| Author | Comment | Rafael Olmeda
(7/22/00 3:57:14 pm)
| PJ's Post
"An interesting point you might want to consider that VPW had wrong was that believers were born again in the old testament. They looked forward to Christ coming, we look back.
"They operated 7 gifts of the spirit however, where Jesus Christ and believers after the day of
Pentecost operated nine gifts"
Like others, I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but let me just throw in a couple of pennies, as they say:
First, VPW never said OT believers were born again by looking forward to Christ's coming. He DID say they were SAVED by looking forward to the first coming of Christ, but he never said that was unconditional or that it was new birth. He never used the term "born again" to refer to an OT believer.
Second, Jesus Christ never spoke in tongues or interpreted. To use the same terms you used, Christ only operated seven gifts, not nine.
Now, I'll ask: could you clarify this: what were you trying to say?
Blame me. I'm with the media. | JBarrax
(7/24/00 11:19:46 pm)
| II Timothy 3:16
I'll try to keep this brief.
VP taught II Timothy 3:16 as it is translated in the KJV.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
I don't think this is the best translation possible. And once again, the error, imho arises from not taking note of the context of the verse. It is understandable why VP taught it the way he did. The KJV translation and E.W. Bullinger's notes support the PFAL teaching. And I don't think there's a major error here, but in a weird way, as with John 10:10, the context of this verse tells us a lot about the character of the ministry.
VP said all scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, and correction, all of which add up to instruction in righteousnes. The word "instruction" is translated from paideia. Paideia is only used 6 times in the NT, but is most often translated "chastening" (Ephesians 6:4, II Tim 3:16, Hebrews 12:5, 7, 8, &11). The verb paideuo is used 13 times and has two usages; punishment or instruction (Luke 23:16, 22, Acts 7:22, 22:3, I Corinthians 11:32, II Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:20, II Timothy 2:25, Titus 2:12, Hebrews 12:6, 7, & 10,and Revelation 3:19).
Whether paideia should be translated "chastening" or instruction depends, I believe, on the context. If there is sin or unbelief involved, the Lord chastens us in order to bring us back to righteousness and the fruits thereof. If the context is merely education, the word should be understood as instruction as in Acts 22:3. If we only look at II Timothy 3:15-17, it appears that instruction is a good translation. But if you consider the entire chapter, it becomes clear that Paul's exhortation to Timothy to revere the scriptures is designed to keep Timothy from falling to the depraved state that the Church was moving toward.
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Suffice to say there is sufficient reason to see Paul speaking to Timothy about the scripture being profitable not for education, but for chastening or rebuke. He was going to need to learn how to offer the chastening of the Lord as Paul had done with the Corinthians.
So why did VP teach it as instruction? Well, I don't know. Possibly because that fit with Bullinger's idea of the epistles being separated according to doctrine, reproof, and correction.
However, as some of you have noticed, this idea doesn't really hold true. There is doctrine for instance, in I Corinthians (chapter 14 is doctrine about speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, and prophecy). I Corinthians addresses much more than just the practical errors that crept into the church from not having heeded the doctrine of Romans. So the neat package Bullinger divides the epistles into doesn't quite work, and the resulting transaltion of paideia as instruction blurs the connection of verse 16 with the rest of the chapter.
I see this teaching by VP as ironic for several reasons.
1) Here again a man who admonished us to consider the context apparently ignored it in order to cleave to a preconceived theology.
3)The context paints a clear picture of where his ministry would end.
2)This verse is where VP introduces figures of speech. He says the figure of speech
condescencio marks verse 16 as important in the Word of God. Yet verses 2-4 at the beginning of the chapter are marked by at about 7-14 figures of speech, depending on how you count. There are 7 figures there, imho, three of which are used repeatedly.
The listing of those figures is, imho fascinating and revealing, but I'm not sure everyone-or for that matter, anyone--would agree, so I'll refrain from listing them here. I may post them seperately if anyone wants to have a look.
I worked through this section of II Timothy way back in 1985. It was the most complete and intricate study I'd done on any section of scripture and I was amazed at what was there, but I had no idea what the relevance was. I knew there had to be a reason God showed it to me, but couldn't figure out what it was. The real bummer of this for li'l ole me is that, last week when God showed me the blatant errors in session one, I was highy upset. I yelled "Why didn't you tell me?" Now I see that He did indeed try to, but I had my eyes closed. If I'd only paid more attention, or not had PFAL blinders on, I wouldn't have spent the next 15 years being deceived. And frustrated...and confused...and broke...
Peace
Jerry
| Gem72
(7/25/00 12:04:45 am)
| Re: PFAL REVIEW
Orange Cat,
You make me laugh with your posts....your heart is soooooo LIGHT....love it! //smile
| Steve Lortz
(7/25/00 3:47:09 pm)
| RE: II Timothy 3:16
And peace to you too, Jerry!
Thanks for starting up this thread. I'm certain it's a highly charged thing for you. As you said, "The real bummer of this for li'l ole me is that, last week when God showed me the blatant errors in session one, I was highly upset. I yelled "Why didn't you tell me? Now I see that He did indeed try to, but I had my eyes closed. If I'd only paid more attention, or not had PFAL blinders on, I wouldn't have spent the next 15 years being deceived. And frustrated... and confused... and broke..."
I know exactly what you mean. I went through some of those same feelings 13 years ago when a friend and I sat down with a bootleg copy of PFAL, and saw some of the things you're seeing now. Don't be too hard on yourself, though. I take comfort in thinking that God knew what I was going to do, and somehow, as only He can, He worked it into His plan for conforming me to the image of His Son. Our light affliction (which I think includes overcoming deception from time to time), works for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. Praise God He's allowed you to see the light *now*!
Here's a study of II Timothy 3:16 I did some time ago:
II Timothy 3 :16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God ["theopneustos" = "God-breathed"], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
When we analyse this verse we find that its Author incorporated into it a number of interesting and significant features.
First, the sentence has only one subject, "all scripture". On page 636 of his book "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" E.W. Bullinger lists this as an example of the figure "synedoche", where the whole is put for every part of it. He wrote, "'All scripture is given by inspiration of God': i.e., the whole Scripture; not 'every Scripture,' as in the R.V., but every part of Scripture."
Second, the two occurrances of "is" were supplied by the English translators. In the Greek, the verb substantive is left out. On page 44 of his book Bullinger lists this verse as an example of "ellipsis (absolute: of the verb substantive)." According to the explanation of this figure on page 1 of Bullinger's book, we are not to stop to think of, nor lay stress on the word omitted ("is"); but we are to dwell on the other words ("all scripture", "God-breathed", "and", "profitable") which are thus emphasised by the omission.
Third, the sentence contains two predicative adjectives, "God-breathed" and "profitable", each of which refers back to and describes the singular subject, "all scripture".
Fourth, the sentence contains five prepositional phrases; "for doctrine", "for reproof", "for correction", "for instruction" and "in righteousness". In the Greek, each of these phrases beginning with "for" is self-contained, consisting of the preposition "pros" with an object in the accusative case. These constructions indicate motion toward the objects. Each of the four "for" phrases modifies the second predicative adjective, "profitable", showing specifically the things for which all scripture is profitable. In the Greek, the prepositional phrase "in righteousness" is preceeded by the article, which gives the phrase the same sense as an adjective modifying "instruction".
Fifth, there are no conjunctions connecting the prepositional phrases beginning with "for". Bullinger lists this verse on page 146 of his book as an example of "asyndeton" or "no ands", a figure whereby "we are not detained over the seperate statements, and asked to consider each in detail, but we are hurried on over the various matters that are mentioned..." Concerning II Timothy 3:16, specifically, Bullinger wrote, "Here we are hurried on, and not asked to stop and consider each of the four things for which all Scripture is profitable..."
Grammatically, we can distribute the subject and the second predicative adjective to each of the prepositional phrases beginning with "for", and retain the meaning of the sentence: all scripture is God-breathed, all scripture is profitable for doctrine, all scripture is profitable for reproof, all scripture is profitable for correction, all scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness. The figures "synedoche" and "asyndeton" make the validity of this interpretation even more forceful.
II Timothy 3:16 is one of the most powerful statements in the whole Bible, highlighting and emphasizing the integrity of God's Word. There is no excuse for mistaking the clear meaning of what God had written here: every part of Scripture is God-breathed, every part of Scripture is profitable for doctrine, every part of Scripture is profitable for reproof, every part of Scripture is profitable for correction, every part of Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness.
Yet that's not the way we were taught it.
In the second session of PFAL there was a chart that said:
"2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture God-breathed *profitable* for:
1. Doctrine -HOW to believe rightly
2. Reproof -WHEN not believing rightly
3. Correction -BACK to believing rightly
which is instruction in righteousness
-to be taught rightly"
First, notice that Wierwille reduces the number of things "All scripture" is "*profitable* for" from four (doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness) to three by saying that "instruction in righteousness" is equivalent to doctrine, reproof and correction taken together.
To do this Wierwille twisted George Ricker Berry's interpretation of the article preceeding the prepositional phrase "in righteousness". Ricker Berry's interpretation runs as follows: "Every scripture [is] God-inspired and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for discipline which [is] in righteousness." As we see, Wierwille took the "which is" from its rightful place in front of "in righteousness", and put it in front of "instruction" (translated "discipline" by Ricker Berry). In this case, Wierwille was manipulating the Word of Truth instead of rightly dividing it.
On pages 176-180 of "God's Magnified Word" Wierwille taught that Romans, Ephesians and Thessalonians are doctrinal epistles, that Corinthians and Philippians are epistles of reproof, and that Galatians and Colossians are correctional epistles. By doing so, he was imitating the teachings of E.W. Bullinger as set forth on page 1660 and in Appendix 192.B. of "The Companion Bible"; with one exception. Where Bullinger reduced the number of things for which all Scripture is profitable from four to three by setting "instruction in righteousness" equal to "doctrine" alone; Wierwille did so by equating "instruction in righteousness" with doctrine, reproof, and correction taken together.
How could E.W. Bullinger, the same man who wrote, "Here we are hurried on, and not asked to stop and consider each of the four things for which all Scripture is profitable...", also teach that different epistles Paul wrote to the churches are profitable for different things? I can only guess that his passion for finding structures overwhelmed his passion for figures of speech. Anyone who teaches that different parts of the Scriptures are profitable for different things is clearly contradicting what's expressly written in II Timothy 3:16.
Thanks for your observations on the context of II Timothy 3:16, Jerry. I hadn't considered that at all.
Love
Steve
| prosper now
(7/25/00 5:32:52 pm)
| health and prosperity
Another scripture misused in PFAL and the ministry is III John 2. Beloved I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health.
The ministry clearly used this to say that perfect health is available to those who believe. This is totally illogical because we all shall die and nobody ever died healthy! We are SUPPOSED to get sick sometimes and eventually die. Death has reigned since Adam (and its persursors, sickness and disease). Death will be swallowed up in the final victory. But somehow VPW (and all of us) promoted this bait like another magic formula for success.
I have not studied this scripture in much detail but I do know that prosper means a good journey. Health is related to sozo-- wholeness.
Of course it is God's desire that we be healthy and take care of ourselves. But perfect health is NOT guaranteed neither is it a promise of God--quite the opposite--God promises there will be plenty of sickness, disease and death to go around (for now). Of course, having a positive outlook and doing positive things will certainly increase the quantity and quality of life we do have. Unfortunately, the devil rules this sick world but fortunatly this world is not our home and there is a wonderful eternal life awaiting those who receive Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Because He has RISEN, We are RISEN!
| JBarrax
(7/25/00 7:43:30 pm)
| Re: RE: II Timothy 3:16
Thanks Steve, great article. I see we are in agreement that one can't chop the epistles up into categories of doctrine, reproof and correction. I had forgotten to mention that Berry translates
paideia as discipline, so thanks for adding that.
The figures in II Timothy 3:16 are interesting especially the asyndeton and the 'hurrying on' thing. Could it be that the conclusion toward which we're hurried is verse 17?
That the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works (as opposed to the evil men and seducers mentioned earlier in the chapter).
Much food for thought. Thanks
Jerry
| Danny Mahar
(7/26/00 3:54:50 am)
| Re: RE: II Timothy 3:16
Jerry acutely wrote, "I see we are in agreement that one can't chop the epistles up into categories of doctrine, reproof and correction."
It's also interesting to be aware that contrary to what Bullinger, the Way and others have taught, the Pauline epistles have not always followed and adhered to the same canonical order of Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, etc., etc., which were asserted as having been arranged as such in accordance to the supposed outline of 2 Timothy 3:16. Earlier compilations of Paul's letters had a different arrangement.
Marcion's NT canon began with "Galatians" and varied from there, as well as other canons in the east (i.e., that of St.Ephriam), as covered in John J. Clabeaux's work, "A Lost Edition of the Letters of Saint Paul: A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion" ( Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1989).
Best Regards,
Danny
| ppolizotto
(7/26/00 5:50:30 am)
| Re: RE: II Timothy 3:16
Hey Danny,
What have ye got to lose?
I think it's time for another one of your masterpieces to lighten us all up. Any thoughts?
Phil P. | evanpyle
(7/26/00 6:28:52 am)
| Re: RE: II Timothy 3:16
What, and throw us off this wonderful, but possibly unsettling, thread, Phil?
| pjroberge
(7/26/00 9:27:20 am)
| Re: VPW and old testament saints being born again
Dear Rafael Olmeda,
Regarding the following statement I made:"An interesting point you might want to consider that VPW had wrong was that believers were born again in the old testament"
My intent was that VPW had it wrong that the OT believers were not born again. They were, but only operated 7 gifts instead of 9.
Also, Jesus Christ was the first to operate all 9 gifts contrary also to what VPW said.
| Rafael Olmeda
(7/26/00 10:09:44 am)
| Re: VPW and old testament saints being born again
When did Jesus Christ speak in tongues and interpret?
Where does the Bible say Old Testament believers were "born again?"
And if it was possible to be born again before the sacrifice of Christ, why did he have to die?
Please elaborate.
Blame me. I'm with the media. | ppolizotto
(7/26/00 10:55:29 am)
| Re: VPW and old testament saints being born again
Good questions Raf...
Enquiring minds want to know...
Phil P. | pjroberge
(7/26/00 11:16:53 am)
| Re: VPW and old testament saints being born again
The old testament believers believed on Jesus looking forward to his birth, we look back. He offered his life as a sacrifice for all mankind.
Unfortunately, TWI twisted many verses from their true meanings and denied the truth that was simply spoken.
Holy spirit was upon them in the OT and was only to certain people. Today it is more widely available and it is seed within us.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. [7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Jesus didn’t say that in the future this would be available, he spoke of it as a present reality. Why was the phrase born again used?
Also, the mystery that Paul revealed by revelation cannot be what the verse above is talking about as it would not have had to be revealed by revelation to him if Jesus already taught about it.
Mark 5:41 And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, “being interpreted”, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.
This is inspired utterance as done today. Again viewed through way colored glasses or what it simply says.
There are many more things that VPW changed from what he was taught by BG Leonard.
We also grew to have a suspicion about what was written and made a whole belief around oh it's in italics or it should be translated ____or this or that.
God protected His Word better than we give Him credit for. And the words that are used are precise despite TWI's belief to the contrary.
Why is the word interpreted used instead of meaning or even for that matter why were the words talitha cumi mentioned at all?
These are a few examples of how way colored glasses have perverted a simple truths. Once the glasses are off, simply reading God's Word without stopping to correct Him is a lot more enjoyable. Pat
| evanpyle
(7/26/00 11:35:48 am)
| Re: VPW and old testament saints being born again
If I may add a bit to the previous post and relate it back to a PFAL Review:
VP, following the lead of some other dispensationalists, asserted that the so-called "Grace Administration" is the only time in history that people are saved by grace.
He stated in pfal that to believers were saved by keeping the law.
That is patently & obviously untrue & i think beyond reasonable argument. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God; there is none righteous, NO NOT ONE. Why then the law? To prove the need for a Savior. If vp's argument holds water, then 0 people before Pentecost will see God. None. Not Simeon (who prophesied over Jesus) not Adam, not Enoch. How about Lot. The bible called him a righteous man. How was this, by being "good"? Of course not! By faith.
Abraham was saved by grace through faith.
So was Lot
So was Noah
So was Job
So was David
| evanpyle
(7/26/00 11:44:03 am)
| Re: VPW and old testament saints being born again
So how could the great researcher Wierwille get something so basic so obviously so wrong?
Maybe he wasn't such a great researcher. Maybe he was passing himself off as one. Hmmmm?
Wierwille himself made the stupendous claim that God taught him the Word as it hadn't been known since the first century...if he'd but teach it.
So this is the great word God taught him? Well I dipute that with all my being! Seems you have to want to maintain & cultivate the fantasy/farce to hold on to some of these uniquely incorrect teachings.
As for him teaching it like it hasn't been known since the first century? I'll go along with that...though perhaps not in the sense Wierwille meant it, eh?
| Rafael Olmeda
(7/26/00 2:37:29 pm)
| Re: VPW and old testament saints being born again
Mark 5:41 is most certainly NOT an example of speaking in tongues, anymore than my saying "Como esta usted" is an example of speaking in tongues.
Mark was written in Greek, Jesus spoke in Syrian Aramaic. The fact that Mark quotes him in Aramaic is HARDLY proof that Jesus spoke in tongues.
I'll consider your other points later: I'm at work now.
Blame me. I'm with the media. | Yeshuas disciple
(7/26/00 8:20:57 pm)
| Re: figures of speech
Regarding PFAL faux pas, did anyone else find it interesting that, when reading Romans 12:3, VPW did it thus:
"'For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think', that's a figure that means exactly the opposite of what it says."
I have to assume that this unidentified figure of speech is the infamous "contradictio" which, I believe, was the favorite of TWI.
Seriously though, isn't it a little much that the Hebrew scriptures, full of Hebrew idioms are supposedly marked by Yahweh with Greek figures of speech?
Howard
p.s. - Jerry, Great thread!
| pjroberge
(7/26/00 9:38:20 pm)
| Re: Jesus Speaking in tongues
Dear Rafael Olmeda,
You said:
"The fact that Mark quotes him in Aramaic is HARDLY proof that Jesus spoke in tongues".
I also thought the same thing at first because of the mind set of TWI on this verse. However, if this was
truly the case, there are a lot more words of Christ in red than these in this verse. How come they aren't quoted in a similar manner?
| JBarrax
(7/26/00 9:56:00 pm)
| Re: Romans 12:3
Good point Yesua's Disciple (Or can I just call you "Yesh"?)
I think this is yet another verse which VP wrested out of its context in order to support his ideas. I'll get more into it later, but basically if you read the context, it speaks of the members of the body of Christ being equal. This is the meaning of the admonition 'let no man think of himself more highly than he ought to think,...God hath dealt to every man the measure of grace.'
Since the verse says God has dealt TO EVERY MAN THE MEASURE of grace, it is obvious that equality, not positive thinking, is the emphasis of God's Word here.
So not only did VP's interpretation violate the principle of context but also the one concerning the words of the verse being in agreement with the rest of the verse (Scripture Harmony).
And for what goal were these principles sidestepped? The glorification of the power of positive thinking and "the stayed mind". All humanistic bs, imho. Just as in session one with the law of believing, Dr.
Wierwille ignored the principles he espoused in order to further his feel good gospel of carnal self-determinism. "You say it, you believe it. God will bring it to pass!"
Sorry, about the soapbox, but that's hypocrisy as I see it.
Peace
Jerry
| JBarrax
(7/27/00 8:05:46 am)
| The Not-so-Great Principle
On page 78, paragraph two of POWER FOR ABUNDANT LIVING, we read the following.
"We have seen from John 4:24 that God is spirit. God being spirit can only speak to what he is. God cannot speak to the natural human mind. The Word could not come by the will of man because the will of man is in the natural realm. God being spirit can only speak to what he is-spirit. Things in the natural realm may be known by the five senses - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching. But God is spirit, and therefore, cannot speak to brain cells; God cannot speak to a person's mind."
As I recall, this statement is the foundation of what is taught in the Intermediate and Advanced Classes as The Great Principle. [God, who is spirit, teaches His creation in you which is now your spirit and your spirit teaches your mind. Then it becomes manifested in the senses realm as you act.] This foundation is shaky at best. There are clear and dramatic examples in God's Word of Him speaking directly to natural men without spirit in or upon them. I will list and briefly comment on seven.
1) Genesis 3:9 And the Lord God called unto Adam and said unto him "Where art thou?"
10 And he said, "I heard thy voice in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked and I hid myself."
If you will recall, Dr. Wierwille taught later in the class that "the day" Adam disobeyed God, calamity resulted and he died spiritually. He lost the holy spirit God had given him and had to rely solely on his five senses. Well here he is, body and soul and God is talking to him. God called, Adam heard. Yet, VP says God cannot talk to a natural man.
2)Genesis 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
There is no scriptural reason to believe that Cain had holy spirit upon him. Yet here God's Word says The Lord spoke to Cain about the rejection of his offering. Not an angel, but the Lord Himself. Was Cain a spirit too? No. The statement that "God, being spirit can only speak to what He is" is erroneous.
3) Genesis 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Speaking of context, it is important to remember that Dr. Wierwille's statement in PFAL was made in the context of II Peter 1:21. He said God's Word was not given to unbelievers and God rejecters but to holy men of God. Then he proceeded to tell us that God, being spirit can only speak to what he is. Well was Cain a "holy man of God"? NO, he was the first MURDERER!
4)Genesis 20:3 But God came to Abimilech in a dream by night and said to him, "Behold thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast for she is a man's wife."
5) Genesis 31:24 And God came to Laban the Syrian in a dream by night, and said unto him, Take heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.
God can't speak to your brain cells eh? Not so. God spoke to Abimilech and Laban's brain cells very clearly.
6) Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
Please note that Moses saw the angel. Once he saw the angel, who appeared as a flame, he stopped and then God spoke to him. Verse 12 indicates that, at this time, Moses did not yet have holy spirit upon him. He received it shortly after this and began receiving revelation. But it was God's voice which he heard form within the bush that got things rolling. Now for my favorite. Anyone who thinks God can't speak to natural man hasn't considered this
passage. How Dr. Wierwille could have forgotten or glossed over this, the most dramatic passage in the entire Old Testament,
is beyond me.
7) Exodus 19:16-19
16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.
17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount.
18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly.
19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.
Exodus 20:1-3 18-22
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off.
19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.
20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.
21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.
22 And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven.
The ten commandments were originally given not by Moses on a tablet, but by GOD himself! He thundered at the entire 2 1/2 million people "I AM THE LORD THY GOD!" WOW! Can there be any more blatant example of God speaking to natural man? Were all those people given holy spirit so they could hear the thundering of God's voice? NOT!!
Anyway, that ruins the foundation of the so-called Great Principle. God can speak to whomever He wants to whenever He wants to however He wants to. Because He's GOD!! Sorry, I'm ranting again. The doctrine that God only speaks to spirit-filled people sounds appealing, but it makes for a very small God and some very big-headed people.
Peace
Jerry
|
|
