all of the food I eat will be sushi" is a fine simple statement of fact.
The sentence "Not all of the food I eat will necessarily be sushi" is confusing alone, and makes no sense as is. It begs a question. Precede it with “I am a professional sushi taster” and the set of two sentences state two whole facts.
Simple fact: "Not all of the e-mail I send will be addressed to Mike."
Confusing fact: "Not all of the e-mail I send will necessarily be addressed to Mike."
Needed addition to justify "necessarily": "Mike pays me big bucks for every e-mail I send him."
Simple fact: “Not all of the books I read will be written by Salman Rushdie.”
Confusing fact: “Not all of the books I read will necessarily be written by Salman Rushdie.”
Needed addition: “I am Salman Rushdie's personal secretary/editor.”
Last try:
If I were your editor, and you submitted those 4 sentences with the explanation you offered afterwards, I'd delete the word "necessarily" in all four of your sentences. If you then showed me additional sentences your reader was exposed to which were anything like the "needed additions" I offered above, then I'd back off from my urge to delete.
***
Why are the special words “not all” and “necessarily” used to set Dr apart from all the others listed on that page 83 of PFAL? It’s the 1942 promise and him being appointed a spokesman.
I'd be willing to bet my pickup truck that this grad researcher didn't think you would go to these ideas of yours and their obvious failing grade of common sense and true biblical research. Nor did he think you would be obsessed to the point of having to have an inept ability and insane approach to comprehend the facts and truths concerning the books.
And your conversations with the management of GSC are most likely obscured by the same lack of reason thinking.
-----
Wierwille was including us all in his statements about being God's spokesman.
The scriptures bear witness to this truth.
If Wierwille was just talking about himself then he is setting himself apart from the rest of us and making God a respecter of persons. He in no way equals what was revealed to Paul either. There is no new administration with the teachings of Wierwille and how you have turned them to suit your own purpose or lack of purpose.
What Paul taught was in the scriptures all along, hidden until God revealed it to him. Just as it is for everyone else. And not only revealing of the scriptures but even more then the scriptures can hold. An actual seeing of the truth.
You Mike, are trying to separate yourself out as the deliverer of this message and put yourself above everyone else as some sort of apostle. You cannot even begin to see what one is.
This is what's happening in part. Having not the Spirit, it is not in operation, dormant, dead.
19These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
this could even be Wierwille.
This is what to do in part...and what some of us are trying to do for you Mike.
20But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 24Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
Mike, correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but regarding your "not all necessarily" exposition:
This is another area where the interpretation that you place on things is wholly dependent on a pre-conceived notion that PFAL is god-breathed. You use the idea that PFAL is god-breathed to show that the section of the book indicated that Wierwille is claiming god-breathed status for the book; then use the statement in the book to show how PFAL was claimed as god-breathed by Wierwille.
I know how much you love circular reasoning, so I'm sure that you'll send me a case of Leinenkugel just for pointing it out to you
IMHO the "not all necessarily" line indicates that he thought that some of what he said would line up with the bible and be equivalent to "thus saith the Lord" just as Luther and the other men that he mentioned did the same. He is quite obviously putting himself in the category of men who could sometimes hit the mark and speak as God directed them, but that there words could not be counted on to be 100% god-breathed, that he reserved for the bible.
On another note, I have difficulty accepting your premise that the written PFAL was considered the canon of TWI, rather than just an aid to the filmed class. I recall Wierwille in the advanced class contradicting something that he taught in the foundational, saying that he "had to teach it that way". It was about counterfeiting speaking in tongues. In the AC he say that it could be counterfeited.
More on this line of thought tomorrow. i have to go to work
Thanks for your reply. Ok, I understand much better.
But I still diagree with you.
May I repeat something? None of the negative situations that DID INDEED develop in the ministry can be traced to the written PFAL doctrines.
There are tons of stories here at GS that contradict your assertion, Mike.
I think that the "law of believing" and it's spinoff doctrines, (positive/negative confession, fear being "bad," and causing evil in one's life, etc.) became a huge albatross choking the life out of "the ministry." And I also think VPW knew it, to a certain extent, and tried to fix it, sorta. :unsure: Hence, all the "pistis" backtracking.
Of course, just my opinion.
Mike, I'm not going to talk to you privately, by phone, email, or otherwise. But I appreciate the invitation.
I do appreciate being able to talk to you here on the board.
I had claimed that the books are free of danger.
You wrote: “There are tons of stories here at GS that contradict your assertion, Mike.”
Yes, I know that and I contradict those stories. I argue against them.
The TVTs that grew up around the written record on the law of believing DID get quite messy at times. Those verbal traditions were bad. The written teachings are not bad.
You are correct. There is an element of circular reasoning, and thus what I’m saying about SOME of these “thus saith” statements is not a logical proof my assertions that Dr actually made of these claims. Furthermore, I’m EVEN LESS trying to prove that the claims I claim to have found are accurate, and that the PFAL writings ARE God-breathed. I’ve backed off trying to rigorously prove things many years ago.
Remember, I’m mostly trying to show posters here that there are vast tracts of written PFAL still relatively virgin to them.
Several of the “thus saith” statements here are solid, but most are subtle, and somewhat need a boost of meek believing to see most clearly.
I mentioned this last year in the PT discussions from which these “thus saith” statements are being re-written for posting. In the preliminary version of this, in the 22 “thus saith” statements posted by WTH, you may see this circular reasoning caveat where I admitted before what you see now.
I don’t mind admitting to the weak statements in my collection because of the existence of the strong ones.
***
You wrote: “IMHO the "not all necessarily" line indicates that he thought that some of what he said would line up with the bible and be equivalent to "thus saith the Lord" just as Luther and the other men that he mentioned did the same. He is quite obviously putting himself in the category of men who could sometimes hit the mark and speak as God directed them, but that there words could not be counted on to be 100% god-breathed, that he reserved for the bible.”
Yes, but the wording he uses for himself differs from the wording he uses for the others. He uses “not all” and he uses “necessarily” when placing himself in the list of men who have untrustworthy words compared to the pure words of God.
I think you are back to leaning on the version of that sentence I offered before where those differing words are removed. In fact, it was while discussing this page 83 of PFAL with you a few years ago that I came up with that edited wana-be sentence: “Not what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed.”
With the sentence edited that way THEN your analysis of Dr comparing himself with those men could be accurate.
***
You wrote: “On another note, I have difficulty accepting your premise that the written PFAL was considered the canon of TWI, rather than just an aid to the filmed class. I recall Wierwille in the advanced class contradicting something that he taught in the foundational, saying that he ‘had to teach it that way’. It was about counterfeiting speaking in tongues. In the AC he say that it could be counterfeited.”
First of all, he does faintly indicate in the class that there could be a LOUSY counterfeit. It’s “Boop, boop, boop, boop, beep, beep, beep, beep.” He also alludes to the possibility with the man who had a very gutteral sounding tongue unfamiliar in sound to Dr and he says “Do we have a counterfeit here?”
Second, it’s of primary importance to me what is written in RHST or other writings, rather than what he spoke in the film class. I love to use tapes of his spoken teachings to help out here and there, but I don’t worry about occasional contradictions in the spoken record. The verbal teachings of Dr’s were primarily for those present or to who the tapes were directly sent, hence some verbal contradictions can be unraveled by observing “to whom” he was addressing. It seems that the AC and the film class fall into these categories.
All that said, I am still VERY interested in what you or anyone else here remember from that AC on this issue of counterfeit tongues. Was it the ’79 AC on tape that you remember this from, or a live class? I'd like to track it down.
... and speaking of tracking down... that comes up in my next post...
“Thus saith” statements #10 and #11 – RHST Intro to Appendixes
Way in the back of the "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" book can be found an isolated "hidden" set of passages that, when I happened upon them just several years ago, could only think was "What are these passages doing all the way back HERE?"
I could remember seeing them many, many years prior, back in 1972 in my first reading, but in those days EVERYTHING seemed so cosmic and amazing that it blended into the background in no time. But lately, when I came back to PFAL, this set of paragraphs totally astounded me in how oddly they seemed to be hidden in the back of the book.
If you were specially attentive to my posting over the years, you might have noticed that in the middle of Dr’s 1979 Our Times article, "How the Word Works," Dr hints to us that doing word studies in the PFAL writings would be a useful thing to do. I don't mean normal Bible word studies with the KV and a concordance. I mean a PFAL word study, looking at previous usages (in PFAL, not in the Bible) of a word for deeper meaning.
An example of a PFAL word study, only partially completed, was how we tracked down Dr's previous usage of the word "master" in other PFAL writings and thus gained a better understanding of how he used that word in his last teaching when he told us to “master” the material.
Now, in these passages tucked away in the back of RHST, Dr will again hint to the usefulness of doing PFAL word studies. Watch close for the word studies issue to come up in the middle of all this, because there is a lot of action going on here.
***
Let's look at the "Introduction to Appendixes" in RHST to see these TWO ways that Dr says, in essence, "Thus saith the Lord."
One first point to keep in consideration is that the first such appendix is titled "The Word Receive" and is about dechomai and lombano. This will come up later.
Now I'll reprint nearly the entire passage before I work on a line by line commentary. This is From "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" page 223 in the 7th edition 1982 (p.257 in the 6th ed. 1972). Hold on to your hats, this gets intense:
“If we believe that throughout the Scriptures we have the words of God and not man, many difficulties will disappear. We must allow the Divine Author the rights and privileges claimed and operated by every human author -- that He may quote, adapt, or repeat in varied forms His own previously written or spoken words. God could have used other forms had He chosen to do so, but it has pleased Him to repeat His own word or words, introducing them in different contexts, with new applications and connotations. Thus it obligates us to study the context, the paragraph, and the section where the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see it is used in a different sense or not.
“The greatest satisfaction of any Biblical scholar is to fathom what can be searched out from God's Word and to quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out.”
Dr then briefly handles three words in Ephesians 3:8 and Romans 11:33, and defines the following two words found in them. He defines anexichniastos as “unsearchable, untraceable, cannot be explored or found out.” He then defines anexerunetos as “translated 'un-searchable' simply means inscrutable or incomprehensible, that which can be apprehended but not comprehended.”
Next he writes:
“These appendixes have been added to this volume for those who desire to search out and explore the deeper reason for the way in which God has set truth in perfect order in His Word.”
***
Now let's examine the opening lines of the “Introduction to the Appendices” closely.
"If we believe that throughout the Scriptures we have the words of God and not man, many difficulties will disappear."
This is just as true with Dr's books as with the ancient scriptures. In fact, it's MORE true with Dr's books, because we don't really HAVE original scriptures to work with, just slightly mis-copied fragments, scholarly compilations, questionable translations, and religious versions. At best we only have man's translations, or versions like the KJV.
If we had believed that Dr's books were of God, we would have obeyed his final instructions to master them, and the ministry would have straightened out, instead careening into the big meltdown. But we did NOT do this and as a result many difficulties appeared. I believe as we return to a meek receiving of the PFAL books "MANY DIFFICULTIES WILL DISAPPEAR."
***
"We must allow the Divine Author the rights and privileges claimed and operated by every human author -- that He may quote, adapt, or repeat in varied forms His own previously written or spoken words. God could have used other forms had He chosen to do so, but it has pleased Him to repeat His own word or words, introducing them in different con- texts, with new applications and connotations."
How many traditionalists want to confine God to the KJV or some other version? How many want to forbid God to re-issue, improve the surviving remnants, and forbid Him to further clarify to our culture HIS OWN original words, and forbid Him to teach us how to walk into the next administration?
Many to most is the answer. Many to most people DO FORBID God these options. That's why we have "many difficulties." As a body we pretty much have all forbidden God the above liberties we would easily grant any human author. Tradition hates to admit the above. Tradition is a prison. The above sentences are talking about Dr's books, NOT the ancient scriptures and their derivatives. How do I know that? Next sentences (WITH MY CAPS and bold fonts):
"Thus it obligates us to study the context, the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION where the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see it is used in a different sense or not."
How many of people have Bible versions that are organized into paragraphs and sections? Not too many. How about none? Traditional Bibles are organized into books, chapters, and verses. Look in the table of contents of your Holy Spirit book. It's organized into chapters and SECTIONS and, or course, PARAGRAPHS.
How many times have you ever heard anybody refer to a "paragraph" or a "section" in their Bible version? Oh, they COULD be referring to a Bible version. But then why didn’t Dr use the usual construction and say here "Thus it obligates us to study the context, the VERSES, and the CHAPTER where the same word appears...”?
I believe he used the unusual construction of “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION” to alert us to something, that these words are primarily talking about the very book they appear in, "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today."
Can “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION” also apply to a Bible version’s verses and chapters? Yes, as long as it's rightly divided via the PFAL guidance that started in 1942. These words can also apply to the other PFAL collateral books which are organized into "PARTS."
This passage mentioning "PARAGRAPH" and "SECTION" are telling us that doing word studies within this very book, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today," is a worth while thing to do. Thus I count this as the hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #10.
The phrase "...the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see it is used in a different sense or not." refers to the process of doing a PFAL word study.
***
Now, let’s take a break.
I am beginning to point out on this thread that often we seem to be finding things that were HIDDEN in Dr's books, and that this is a prime example, being tucked away in the very back of the Holy Spirit Book. Interestingly, the very topic of this passage centers on the HIDDEN element in God's Word.
Also above, I made brief mention at the first that the appendix following this introduction deals with dechomai and lombano.
In PFAL'77 (and I think also in the Advanced Class) Dr explained how God started revealing directly to him the teaching on dechomai and lombano. He explains that he was reading a text that was open to a place that had both dechomai and lombano on the same page. God showed him a vision and made the printed letters of those two words stand out inches above all the other words on the page to get Dr's attention.
God used many means to deliver His Word to Dr "like it has not been known since the first century." God gave Dr revelation as to WHO’S research he should spend any time on, checking it out, and who's research should be avoided altogether.
God also gave him revelation as to WHICH PARTS of an other researcher's material was to be accepted by Dr, and which to reject, and God's ownership of these revelations superseded all human copyright questions. Sometimes in this process God gave Dr phenomena like the vision of heightened letters of dechomai and lombano. And God gave Dr what he often described as a spiritual awareness. You know, the stuff we THINK we have at times too.
In this "Introduction to the Appendixes" of the Holy Spirit book, Dr points out that a person can get some facts from 5-senses tracking, but some truths can ONLY come by direct revelation. What he's really aiming at getting to in the first Appendix , what he is introducing here is the Appendix on dechomai and lombano and the revelations God gave him on that subject.
Coupling this PFAL’77 story of Dr’s about getting revelation on dechomai and lombano with what is written in this Introduction and Appendix I, is what brings me to believe what I said above about the unusual construction of “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION.”
This background on dechomai and lombano helps set the tone that brings out the hidden “thus saith” statement #10 above, and #11 below.
***
Next lines:
"The greatest satisfaction of any Biblical scholar is to fathom what can be searched out from God's Word and to quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out."
How many people can find a passage in the Bible that discusses "free will"? What Dr taught us about "free will" and "foreknowledge" and many other subjects cannot be easily traced in the Bible with great surety. Dr got the surety of those things by revelation, not by merely tracking them with his 5-senses in the Bible. There are many other items like this that I may someday write a post about, but here I will mention one more untrackable item. It's about what is coming in the NEXT two pages in the Holy Spirit book. The passage we're examining is the "Introduction to the Appendixes" and two pages later is Appendix I "The word Receive" on dechomai and lombano.
Several paragraphs above I mentioned a little of how Dr got what he got on dechomai and lombano. He did not track down all of this information via his 5-senses; he got some by revelation. This information can't be totally figured out by scholars or by 5-senses methods. Scholars who are meek can read this book on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" and then they can "quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out."
We can quietly accept the PFAL revelations on dechomai and lombano because they are from God. This is hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #11.
***
"These appendixes have been added to this volume for those who desire to search out and explore the deeper reason for the way in which God has set truth in perfect order in His Word."
We desire this deeper, spiritual understanding of God's Word. A 5-senses understanding is too limited to defeat the adversary, who has run the 5-senses realm for many centuries. By meekly searching out and systematically mastering the treasure God has provided in English for us in PFAL we will see "many difficulties disappear." We have the pure Word of God.
It is striking to me when I read the compassion in ex 10s posts.....the spiritual insight that rings so loudly in clays posts....the logic in word wolfs posts so irrefutable...oaks spears so very valid points ... Raf`s ability to keep posts honest just to mention a few.....
So much richness and understanding of God and insight into our spiritual walk.....so many posts that just resoundingly ring bells to the depths of my being ...and yet they seem to simply bounce off of you Mike.
You seem to have shut yourself off from so much that could be of assistance in attaining your goal.
Yes, I have, shut myself off from help from those who don't want to meekly work PFAL and apply it, but only after giving them a thorough hearing for many years prior to 1998. I shopped around and compared.
It's YOU folks who are limiting your shopping, and prematurely cutting yourselves off from what God could do to help you in written PFAL.
I don`t think that you understand what we ARE missing Mike. The bleak, non stop hoop jumping that is a requirement of the pfal adherant. The pfal adherants that I am familiar with tend to be quite nasty to one another, and exhibit little if any fruit of the spirit in their lives.
For us ..... Life is good, God`s blessings bountifull since ditching pfal. By every yardstick that God utilizes in the scriptures, everything that he gives as an his indication of favor and blessings are demonstrated to the fullest extent in our lives.
Proseperity, children, peace, fruit of the spirit, blessings, all of the things God promises.....all freely given of him with no strings attatched.
Honey, have you LOOKED in your shopping cart? I don`t see anything IN there but unhealthy brightly packaged junk food..... Looks real pretty but has very little nutritional value.....
We have filled ours buggies to capacity and are at home enjoying the bountifull feast.
We've done the shopping cart comparison here before. I don't have time to repeat it now.
***
You wrote: "We have filled ours buggies to capacity and are at home enjoying the bountifull feast."
They why bellyache about my posting causing hurt?
***
You wrote: "The pfal adherants that I am familiar with tend to be quite nasty to one another..."
I believe it was TVT adherents, and Corps usually, that you found to be nasty. I did too.
I try to keep these things in mind.
In person I'm NOT the aggressive guy I have to be to face the kind of opposition I run into here at times. I prefer a gentle touch in my communications.
The only times I've been aggressive in my private life is when my back was against the wall. I'm not proud of those days when I was often in the face of leadership in various ways. I was not well practiced at that kind of behavior and I didn't like it, but I thought it was my duty... back THEN.
I can and would love to discuss these matters in a quiet, leisurely fashion. I’m open to PMs all the time.
Here is one that I think is real special. This one again is hidden where few go for a first reading let along a second and third. It’s in the Preface of "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today," page x in the 7th edition.
There we read:
"If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God’s best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book. It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted and comforted."
***
Let's look at this paragraph closely, sentence by sentence. I'm stunned, even now after seeing it many times in the past. There's so much in here.
"If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book."
This exhortation applies to us now as much as it did back then. We were often told by Dr to master the class materials. This is just one more place. Here he used the word "study" which is used in II Timothy 2:15, our point of departure (PFAL p.115).
***
"Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God’s best."
This encouragement applies to us now MORE than it did back then. Connecting this sentence with the previous one leads to two possible understandings: either "this book" IS God's best, or/and "this book" is instrumental to receiving "God's best." Looks like both are true to me.
***
"If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book."
There it is again: This book is God's answer to the how of the power, just like the above sentence. God's answer is God's Word. God's Word is the power of God. Twice establishes it. We may find our answer while reading "this book." Or how about MASTERING it?
***
"It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted and comforted."
WOW!!! That's what prophecy does! This book, RHST, is prophecy! Hey! I didn't write the book! It's been sitting there all that time, unnoticed. Think how many other treasures await us, hidden there by God.
I know that you try....however, most pfal adherants that I have met do not exhibit the fruit in their lives that God said would identify them as *of the spirit* ...this makes their doctrines highly suspicious to me.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
ex10
dooj, trust me. It ain't you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I don't know why I'm bothering, but here I go.
It implies nothing of the sort. "Not all" allows for the possibility of "some," but does not imply any.
That's a complete flip in logic. According to your logic about Wierwille's works, what you should be saying is that if you eat not all of a pizza, then that would imply that you ate some. But that's not so. I didn't eat all of the pizza my local Dominos made tonight. That doesn't imply that I ate any of it. In fact, I didn't. I haven't had pizza in months.No, it doesn't. It asserts only what it says, that not all of what he writes will of necessity be God-breathed. That allows for the possibility that some of what he writes could be God-breathed, but does not imply that anything he writes is God-breathed.
None of the rest of your "thus saith the Lord" examples are worthy of my time, because they include similar logical failings and also rely on the presumption that what Wierwille wrote is true. Even where it were or could be, your distortions would render the resulting sense of it unreliable at best, and (as is frequently the case) completely contrary to what Wierwille himself actually said.
Edited by LGLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Not all of the food I eat will necessarily be sushi.
Not all of the e-mail I send will necessarily be addressed to Mike.
Not all of the books I read will necessarily be written by Salman Rushdie.
Not all of the shots I fire from guns will necessarily be aimed at people.
All of the above are true statements but I have never eaten sushi, addressed an e-mail to Mike, read a book written by Salman Rushdie, or aimed a gun (much less shot it) at anyone. I don't anticipate that I will ever do any of those things, but all are possible and the statements allow for all possibilities, but imply none of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ex10,
My fellowship is about an hour’s drive, and so I had about 2 hours this afternoon to contemplate (among other things) your recent posts here.
It is the case that my posts here cause a stir. I’m sensitive to this, and have been since I started posting. In my first week I almost quit posting because I thought that stir was getting out of hand. I have brainstormed with various members of management, and with several prominent posters over the years about this need to minimize the negativities that my posting inevitably causes.
I’m not committed for life to my posting style. I’ve often toyed with differing strategies and have backed off several times to re-consider my activities here.
I’m not thinking of EVER ditching my activities with respect to the PFAL books, but I could quit posting altogether tomorrow or radically alter my posting style just as quickly. I’m open to discussion about these things, especially in private. In private there are less complications that need to be thought through before speaking.
If it’s any consolation to you, I’m very much open to consider any situation, general or specific, as to any negative impact my style and frequency of posting may be having. The last thing I want to do is hurt anyone.
You may disagree with me, but I believe that the positive impact of my posting can will eventually outweigh the negative. However, and this should console you, I recognize my responsibility to STILL minimize the negative short term impact of my posting whenever and wherever possible.
***
May I repeat something? None of the negative situations that DID INDEED develop in the ministry can be traced to the written PFAL doctrines. The team that produced those writings, which I firmly believe included God Almighty, totally filtered out all the bs.
A grad researcher who is well respected here, and who is recognized by many for spotting some deep errors in the ministry, told me that if I studied only written PFAL and implemented its application faithfully in my life, then I would do well. He too knows that there is no dangerous bs in them books.
The danger of my message causing any kind of recurrence of the problems you remember in the ministry will simply not happen. There are those here who do fear those problems will recur, and I believe their fears can and should be calmed if I am to post here with minimal negative impact.
If there is any more you’d like to discuss along these lines, may I suggest telephone? I’m also open to PM and public discussion, as each medium has it’s advantages.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
I admit that the four Prefaces are weakly implied “thus saith” statements.
In the 70’s I was sensitive to the then false charges that the ministry was cultish in it’s behavior. I’d read all the latest cult exposé books, and TWI sometimes had it’s own chapter. They had most of their facts completely wrong, and that made me feel good, but little things like these Prefaces and the way they were worded bothered me.
Maybe it’s not poor grammar that bothered me, just poor PR in the face of a hostile world wanting to pin a cult charge on us. In those days I was strongly opposed to the idea that written PFAL was anything like God-breathed, and those Prefaces looked like they crossed at least a PR safety line, if not also a grammar line, making it look too much like Dr was making a veiled “thus saith” claim.
[late edit: how about "style" instead of "grammar"? it looks like poor style.]
In those days I’d have re-written those sentences, or at least inserted cult-charge deflecting text in between them. Now I see that Dr meant them to be that way, and that’s why they never were tweaked like may other lines were in those books.
Not all of these many "thus saith" statements are strong like the first three, but some are.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
LG,
I see you’re allowing considering of the null set in the phrase “I eat.” I was not.
Let me re-phrase my example.
If I am eating an ititially whole pizza and I eat not all of it, then that means there is some left for another.
Does that fix it?
I was talking about pizza eatin people, so I didn’t consider allowing (in my example) someone not eating any pizza.
Likewise, I was also not considering the possibility that Dr’s writings were could be the null set. I know he did write.
***
In your second post I cannot see why you used the word "necessarily" in those examples. The word "necessarily" in each sentence implies a context that is unseen in each sentence. The usual construction would be without that word "necessarily" unless there was a story behind the sentence to support that word.
I’m having a hard time communicating my thoughts here.
Try again:
Those four sentences stand alone as easy to believe if the word “necessarily” is removed.
Try again:
I think what you want those sentences to say is better said without “necessarily.”
Try again:
The sentence "Not all of the food I eat will be sushi" is a fine simple statement of fact.
The sentence "Not all of the food I eat will necessarily be sushi" is confusing alone, and makes no sense as is. It begs a question. Precede it with “I am a professional sushi taster” and the set of two sentences state two whole facts.
Simple fact: "Not all of the e-mail I send will be addressed to Mike."
Confusing fact: "Not all of the e-mail I send will necessarily be addressed to Mike."
Needed addition to justify "necessarily": "Mike pays me big bucks for every e-mail I send him."
Simple fact: “Not all of the books I read will be written by Salman Rushdie.”
Confusing fact: “Not all of the books I read will necessarily be written by Salman Rushdie.”
Needed addition: “I am Salman Rushdie's personal secretary/editor.”
Last try:
If I were your editor, and you submitted those 4 sentences with the explanation you offered afterwards, I'd delete the word "necessarily" in all four of your sentences. If you then showed me additional sentences your reader was exposed to which were anything like the "needed additions" I offered above, then I'd back off from my urge to delete.
***
Why are the special words “not all” and “necessarily” used to set Dr apart from all the others listed on that page 83 of PFAL? It’s the 1942 promise and him being appointed a spokesman.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
I'd be willing to bet my pickup truck that this grad researcher didn't think you would go to these ideas of yours and their obvious failing grade of common sense and true biblical research. Nor did he think you would be obsessed to the point of having to have an inept ability and insane approach to comprehend the facts and truths concerning the books.
And your conversations with the management of GSC are most likely obscured by the same lack of reason thinking.
-----
Wierwille was including us all in his statements about being God's spokesman.
The scriptures bear witness to this truth.
If Wierwille was just talking about himself then he is setting himself apart from the rest of us and making God a respecter of persons. He in no way equals what was revealed to Paul either. There is no new administration with the teachings of Wierwille and how you have turned them to suit your own purpose or lack of purpose.
What Paul taught was in the scriptures all along, hidden until God revealed it to him. Just as it is for everyone else. And not only revealing of the scriptures but even more then the scriptures can hold. An actual seeing of the truth.
You Mike, are trying to separate yourself out as the deliverer of this message and put yourself above everyone else as some sort of apostle. You cannot even begin to see what one is.
This is what's happening in part. Having not the Spirit, it is not in operation, dormant, dead.
19These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
this could even be Wierwille.
This is what to do in part...and what some of us are trying to do for you Mike.
20But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 24Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike, correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but regarding your "not all necessarily" exposition:
This is another area where the interpretation that you place on things is wholly dependent on a pre-conceived notion that PFAL is god-breathed. You use the idea that PFAL is god-breathed to show that the section of the book indicated that Wierwille is claiming god-breathed status for the book; then use the statement in the book to show how PFAL was claimed as god-breathed by Wierwille.
I know how much you love circular reasoning, so I'm sure that you'll send me a case of Leinenkugel just for pointing it out to you
IMHO the "not all necessarily" line indicates that he thought that some of what he said would line up with the bible and be equivalent to "thus saith the Lord" just as Luther and the other men that he mentioned did the same. He is quite obviously putting himself in the category of men who could sometimes hit the mark and speak as God directed them, but that there words could not be counted on to be 100% god-breathed, that he reserved for the bible.
On another note, I have difficulty accepting your premise that the written PFAL was considered the canon of TWI, rather than just an aid to the filmed class. I recall Wierwille in the advanced class contradicting something that he taught in the foundational, saying that he "had to teach it that way". It was about counterfeiting speaking in tongues. In the AC he say that it could be counterfeited.
More on this line of thought tomorrow. i have to go to work
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Mike
Thanks for your reply. Ok, I understand much better.
But I still diagree with you.
There are tons of stories here at GS that contradict your assertion, Mike.
I think that the "law of believing" and it's spinoff doctrines, (positive/negative confession, fear being "bad," and causing evil in one's life, etc.) became a huge albatross choking the life out of "the ministry." And I also think VPW knew it, to a certain extent, and tried to fix it, sorta. :unsure: Hence, all the "pistis" backtracking.
Of course, just my opinion.
Mike, I'm not going to talk to you privately, by phone, email, or otherwise. But I appreciate the invitation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ex10,
I do appreciate being able to talk to you here on the board.
I had claimed that the books are free of danger.
You wrote: “There are tons of stories here at GS that contradict your assertion, Mike.”
Yes, I know that and I contradict those stories. I argue against them.
The TVTs that grew up around the written record on the law of believing DID get quite messy at times. Those verbal traditions were bad. The written teachings are not bad.
***************************************************
***************************************************
***************************************************
***************************************************
Oakspear,
You are correct. There is an element of circular reasoning, and thus what I’m saying about SOME of these “thus saith” statements is not a logical proof my assertions that Dr actually made of these claims. Furthermore, I’m EVEN LESS trying to prove that the claims I claim to have found are accurate, and that the PFAL writings ARE God-breathed. I’ve backed off trying to rigorously prove things many years ago.
Remember, I’m mostly trying to show posters here that there are vast tracts of written PFAL still relatively virgin to them.
Several of the “thus saith” statements here are solid, but most are subtle, and somewhat need a boost of meek believing to see most clearly.
I mentioned this last year in the PT discussions from which these “thus saith” statements are being re-written for posting. In the preliminary version of this, in the 22 “thus saith” statements posted by WTH, you may see this circular reasoning caveat where I admitted before what you see now.
I don’t mind admitting to the weak statements in my collection because of the existence of the strong ones.
***
You wrote: “IMHO the "not all necessarily" line indicates that he thought that some of what he said would line up with the bible and be equivalent to "thus saith the Lord" just as Luther and the other men that he mentioned did the same. He is quite obviously putting himself in the category of men who could sometimes hit the mark and speak as God directed them, but that there words could not be counted on to be 100% god-breathed, that he reserved for the bible.”
Yes, but the wording he uses for himself differs from the wording he uses for the others. He uses “not all” and he uses “necessarily” when placing himself in the list of men who have untrustworthy words compared to the pure words of God.
I think you are back to leaning on the version of that sentence I offered before where those differing words are removed. In fact, it was while discussing this page 83 of PFAL with you a few years ago that I came up with that edited wana-be sentence: “Not what Wierwille writes will be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed.”
With the sentence edited that way THEN your analysis of Dr comparing himself with those men could be accurate.
***
You wrote: “On another note, I have difficulty accepting your premise that the written PFAL was considered the canon of TWI, rather than just an aid to the filmed class. I recall Wierwille in the advanced class contradicting something that he taught in the foundational, saying that he ‘had to teach it that way’. It was about counterfeiting speaking in tongues. In the AC he say that it could be counterfeited.”
First of all, he does faintly indicate in the class that there could be a LOUSY counterfeit. It’s “Boop, boop, boop, boop, beep, beep, beep, beep.” He also alludes to the possibility with the man who had a very gutteral sounding tongue unfamiliar in sound to Dr and he says “Do we have a counterfeit here?”
Second, it’s of primary importance to me what is written in RHST or other writings, rather than what he spoke in the film class. I love to use tapes of his spoken teachings to help out here and there, but I don’t worry about occasional contradictions in the spoken record. The verbal teachings of Dr’s were primarily for those present or to who the tapes were directly sent, hence some verbal contradictions can be unraveled by observing “to whom” he was addressing. It seems that the AC and the film class fall into these categories.
All that said, I am still VERY interested in what you or anyone else here remember from that AC on this issue of counterfeit tongues. Was it the ’79 AC on tape that you remember this from, or a live class? I'd like to track it down.
... and speaking of tracking down... that comes up in my next post...
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
“Thus saith” statements #10 and #11 – RHST Intro to Appendixes
Way in the back of the "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" book can be found an isolated "hidden" set of passages that, when I happened upon them just several years ago, could only think was "What are these passages doing all the way back HERE?"
I could remember seeing them many, many years prior, back in 1972 in my first reading, but in those days EVERYTHING seemed so cosmic and amazing that it blended into the background in no time. But lately, when I came back to PFAL, this set of paragraphs totally astounded me in how oddly they seemed to be hidden in the back of the book.
If you were specially attentive to my posting over the years, you might have noticed that in the middle of Dr’s 1979 Our Times article, "How the Word Works," Dr hints to us that doing word studies in the PFAL writings would be a useful thing to do. I don't mean normal Bible word studies with the KV and a concordance. I mean a PFAL word study, looking at previous usages (in PFAL, not in the Bible) of a word for deeper meaning.
An example of a PFAL word study, only partially completed, was how we tracked down Dr's previous usage of the word "master" in other PFAL writings and thus gained a better understanding of how he used that word in his last teaching when he told us to “master” the material.
Now, in these passages tucked away in the back of RHST, Dr will again hint to the usefulness of doing PFAL word studies. Watch close for the word studies issue to come up in the middle of all this, because there is a lot of action going on here.
***
Let's look at the "Introduction to Appendixes" in RHST to see these TWO ways that Dr says, in essence, "Thus saith the Lord."
One first point to keep in consideration is that the first such appendix is titled "The Word Receive" and is about dechomai and lombano. This will come up later.
Now I'll reprint nearly the entire passage before I work on a line by line commentary. This is From "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" page 223 in the 7th edition 1982 (p.257 in the 6th ed. 1972). Hold on to your hats, this gets intense:
“If we believe that throughout the Scriptures we have the words of God and not man, many difficulties will disappear. We must allow the Divine Author the rights and privileges claimed and operated by every human author -- that He may quote, adapt, or repeat in varied forms His own previously written or spoken words. God could have used other forms had He chosen to do so, but it has pleased Him to repeat His own word or words, introducing them in different contexts, with new applications and connotations. Thus it obligates us to study the context, the paragraph, and the section where the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see it is used in a different sense or not.
“The greatest satisfaction of any Biblical scholar is to fathom what can be searched out from God's Word and to quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out.”
Dr then briefly handles three words in Ephesians 3:8 and Romans 11:33, and defines the following two words found in them. He defines anexichniastos as “unsearchable, untraceable, cannot be explored or found out.” He then defines anexerunetos as “translated 'un-searchable' simply means inscrutable or incomprehensible, that which can be apprehended but not comprehended.”
Next he writes:
“These appendixes have been added to this volume for those who desire to search out and explore the deeper reason for the way in which God has set truth in perfect order in His Word.”
***
Now let's examine the opening lines of the “Introduction to the Appendices” closely.
"If we believe that throughout the Scriptures we have the words of God and not man, many difficulties will disappear."
This is just as true with Dr's books as with the ancient scriptures. In fact, it's MORE true with Dr's books, because we don't really HAVE original scriptures to work with, just slightly mis-copied fragments, scholarly compilations, questionable translations, and religious versions. At best we only have man's translations, or versions like the KJV.
If we had believed that Dr's books were of God, we would have obeyed his final instructions to master them, and the ministry would have straightened out, instead careening into the big meltdown. But we did NOT do this and as a result many difficulties appeared. I believe as we return to a meek receiving of the PFAL books "MANY DIFFICULTIES WILL DISAPPEAR."
***
"We must allow the Divine Author the rights and privileges claimed and operated by every human author -- that He may quote, adapt, or repeat in varied forms His own previously written or spoken words. God could have used other forms had He chosen to do so, but it has pleased Him to repeat His own word or words, introducing them in different con- texts, with new applications and connotations."
How many traditionalists want to confine God to the KJV or some other version? How many want to forbid God to re-issue, improve the surviving remnants, and forbid Him to further clarify to our culture HIS OWN original words, and forbid Him to teach us how to walk into the next administration?
Many to most is the answer. Many to most people DO FORBID God these options. That's why we have "many difficulties." As a body we pretty much have all forbidden God the above liberties we would easily grant any human author. Tradition hates to admit the above. Tradition is a prison. The above sentences are talking about Dr's books, NOT the ancient scriptures and their derivatives. How do I know that? Next sentences (WITH MY CAPS and bold fonts):
"Thus it obligates us to study the context, the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION where the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see it is used in a different sense or not."
How many of people have Bible versions that are organized into paragraphs and sections? Not too many. How about none? Traditional Bibles are organized into books, chapters, and verses. Look in the table of contents of your Holy Spirit book. It's organized into chapters and SECTIONS and, or course, PARAGRAPHS.
How many times have you ever heard anybody refer to a "paragraph" or a "section" in their Bible version? Oh, they COULD be referring to a Bible version. But then why didn’t Dr use the usual construction and say here "Thus it obligates us to study the context, the VERSES, and the CHAPTER where the same word appears...”?
I believe he used the unusual construction of “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION” to alert us to something, that these words are primarily talking about the very book they appear in, "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today."
Can “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION” also apply to a Bible version’s verses and chapters? Yes, as long as it's rightly divided via the PFAL guidance that started in 1942. These words can also apply to the other PFAL collateral books which are organized into "PARTS."
This passage mentioning "PARAGRAPH" and "SECTION" are telling us that doing word studies within this very book, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today," is a worth while thing to do. Thus I count this as the hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #10.
The phrase "...the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see it is used in a different sense or not." refers to the process of doing a PFAL word study.
***
Now, let’s take a break.
I am beginning to point out on this thread that often we seem to be finding things that were HIDDEN in Dr's books, and that this is a prime example, being tucked away in the very back of the Holy Spirit Book. Interestingly, the very topic of this passage centers on the HIDDEN element in God's Word.
Also above, I made brief mention at the first that the appendix following this introduction deals with dechomai and lombano.
In PFAL'77 (and I think also in the Advanced Class) Dr explained how God started revealing directly to him the teaching on dechomai and lombano. He explains that he was reading a text that was open to a place that had both dechomai and lombano on the same page. God showed him a vision and made the printed letters of those two words stand out inches above all the other words on the page to get Dr's attention.
God used many means to deliver His Word to Dr "like it has not been known since the first century." God gave Dr revelation as to WHO’S research he should spend any time on, checking it out, and who's research should be avoided altogether.
God also gave him revelation as to WHICH PARTS of an other researcher's material was to be accepted by Dr, and which to reject, and God's ownership of these revelations superseded all human copyright questions. Sometimes in this process God gave Dr phenomena like the vision of heightened letters of dechomai and lombano. And God gave Dr what he often described as a spiritual awareness. You know, the stuff we THINK we have at times too.
In this "Introduction to the Appendixes" of the Holy Spirit book, Dr points out that a person can get some facts from 5-senses tracking, but some truths can ONLY come by direct revelation. What he's really aiming at getting to in the first Appendix , what he is introducing here is the Appendix on dechomai and lombano and the revelations God gave him on that subject.
Coupling this PFAL’77 story of Dr’s about getting revelation on dechomai and lombano with what is written in this Introduction and Appendix I, is what brings me to believe what I said above about the unusual construction of “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION.”
This background on dechomai and lombano helps set the tone that brings out the hidden “thus saith” statement #10 above, and #11 below.
***
Next lines:
"The greatest satisfaction of any Biblical scholar is to fathom what can be searched out from God's Word and to quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out."
How many people can find a passage in the Bible that discusses "free will"? What Dr taught us about "free will" and "foreknowledge" and many other subjects cannot be easily traced in the Bible with great surety. Dr got the surety of those things by revelation, not by merely tracking them with his 5-senses in the Bible. There are many other items like this that I may someday write a post about, but here I will mention one more untrackable item. It's about what is coming in the NEXT two pages in the Holy Spirit book. The passage we're examining is the "Introduction to the Appendixes" and two pages later is Appendix I "The word Receive" on dechomai and lombano.
Several paragraphs above I mentioned a little of how Dr got what he got on dechomai and lombano. He did not track down all of this information via his 5-senses; he got some by revelation. This information can't be totally figured out by scholars or by 5-senses methods. Scholars who are meek can read this book on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" and then they can "quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out."
We can quietly accept the PFAL revelations on dechomai and lombano because they are from God. This is hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #11.
***
"These appendixes have been added to this volume for those who desire to search out and explore the deeper reason for the way in which God has set truth in perfect order in His Word."
We desire this deeper, spiritual understanding of God's Word. A 5-senses understanding is too limited to defeat the adversary, who has run the 5-senses realm for many centuries. By meekly searching out and systematically mastering the treasure God has provided in English for us in PFAL we will see "many difficulties disappear." We have the pure Word of God.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
aye chuihuahua, Mike.
Doing word studies of PFAL, does not give anybody a deeper understanding of God's Word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ex10,
You might be surprised if you actually do some yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Can't. Threw my stuff away a couple decades ago.
And honestly, haven't missed it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ex 10,
You wrote: "Threw my stuff away a couple decades ago. __ And honestly, haven't missed it."
One of my main points here is that you don't know what you're missing.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
It is striking to me when I read the compassion in ex 10s posts.....the spiritual insight that rings so loudly in clays posts....the logic in word wolfs posts so irrefutable...oaks spears so very valid points ... Raf`s ability to keep posts honest just to mention a few.....
So much richness and understanding of God and insight into our spiritual walk.....so many posts that just resoundingly ring bells to the depths of my being ...and yet they seem to simply bounce off of you Mike.
You seem to have shut yourself off from so much that could be of assistance in attaining your goal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
rascal,
Yes, I have, shut myself off from help from those who don't want to meekly work PFAL and apply it, but only after giving them a thorough hearing for many years prior to 1998. I shopped around and compared.
It's YOU folks who are limiting your shopping, and prematurely cutting yourselves off from what God could do to help you in written PFAL.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
I knew it wouldn't last, Rascal.
But hey, I learned something, anyway. B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I don`t think that you understand what we ARE missing Mike. The bleak, non stop hoop jumping that is a requirement of the pfal adherant. The pfal adherants that I am familiar with tend to be quite nasty to one another, and exhibit little if any fruit of the spirit in their lives.
For us ..... Life is good, God`s blessings bountifull since ditching pfal. By every yardstick that God utilizes in the scriptures, everything that he gives as an his indication of favor and blessings are demonstrated to the fullest extent in our lives.
Proseperity, children, peace, fruit of the spirit, blessings, all of the things God promises.....all freely given of him with no strings attatched.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Honey, have you LOOKED in your shopping cart? I don`t see anything IN there but unhealthy brightly packaged junk food..... Looks real pretty but has very little nutritional value.....
We have filled ours buggies to capacity and are at home enjoying the bountifull feast.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
rascal,
We've done the shopping cart comparison here before. I don't have time to repeat it now.
***
You wrote: "We have filled ours buggies to capacity and are at home enjoying the bountifull feast."
They why bellyache about my posting causing hurt?
***
You wrote: "The pfal adherants that I am familiar with tend to be quite nasty to one another..."
I believe it was TVT adherents, and Corps usually, that you found to be nasty. I did too.
I try to keep these things in mind.
In person I'm NOT the aggressive guy I have to be to face the kind of opposition I run into here at times. I prefer a gentle touch in my communications.
The only times I've been aggressive in my private life is when my back was against the wall. I'm not proud of those days when I was often in the face of leadership in various ways. I was not well practiced at that kind of behavior and I didn't like it, but I thought it was my duty... back THEN.
I can and would love to discuss these matters in a quiet, leisurely fashion. I’m open to PMs all the time.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
rascal,
There's a fat, juicy worm on that hook. But whatever you do, DON'T BITE!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
"Thus saith" statement #12 – RHST Preface - prophecy
Here is one that I think is real special. This one again is hidden where few go for a first reading let along a second and third. It’s in the Preface of "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today," page x in the 7th edition.
There we read:
"If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God’s best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book. It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted and comforted."
***
Let's look at this paragraph closely, sentence by sentence. I'm stunned, even now after seeing it many times in the past. There's so much in here.
"If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you to study this book."
This exhortation applies to us now as much as it did back then. We were often told by Dr to master the class materials. This is just one more place. Here he used the word "study" which is used in II Timothy 2:15, our point of departure (PFAL p.115).
***
"Do not allow your past teachings or feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God’s best."
This encouragement applies to us now MORE than it did back then. Connecting this sentence with the previous one leads to two possible understandings: either "this book" IS God's best, or/and "this book" is instrumental to receiving "God's best." Looks like both are true to me.
***
"If you need power and ability to face up to the snares of this life, you may find your answer while reading this book."
There it is again: This book is God's answer to the how of the power, just like the above sentence. God's answer is God's Word. God's Word is the power of God. Twice establishes it. We may find our answer while reading "this book." Or how about MASTERING it?
***
"It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted and comforted."
WOW!!! That's what prophecy does! This book, RHST, is prophecy! Hey! I didn't write the book! It's been sitting there all that time, unnoticed. Think how many other treasures await us, hidden there by God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I wasn`t speaking of you personally Mike.
I know that you try....however, most pfal adherants that I have met do not exhibit the fruit in their lives that God said would identify them as *of the spirit* ...this makes their doctrines highly suspicious to me.
I don`t trust them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites