Thanks, Tom. I really appreciate it. I still have a long way to go and I change my mind almost every day on something, but I'm enjoying the journey. I have always enjoyed your posts and input here, so I'm really glad to see you active at the Cafe these days. :)
Just this morning I was reflecting on how much I've learned from WayDale and here. The folks down in the doctrinal basement have really helped me on all my theology questions, belief questions and stuff like that. The folks all over the board have taught me logic and reasoning skills that I never thought I would "get". Not that I get them totally now or am any good at it, but I am learning. :) There is much wisdom on these boards.
Here's a link to a post he made regarding it: Jerry's Post
The site has all the threads and he's got links to specific topics. It's a wonderful resource, imo. When they were discussing all these things it was waaaaayyyyy over my head and I couldn't keep up, but I"m really glad that Jerry preserved it. I think you'll really enjoy looking at it.
I think, if I recall correctly, that Jerry started out defending PFAL and through the discussion came to the realization that it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Incredible transformation right before your eyes.
Thomas I don't run PFAL classes. The material is dated, look when it was filmed. I don't even use some of the ones produced post way for that reason also. I would not want to have to work through each session and explain the changes. That said as we continue to learn and grow anything we produce in the way of classes will eventually date. For someone starting out in their learning I would not recommend utilizing such a class. However it would not make it useless as a reference to someone who could or would have the background to sift through it and learn something from it. And it does not negate the fact that a lot of useful work from other sources is contained there in one place. Use it or not I don't really care, I do reject the opinion that someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth.
I get about 35 CD teachings a month from various sources sometimes they have useful and accurate information sometimes they suck that’s they way it is. You have to dig through the stuff to get the good. The same is true of any Christian bestseller book. Still I don't need to know and in most cases don't about the lifestyle of the writer.
Now that makes a lot of sense to me.
The only thing I take issue with here is your rejection that "someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth."
That's something that I agree with VP on - and apparently you don't.
VP taught in PFAL that if a man practices error long enough, he makes a doctrine out of it. By the time someone's practices becomes someone's morals - motivation based on ideas of right and wrong - he HAS made a doctrine out of it. The idea that someone can teach a comprehensive foundation of the Word without his ideas concerning right and wrong entering into it seems absurd to me.
Matthew 12:34 Â O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Luke 6:45 Â A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. ALL his ways.
Craig learned this from vee pee and yelled at us about being double minded on a regular basis. I'd consider both vee pee and craiggers double-minded. I'd call them a lot of things, actually, but double-minded is the one that fits here. ;)
Thanks, Tom. I really appreciate it. I still have a long way to go and I change my mind almost every day on something, but I'm enjoying the journey. I have always enjoyed your posts and input here, so I'm really glad to see you active at the Cafe these days. :)
Just this morning I was reflecting on how much I've learned from WayDale and here. The folks down in the doctrinal basement have really helped me on all my theology questions, belief questions and stuff like that. The folks all over the board have taught me logic and reasoning skills that I never thought I would "get". Not that I get them totally now or am any good at it, but I am learning. :) There is much wisdom on these boards.
Here's a link to a post he made regarding it: Jerry's Post
The site has all the threads and he's got links to specific topics. It's a wonderful resource, imo. When they were discussing all these things it was waaaaayyyyy over my head and I couldn't keep up, but I"m really glad that Jerry preserved it. I think you'll really enjoy looking at it.
I think, if I recall correctly, that Jerry started out defending PFAL and through the discussion came to the realization that it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Incredible transformation right before your eyes.
WOW, thanks for the links & for bringing it up again - I would have missed it.
And thanks for the compliment. I'm on spring break, but I'll be scarce here again soon - I'll try not to be absent completely.
The only thing I take issue with here is your rejection that "someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth."
That's something that I agree with VP on - and apparently you don't.
VP taught in PFAL that if a man practices error long enough, he makes a doctrine out of it. By the time someone's practices becomes someone's morals - motivation based on ideas of right and wrong - he HAS made a doctrine out of it. The idea that someone can teach a comprehensive foundation of the Word without his ideas concerning right and wrong entering into it seems absurd to me.
Matthew 12:34 Â O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Luke 6:45 Â A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
Well Thomas like I said I read and hear stuff all the time I don't stop and micro- analyze each persons life as if I could anyway or would want to. And I'm sure they would put that on the dust jacket. Yeah right How do we really know what moral decay is in someone's life hidden . Does truth change if we find out later on their life is different? Truth is Truth it has no dependency to imperfect man's morals. And we have not even discussed who makes the morals? and how they have changed over time and cultures. If we based truth on everyone's idea of moral right we be in one hell of a mess not to mention changing with the wind every day.
I can determine at least to the best of my ability if what they say is truth and useful or not. If it is it's a keeper if not it gets the file 13.
The idea that someone can teach a comprehensive foundation of the Word without his ideas concerning right and wrong entering into it seems absurd to me.
Not to me. It's pretty simple how . I suppose it depends on what day you want to make a point it changes from day to day you know It is plagiarized truth taught by other men on one thread, and all about VP's deception on another. If he quoted from others work then it seems pretty simple how one could assemble a class without his moral input.
Not to me. It's pretty simple how . I suppose it depends on what day you want to make a point it changes from day to day you know It is plagiarized truth taught by other men on one thread, and all about VP's deception on another. If he quoted from others work then it seems pretty simple how one could assemble a class without his moral input.
Squirrely Bird, are you going to bring up that dam n pamphlet again, too??
We discussed all that and settled it, I thought. You know where we stand and we know where you stand. There is no inconsistency in what we post!! You just disagree and choose to hold and revere the words of an ignorant, illogical, insidious, evil man regardless of whether they are correct or not.
Squirrely Bird, are you going to bring up that dam n pamphlet again, too??
We discussed all that and settled it, I thought. You know where we stand and we know where you stand. There is no inconsistency in what we post!! You just disagree and choose to hold and revere the words of an ignorant, illogical, insidious, evil man regardless of whether they are correct or not.
I just may Belle Your assessment is wrong it is not settled. there are other proofs of intent........
If he utalized others work then it would be their words not his.
Okay - I understand the idea - that truth is truth no matter who is speaking it. But here is where I have a problem. I get the idea from the PFAL Patrol that truth is like an Erector Set - you can put all the different pieces together any which way you want. When you have something made up of more than one part it's a system. PFAL is a patchwork of various [and I might add dubious] theological systems.
Very simply - unless he [or anyone] just quotes the Bible - verbatim - you've got something added to the truth. As in - you make a comment about a verse - it may be right - it may be wrong. I don't recall PFAL being non-stop KJV and nothing else. That's what I mean about Erector Set assembly. I question the way he puts it all together on the different topics. Nothing wrong with anyone putting ideas together and making comments, quoting the Bible, etc. I notice "in my opinion" is used a lot on Grease Spot. I use it myself or sometimes use "I think" - I don't see that in PFAL - I think to most simple-minded readers the ideas in PFAL come across as rock-solid, unbiased thoroughly/throughly researched God's honest truth. Of course that's just my opinion - I may be wrong.
Well Thomas like I said I read and hear stuff all the time I don't stop and micro- analyze each persons life as if I could anyway or would want to. And I'm sure they would put that on the dust jacket. Yeah right How do we really know what moral decay is in someone's life hidden . Does truth change if we find out later on their life is different? Truth is Truth it has no dependency to imperfect man's morals. And we have not even discussed who makes the morals? and how they have changed over time and cultures. If we based truth on everyone's idea of moral right we be in one hell of a mess not to mention changing with the wind every day.
I can determine at least to the best of my ability if what they say is truth and useful or not. If it is it's a keeper if not it gets the file 13.
Not to me. It's pretty simple how . I suppose it depends on what day you want to make a point it changes from day to day you know It is plagiarized truth taught by other men on one thread, and all about VP's deception on another. If he quoted from others work then it seems pretty simple how one could assemble a class without his moral input.
"Well Thomas like I said I read and hear stuff all the time"
"Stuff," is that like once Wierwille didn't help an old lady across the street? "Stuff," what a nice word, like "fluff." No, it doesn't sound to me like you "hear."
"Micro-analyze?" "each persons life?" Whew! How fluently your mind does spin the flimsy fabric of obfuscation! What happend to the other "F" word and the young girls and the name Wierwille?
"How do we really know what moral decay is in someone's life hidden" And the "F" word fruit? Can't you tell anything about anyone? And all this bible study has done what for you?
"And we have not even discussed who makes the morals? and how they have changed over time and cultures." Sounds like the Wierwille doctrine that justified his immorality to me. Then, you support his behavior? I don't think I'd want anyone I know receiving "truth" from you.
Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Silly Jesus, what did he know? Nothing according to you - probably didn't know about how culture changes morality.
Alright, you and the Strange Tom are going to have to quit using big words like this! I already had to look up another word Tom Strange used yesterday.... :ph34r:
:D
Tom,
Remember that PFAL defenders still subscribe to the Bullinger/Wierwille administrations and, therefore, throw out all of Jesus's teachings.
Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Silly Jesus, what did he know? Nothing according to you - probably didn't know about how culture changes morality.
He's going to tell you that that's not "to" us. :blink:
For someone starting out in their learning I would not recommend utilizing such a class.
HUH?????
But that is exactly what PFAL is touted as-- a place for beginners to start.
Can it be that that PFAL is so full of error, and no way to separate the error out unless you are a fairly good researcher already, that it is useless as a teaching tool for new believers or those seeking whether to believe or not????
It'samiracle!!!!!!
--we finally have confirmation that PFAL is not what it is cracked up to be.
{waiting for the firestorm, of "I didn't say that, mean that, yada yada yada}
Thomas I don't run PFAL classes. The material is dated, look when it was filmed. I don't even use some of the ones produced post way for that reason also. I would not want to have to work through each session and explain the changes. That said as we continue to learn and grow anything we produce in the way of classes will eventually date. For someone starting out in their learning I would not recommend utilizing such a class. However it would not make it useless as a reference to someone who could or would have the background to sift through it and learn something from it. And it does not negate the fact that a lot of useful work from other sources is contained there in one place. Use it or not I don't really care, I do reject the opinion that someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth.
I get about 35 CD teachings a month from various sources sometimes they have useful and accurate information sometimes they suck that’s they way it is. You have to dig through the stuff to get the good. The same is true of any Christian bestseller book. Still I don't need to know and in most cases don't about the lifestyle of the writer.
This is what is sometimes so freaking frustrating with you W.D.
IF this is how you feel then why in the he11 are you spending all of these pages arguing about it?
I do reject the opinion that someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth.
I guess I missed the point entirely then. I thought the "gist" of this thread was not that "truth became untruth" but that truth was presented in such a way as to pervert it's meaning or maybe a better way to put it would be that truth was presented to serve a purpose or prove a point... and taking people in the direction the teacher wanted them to go as opposed to where God wanted them to go...
Simple enough. A lot of what people have to say about their PFAL experience relates to the people they knew at the time and what those people did, typically good things, nice things.
I think this is often overlooked and undervalued. Caring people acting on simple beliefs - trying to develop a love for a God they believed was good and loving to them, as a result of what they'd heard in PFAL and experienced with the people they knew.
Many of the topics in PFAL itself are arguable, pro and con. But also, many of the basic teachings don't lead a person to do bad things to themselves or others. Speaking in tongues may be something that doesn't stick with some people, but to act on what PFAL itself teaches only leads a person to do so in the privacy of their own brain and if they follow the teaching it's not to any bad ends. If viewed as a waste of time, it's just that - a waste of that person's time but one that's done with good intent and an expecatation that it's potentially a good thing.
Having said that I do think PFAL emphasizes some things to make a point, rather than to improve the quality of a person's life and what they really need. 4 Crucified, for instance. That's taught to illustrate "scripture buildup", which is nothing more than a way to view the gospels collectively. It's really no different than having 4 separate accounts and taking them all into consideration. But to hammer on religion and all of the blah blah about money-mongers wanting to make a buck on bible sales, that's petty IMO. It's completely unecessary if the goal is to teach more about the bible. So in parts all through it you have to endure the venting and ranting to hear what's being taught and I think it's wasted time.
That's a big area where I think PFAL doesn't cut it - there's too much baggage that goes along with it, too much of VPW declaring this and that and all that he's about. It was interesting at the time, different for some like me. But if teaching from the bible and trying to help people is the goal, you don't need all of that. You only need it if you want to establish yourself in people's minds and build yourself out in people's minds. VPW was certainly in the throes of starting to do that with PFAL.
There was a certain charm in PFAL, that here was this guy who was pretty straight laced in the way he presented himself, the suit, tie, rose, all of that, blustering on with gusto about how excited he was about the bible. Taken at that level, I think it could still have that charm for some people but when it's all said and done, the greatest value will come from hearts of the people involved. It could be a lot of different bible classes and teachers, but it will come down to that group of people and how they live and act. If they're hard-hearted and prideful about every jot and slash mark in the teaching it'll stink. IMO.
Why? Romans 15:4 Â For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
But why do you say that? I never said that there is nothing valuable in PFAL. I think there is a lot of great things in there. What amazes me is that there are those who defend the class supposedly because of the Word that's in it, but disregard the Word that is in it. It's deceitful. Not much of a recommendation. It seems to be more about the promoting of a man and a justification for sin than a sincere desire for the purity of the Word.
Remember that PFAL defenders still subscribe to the Bullinger/Wierwille administrations and, therefore, throw out all of Jesus's teachings.
Well I never did. I don't support docvic (though he taught some stuff right), and I don't support Bullinger (though he taught some stuff right too).
The ONLY TIME I tossed out the teachings of Jesus, was when I was active in twi.
Bullinger (if I remember right), was an ultra-dispensationalist, who believed that speaking in tongues had passed with the Apostles, and I surely do NOT agree with that. :)
And if I can add my two cents here about this thread --- I'm thinking Tom and WD are somewhat on the same page. Here is what I have read so far --- meebe I got it wrong, but this is what I have seen from the previous posts:
(paraphrased)
Tom has said toss out the bad, keep the good (paraphrased),
WD has said that truth is truth, reguardless of who says it.
Others have castigated WD for *defending* pfal.
WD has said he *deep-six's* some teachings in file 13, and keeps others.
WD has NOT said that pfal is 100% correct.
If WD had said that pfal was 100% correct, I would be in agreement with the majority here. But what he DID say is truth is truth, reguardless of who says it -- and that I can agree with. If you put a bow to some fiddle strings -- yer gonna get some music. The music may be good, may be bad, but the result is music -- depends on who is applying the bow to the strings as to whether or not it is good or bad.
The ONLY thing I can definitavely say about the music, is whether it is good or bad -- I can't pass judgement and say there was no music, because it in fact it was there -- be it good (correct), or bad (incorrect).
And with my (woefully) inadequate analogy, I think the same can be said about docvic, and his teachings.
If you are going to judge the teachings by the character of the man teaching them,
you may as well toss out everything you have learned in life from others.
Seriously.
If you want to toss out the stuff in pfal, just because of the teacher of it,
then you may as well go back to your childhood, and start tossing out everything
your parents taught you, your peers taught you, your teachers taught you, etc.
After all, they were imperfect also, eh?
Carry the equation through to it's logical conclusion.
While NOT defending docvic -- every last somebody here has learned from others.
And (while I don't know about you), my teachers in life were imperfect also.
(Ps --- I am not defending WD here as much as I am defending his premise.)
Like I said --- meebe I read it wrong, but that is my take on it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
16
16
32
Popular Days
Mar 24
58
Mar 23
35
Mar 26
33
Mar 25
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 19 posts
Belle 16 posts
CoolWaters 16 posts
WhiteDove 32 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2006
58 posts
Mar 23 2006
35 posts
Mar 26 2006
33 posts
Mar 25 2006
23 posts
Belle
Just this morning I was reflecting on how much I've learned from WayDale and here. The folks down in the doctrinal basement have really helped me on all my theology questions, belief questions and stuff like that. The folks all over the board have taught me logic and reasoning skills that I never thought I would "get". Not that I get them totally now or am any good at it, but I am learning. :) There is much wisdom on these boards.
Here's the link to Jerry's compilation of the studies: A Biblical Analysis of TWI
Here's a link to a post he made regarding it: Jerry's Post
The site has all the threads and he's got links to specific topics. It's a wonderful resource, imo. When they were discussing all these things it was waaaaayyyyy over my head and I couldn't keep up, but I"m really glad that Jerry preserved it. I think you'll really enjoy looking at it.
I think, if I recall correctly, that Jerry started out defending PFAL and through the discussion came to the realization that it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Incredible transformation right before your eyes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Now that makes a lot of sense to me.
The only thing I take issue with here is your rejection that "someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth."
That's something that I agree with VP on - and apparently you don't.
VP taught in PFAL that if a man practices error long enough, he makes a doctrine out of it. By the time someone's practices becomes someone's morals - motivation based on ideas of right and wrong - he HAS made a doctrine out of it. The idea that someone can teach a comprehensive foundation of the Word without his ideas concerning right and wrong entering into it seems absurd to me.
Matthew 12:34 Â O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Luke 6:45 Â A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. ALL his ways.
Craig learned this from vee pee and yelled at us about being double minded on a regular basis. I'd consider both vee pee and craiggers double-minded. I'd call them a lot of things, actually, but double-minded is the one that fits here. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
WOW, thanks for the links & for bringing it up again - I would have missed it.
And thanks for the compliment. I'm on spring break, but I'll be scarce here again soon - I'll try not to be absent completely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
WhiteDove you said,
Sigh. I guess I shoulda listened to my mother...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well Thomas like I said I read and hear stuff all the time I don't stop and micro- analyze each persons life as if I could anyway or would want to. And I'm sure they would put that on the dust jacket. Yeah right
How do we really know what moral decay is in someone's life hidden . Does truth change if we find out later on their life is different? Truth is Truth it has no dependency to imperfect man's morals. And we have not even discussed who makes the morals? and how they have changed over time and cultures. If we based truth on everyone's idea of moral right we be in one hell of a mess not to mention changing with the wind every day.
I can determine at least to the best of my ability if what they say is truth and useful or not. If it is it's a keeper if not it gets the file 13.
Not to me. It's pretty simple how . I suppose it depends on what day you want to make a point it changes from day to day you know It is plagiarized truth taught by other men on one thread, and all about VP's deception on another. If he quoted from others work then it seems pretty simple how one could assemble a class without his moral input.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Squirrely Bird, are you going to bring up that dam n pamphlet again, too??
We discussed all that and settled it, I thought. You know where we stand and we know where you stand. There is no inconsistency in what we post!! You just disagree and choose to hold and revere the words of an ignorant, illogical, insidious, evil man regardless of whether they are correct or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Whatever CoolWaters I guess you have no answer for what I posted. It appears that they did speak truth at least in that case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I just may Belle Your assessment is wrong it is not settled. there are other proofs of intent........
If he utalized others work then it would be their words not his.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Okay - I understand the idea - that truth is truth no matter who is speaking it. But here is where I have a problem. I get the idea from the PFAL Patrol that truth is like an Erector Set - you can put all the different pieces together any which way you want. When you have something made up of more than one part it's a system. PFAL is a patchwork of various [and I might add dubious] theological systems.
Very simply - unless he [or anyone] just quotes the Bible - verbatim - you've got something added to the truth. As in - you make a comment about a verse - it may be right - it may be wrong. I don't recall PFAL being non-stop KJV and nothing else. That's what I mean about Erector Set assembly. I question the way he puts it all together on the different topics. Nothing wrong with anyone putting ideas together and making comments, quoting the Bible, etc. I notice "in my opinion" is used a lot on Grease Spot. I use it myself or sometimes use "I think" - I don't see that in PFAL - I think to most simple-minded readers the ideas in PFAL come across as rock-solid, unbiased thoroughly/throughly researched God's honest truth. Of course that's just my opinion - I may be wrong.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
"Well Thomas like I said I read and hear stuff all the time"
"Stuff," is that like once Wierwille didn't help an old lady across the street? "Stuff," what a nice word, like "fluff." No, it doesn't sound to me like you "hear."
"Micro-analyze?" "each persons life?" Whew! How fluently your mind does spin the flimsy fabric of obfuscation! What happend to the other "F" word and the young girls and the name Wierwille?
"How do we really know what moral decay is in someone's life hidden" And the "F" word fruit? Can't you tell anything about anyone? And all this bible study has done what for you?
"And we have not even discussed who makes the morals? and how they have changed over time and cultures." Sounds like the Wierwille doctrine that justified his immorality to me. Then, you support his behavior? I don't think I'd want anyone I know receiving "truth" from you.
Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. Silly Jesus, what did he know? Nothing according to you - probably didn't know about how culture changes morality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Alright, you and the Strange Tom are going to have to quit using big words like this! I already had to look up another word Tom Strange used yesterday.... :ph34r:
:D
Tom,
Remember that PFAL defenders still subscribe to the Bullinger/Wierwille administrations and, therefore, throw out all of Jesus's teachings.
He's going to tell you that that's not "to" us. :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Sweetheart, I think it was the same word :)
Darkening or obscuring the sight of something
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Dang if ya didn't learn something in your time in the way Belle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
It's supposed to be for your learning, WD - too bad you didn't learn the lesson.
Things that are not written to us may be taken as written to us insofar as they do not contradict that which is written to us.
Dang, WD, too bad you didn't learn that from your time in the way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
HUH?????
But that is exactly what PFAL is touted as-- a place for beginners to start.
Can it be that that PFAL is so full of error, and no way to separate the error out unless you are a fairly good researcher already, that it is useless as a teaching tool for new believers or those seeking whether to believe or not????
It's a miracle!!!!!!
--we finally have confirmation that PFAL is not what it is cracked up to be.
{waiting for the firestorm, of "I didn't say that, mean that, yada yada yada}
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
This is what is sometimes so freaking frustrating with you W.D.
IF this is how you feel then why in the he11 are you spending all of these pages arguing about it?
Where's that dang flying pig when you need her?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Keeping the record honest Tom
I do reject the opinion that someone's morals somehow morphs the truth contained in a class into untruth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I guess I missed the point entirely then. I thought the "gist" of this thread was not that "truth became untruth" but that truth was presented in such a way as to pervert it's meaning or maybe a better way to put it would be that truth was presented to serve a purpose or prove a point... and taking people in the direction the teacher wanted them to go as opposed to where God wanted them to go...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Simple enough. A lot of what people have to say about their PFAL experience relates to the people they knew at the time and what those people did, typically good things, nice things.
I think this is often overlooked and undervalued. Caring people acting on simple beliefs - trying to develop a love for a God they believed was good and loving to them, as a result of what they'd heard in PFAL and experienced with the people they knew.
Many of the topics in PFAL itself are arguable, pro and con. But also, many of the basic teachings don't lead a person to do bad things to themselves or others. Speaking in tongues may be something that doesn't stick with some people, but to act on what PFAL itself teaches only leads a person to do so in the privacy of their own brain and if they follow the teaching it's not to any bad ends. If viewed as a waste of time, it's just that - a waste of that person's time but one that's done with good intent and an expecatation that it's potentially a good thing.
Having said that I do think PFAL emphasizes some things to make a point, rather than to improve the quality of a person's life and what they really need. 4 Crucified, for instance. That's taught to illustrate "scripture buildup", which is nothing more than a way to view the gospels collectively. It's really no different than having 4 separate accounts and taking them all into consideration. But to hammer on religion and all of the blah blah about money-mongers wanting to make a buck on bible sales, that's petty IMO. It's completely unecessary if the goal is to teach more about the bible. So in parts all through it you have to endure the venting and ranting to hear what's being taught and I think it's wasted time.
That's a big area where I think PFAL doesn't cut it - there's too much baggage that goes along with it, too much of VPW declaring this and that and all that he's about. It was interesting at the time, different for some like me. But if teaching from the bible and trying to help people is the goal, you don't need all of that. You only need it if you want to establish yourself in people's minds and build yourself out in people's minds. VPW was certainly in the throes of starting to do that with PFAL.
There was a certain charm in PFAL, that here was this guy who was pretty straight laced in the way he presented himself, the suit, tie, rose, all of that, blustering on with gusto about how excited he was about the bible. Taken at that level, I think it could still have that charm for some people but when it's all said and done, the greatest value will come from hearts of the people involved. It could be a lot of different bible classes and teachers, but it will come down to that group of people and how they live and act. If they're hard-hearted and prideful about every jot and slash mark in the teaching it'll stink. IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Interesting to hear you quoting VPW and PFAL.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Well thought out & said Socks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Why? Romans 15:4 Â For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
But why do you say that? I never said that there is nothing valuable in PFAL. I think there is a lot of great things in there. What amazes me is that there are those who defend the class supposedly because of the Word that's in it, but disregard the Word that is in it. It's deceitful. Not much of a recommendation. It seems to be more about the promoting of a man and a justification for sin than a sincere desire for the purity of the Word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Well I never did. I don't support docvic (though he taught some stuff right), and I don't support Bullinger (though he taught some stuff right too).
The ONLY TIME I tossed out the teachings of Jesus, was when I was active in twi.
Bullinger (if I remember right), was an ultra-dispensationalist, who believed that speaking in tongues had passed with the Apostles, and I surely do NOT agree with that. :)
And if I can add my two cents here about this thread --- I'm thinking Tom and WD are somewhat on the same page. Here is what I have read so far --- meebe I got it wrong, but this is what I have seen from the previous posts:
(paraphrased)
Tom has said toss out the bad, keep the good (paraphrased),
WD has said that truth is truth, reguardless of who says it.
Others have castigated WD for *defending* pfal.
WD has said he *deep-six's* some teachings in file 13, and keeps others.
WD has NOT said that pfal is 100% correct.
If WD had said that pfal was 100% correct, I would be in agreement with the majority here. But what he DID say is truth is truth, reguardless of who says it -- and that I can agree with. If you put a bow to some fiddle strings -- yer gonna get some music. The music may be good, may be bad, but the result is music -- depends on who is applying the bow to the strings as to whether or not it is good or bad.
The ONLY thing I can definitavely say about the music, is whether it is good or bad -- I can't pass judgement and say there was no music, because it in fact it was there -- be it good (correct), or bad (incorrect).
And with my (woefully) inadequate analogy, I think the same can be said about docvic, and his teachings.
If you are going to judge the teachings by the character of the man teaching them,
you may as well toss out everything you have learned in life from others.
Seriously.
If you want to toss out the stuff in pfal, just because of the teacher of it,
then you may as well go back to your childhood, and start tossing out everything
your parents taught you, your peers taught you, your teachers taught you, etc.
After all, they were imperfect also, eh?
Carry the equation through to it's logical conclusion.
While NOT defending docvic -- every last somebody here has learned from others.
And (while I don't know about you), my teachers in life were imperfect also.
(Ps --- I am not defending WD here as much as I am defending his premise.)
Like I said --- meebe I read it wrong, but that is my take on it.
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.