| Author | Comment | Rafael Olmeda
(7/29/00 4:55:55 pm)
| While we're at it...
Here's two more items:
VPW's explanation of "by faith Enoch was translated that he might not see death." In the class he says the word "see" is anablepto. In the book (and in "Are the Dead Alive Now") he says it was "eidon." In both cases, he said the word meant "to physically look at with the eyes," and then conveyed the preposterous explanation that Enoch had never seen anyone die, so God translated him AWAY FROM ALL HIS FAMILY, FRIENDS AND LOVED ONES to SPARE him the INDIGNITY of SEEING anyone die - so Enoch spent the last years of his life all alone, without any human contact, because HEAVEN FORBID!!!! he should see anyone die.
And we bought that!
I still believe Enoch died, as is CLEARLY stated in Hebrews, but VPW's explanation of "that he should not see death" is poor indeed.
And then there's his understanding of the word apostasia (falling away). He said it refers to the gathering together, failing to note that every single reputable source indicates that apostasia has a negative connotation, and it's a reference to outright rebellion against God.
Now some may say we're nitpicking, but didn't VPW say all of it matters? It's important that JC died on a Wednesday, not a Friday, it's important that four were crucified with Christ, not two, because it's the integrity of the Word that's at stake?
In making that comment, VPW inviting the nitpicking: it's the integrity of the Word that's at stake. It makes all the difference between whether it's a book of fables written by men or whether holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Blame me. I'm with the media. | yeck15
(7/29/00 5:21:12 pm)
| PFAL REVIEW
Hello J.B., never thought I'd be on this excellent thread. One point I would like to bring up is not only in the PFAL Class, but still in much of theology today.
That is 2Thess 2:3..He Apostasia..A departure first, as translated by VPW. I think the KJV translators did a better job with it. From what I can gather, Apostacy is only used twice in the NT. Also used in Acts 21:21 with the meaning to forsake. So I believe that an apostacy or if you would, a falling away first, is correct.
Researching the whole doctrine of Pre-trib., that is, as much as my limited talents could handle, I have dropped the doctrine altogether.
| lilome
(7/29/00 10:02:33 pm)
| Re: PFAL REVIEW
Now that we have started with this review, let's review something that has always bothered me and I explained it to some English-speaking "higher-ups" both here and in Scotland who couldn't see what I'll share now:
Jn:5:39: Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
The word "search", an imperative (command) in English, is simply a statement in Greek. The grammatical form is ambivalent and it could be translated either "search" or "you are searching", depending on the context.
Read the whole thing and you'll see that Jesus wasn't instructing them, he was reproving them about the fact that
"you are searching the scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they are they which testify of me and you will not come to me that ye might have life".
And that's how that "ye think" fits like a hand in a glove, because that was indeed what they thought, but they were wrong! Talk about Scribes and Pharisees "searching" the Scriptures but refusing to look to Jesus Christ! Sounds familiar.
So much for their research.
| Prothimos
(7/29/00 10:29:45 pm)
| Re: PFAL REVIEW
Evan, Amen on the insight regarding epistles addressed to individuals and churches...how true.
Now there is something else that has bothered me for a while and this is as good of place and time to unload.
2Tm:2:15: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The word study above is translated from the greek "spoudason" It has 2 usages in the NT and the other is found in...
Eph:4:3: Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
translated "endeavouring" here. "Spoudason" does not mean to study like a university student or to research the thing to death, "spoudason" means to be diligent, or take care. I'm not sure, but I think the misunderstanding came from the word "study" in King James English. The word study must have meant something similar to "endeavour" or "be diligent." There is another use of the word in English that I think gives its meaning albeit translated from a different
Greek word.
1Thes:4:11: And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
So what am I saying? 2 Tim 2:15 does not mean to study like a hard core student researching every nook and cranny cause when you do you miss the forest for the trees. Put this together with what "lilome" said above about John 5:39 and the whole premise of so called Biblical research falls apart, or at least what it was based upon according to pfal.
What do you think?
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
| Gem72
(7/29/00 11:14:47 pm)
| Re: PFAL REVIEW
After travelling over the last week or so, I finally had a chance to check in on this thread. I am BLOWN AWAY. Thanks to all who have posted. Steve,(I think?) your thread on II Tim. 3;16 was a real eye opener. Then as I read the rest of the thread, my heart began to stir.
I remember on the WOW field in '74 I was pulled out of a class because I dared to question the Christ in You doctrine. I was told to shut up around other people until God gave me understanding. This is the year they sent around special ambassadors from the Corps. I never did get an answer and I buried that frustration of not understanding that doctrine pretty deep. I remember feeling hurt at ROA 75 when VPW gave out our pins, because I still questioned that.
I recently asked God to teach me more about discerning of spirits, faith, miracles, and healing. I think he is answering me BIG TIME in this thread. So much of what you all have written is hitting home.
Do you mean I have to re evaluate all of PFAL? :-)
gem
| Moses848
(7/29/00 11:40:30 pm)
| 2Timothy 2:15
The NASB translates this verse as follows:
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed accurately handling the word of truth.
The study note says--Correctly handling the word of God in both analysis and presentation in contrast to the inane interpretations of false teachers.
The verses before talk about denying him---about salvation---and His faithfulness even when we are faithless for He cannot deny Himself.
Look at the next verse--but avoid empty and wordly chatter for it will lead to FURTHER ungodliness.
It is talking about keeping one's self in truth in the midst of false teaching.
It is talking about your life not your lexicon.
Just like TWI to take one verse and build an entire false theology around it.
| inti88
(7/29/00 11:40:39 pm)
| RE: John 5:39
When I was in twi, I never taught that verse because I didn't understand it. It didn't make sense. It was one of those verses I asked God to show me. A couple of years ago I was reading John and I saw it. I understood it just like you did. Jesus Christ was reproving them because they thought they had it together, but they were wrong. Very cool. Thanks for posting it.
| Rafael Olmeda
(7/30/00 2:56:19 am)
| Study: Be Diligent
In fairness to TWI, everything you posted regarding II Timothy 2:5 is clearly outlined in "The Bible Tells Me So," Chapter 17.
Blame me. I'm with the media. | Moses848
(7/30/00 6:51:13 am)
| PFAL
Here is a direct quote from PFAL---
" And the only way you are going to
stand approved before God is to study, study."
I remember a whole lot about pie and cutting---about our ability as a workman---about one rightly divided word. But I remember little about this verse having anything to do with keeping oneself in truth in the midst of apostasy and false teaching? I remember denominations being discussed in PFAL and examples given---and this quote--
"You see, the Word of God is truth. This Word of God is truth. But only if it's rightly divided do we have the true Word. We have the Word of Truth to the extent and in the proportion of the rightly dividing
thereof. So if we rightly divide the Word of Truth we will have the true Word. If we wrongly divide it we will have error."
The context in which you find this verse and the warning to keep ourselves diligent makes it so ironic it was such a favorite verse of TWI.
How many pieces of pie was that?
| David A Anderson
(7/30/00 9:47:12 am)
| Freendeed
Thanks for your post about Phil. 1:12. The one that goes with it is in Phil. 4:22, "All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are in Caesar's household."
If one follows everything that happened from the time Paul went to Jerusalem for the final time, until five years later when all the evidence points to his being acquitted by Nero (and Jerusalem ruled against for their false accusation and imprisonment of Paul) one would certainly have to conclude that God overrules in the affairs of men.
Personally I think that Paul was well warned not to go to Jerusalem in the first place, not from a wrathful God who would beat him if he did, but a loving God who perhaps had a faster way to get to Nero- as well as Agrippa II.
But the counterpoint is in Acts 23:11, where Jesus Christ appears to Paul in his jail cell in Jerusalem- sort of the "Christ among you" kind of example discussed above.
Seems to me generally that when an "either-or" dilemma is set up in a discussion that the truth usually lies in "both".
As with everyone else on this thread, thank you Jerry for your labor of love. I would only say that one has to give a teacher some slack in his method of teaching and the words he uses. Verbal communication enjoys a liberty that the written word cannot enjoy. And since the PFAL book was merely an attempt to reduce the transcript of the film to written form (not at all the way to write a book), trying to examine it as closely as you so excellently did with Galatians v James is bound to have it's pitfalls.
Also, thanks to everyone that took the effort to read my book, "The Two Ways of the First Century Church". For those who haven't, it is posted at:
www.en.com/users/anders as is a link to Jerry's "The Case Against James: A Mountain of Evidence".
Best wishes to all.
Edited by moder1 at: 7/30/00 9:47:12 am | JBarrax
(7/30/00 10:29:43 pm)
| Study and stuff
Hello all. Looks like we're on a roll! I can hardly keep up with the great and insightful comments being posted here. I'd like to quickly add a few pennies' worth of feedback {before my computer sabotages this post for the third time!!}
ENOCH: Rafael, I agree. When I was studying Hebrews 11 recently, this verse stuck out. I believe it says what it means. Enoch so pleased God that he didn't die. God translated him. This isn't unheard of, I think He did the same for Elijah. My theory on this is, Enoch lived in the age before the death of Adam. He may have had opportunity to get the story of the fall from Adam himself and, since Genesis 4:22-24 declare that Enoch "walked with God" , I think he just claimed the promise of immortality that Adam had rejected and God, being no respecter of persons, honored it and translated him to the future paradise. Just my opinion. Anyway, I've always felt VP's handling of that verse in Hebrews was rather weak.
APOSTACY: YECK, I think you've got a point. For years, I believed VP's definition of apostasia. But I couldn't find a single dictionary that includes that definition [a departure]. They all call it a falling away or departure from the faith. I even develloped a theory that all these dictionaries were influenced by the 'mistranslation' in II Thess. Finally I had opportunity to ask an etymologist about this [word history expert]. He said the definition of apostasia as falling away predates the KJV by centuries! So VP is all alone on that one. I'm not even sure now why he felt the translation in the KJV needed correcting.
LILOLME: I think the error shared by the Pharisees and TWI is searching the scriptures without proper respect or awareness of Jesus Christ. Working the Word starts with knowing the Living Word. TWI fits in the prophesy of II Timothy 3:7, "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." Speaking of Pharisees, the former LC of WV says he used to be a "Pharisee". He defines Pharisees as people who have a great knowledge of the Bible but rather than using it to help people; they just use it to point fingers at others.
STUDY: I have to agree with Rafael. VP did publish an article in one of the collaterals [called Study: Be diligent, I think] in which he defined spoudaso as to exert a diligent effort with brevity of time in mind. This isn't really the ivory tower endless research mindset. The idea was to work hard at rightly dividing the word without spending too much time on it. Judging by what we're finding these days, perhaps he should have taken more time!
DAVE: This must be a difficult thread for you, having been so instrumental in the proliferation of PFAL. I assure you, I'm not being unfair. I usually compare what was said on tape and quotations in my notes over the years with what's in the book itself. Almost all the statements I've criticized are in print. The one example I posted on need and want just illustrates how hard VP had to work to try to make a connection to the scriptures.
Peace
Jerry
| JBarrax
(7/31/00 2:02:27 am)
| II Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
As I mentioned above, I don't think VP's dissection of the church epistles into doctrinal, reproof, and correctional categories and patterns is valid. But the definitions he gave of doctrine, reproof and correction, as various forms of "right believing" bothers me. I think it simplifies and sugar coats what's actually presented.
Doctrine is didaskalia in Greek and can be understood as "right believing" or right conduct. It is often used in the same context as "commandments" or laws, often wrongly applied or enforced. (Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:7, Colossians 2:22, I Tim 1:10, 4:1). So I think a good basic definition of doctrine is 'what to do or believe.'
Reproof: To define this as a way to get us back to right believing when we are "practicing error" diminishes the impact of this word. The Greek is the noun
elegchos and is only used twice. But the verb elegcho, is used 17 times and means to expose sin or convince someone of sin or fault; to find or prove guilty. (Matt. 18:15 I Cor. 14:24 & 25 Ephesians 5:11 & 13, John 8:9). The central and inescapable idea is that one has sinnned and has been found out & confronted. Practicing error make it sound almost ok. Sin is inevitable, but it's not okay. This I think was "soft peddled" in order to attract as many people as possible and may have fed the the carnal
behavior that today is threatening the continued existence of TWI.
Correction: From the Greek epanothorsis meaning to set up or set right again. Since this word is only used once in the NT, VP's definition of 'having practiced error until it became doctrine' seems a bit of a reach. Btw, Galatians doesn't say they had doctrinal error because they practiced it so long it became doctrine. It says they had error because they'd been bewitched and taught a false gospel (Galatians 1:6, 3:1-3) so once again, it seems VP's definitions weren't based on biblical research.
Instruction: As I mentioned earlier, this is the Greek word paideia, which is often translated chastening and carries the connotation of judgment or punishment (Hebrews 12:5-11) It is also translated training or instruction with the understanding that part of that training is discipline. (Eph 6:4). The verb form
paideuo means to scourge (Luke 23:16 & 22) or punish. The ultimate goal of discipline is to purge sin and restore man to righteousness (I Cor. 11:32) or to purge unrepentant sinners from among man (Genesis 6:5-8, 19:24&25, Romans 2:5-8 Revelation 20:12-15)
The KJV places the phrase "which is" before "instruction", but Berry's interlinear puts it afterward. So the translation would look more like this:
All scripture God-breathed and profitable for doctrine (what to do or believe) for reproof (conviction of sin) for correction ( to restore or set right) for discipline (or punishment) which is in righteousness.
One of the things that floored me as I was working this was Romans 15:4. Remember the "to whom" and "for our learning" distinction made later in the class? Romans 15:4 was used to say that everything written before Pentecost was not written TO the church but was only for our learning. There was an implicit distinction made between DOCTRINE which was how to believe rightly and stuff that was for our LEARNING. That is the opposite of what Romans 15:4 actually says!
For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, (didaskalia) that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
That's right, for our didaskalia; for our DOCTRINE. Whatsoever was written beforetime was written for our doctrine. This is the main reason doctrine can't be contained exclusively in Romans, Ephesians, and Thessalonians. There's doctrine in the Old Testament and the gospels. So what do we do with this mishmash of error in which we've been indoctrinated? [sorry, couldn't resist that one] Well, I have an idea I'd like to bounce off youse guys.
I think II Timothy is a summary of the entire Bible and that it puts all of God's Word into these four categories. All
scripture falls into one of these four categories; either what to do or believe (doctrine), conviction of sin (reproof) restoring to an upright state (correction) or
judgment (instruction) and that these four comprise God's guidebook of righteousness.
Furthermore, I think that these four categories aren't four, but two; arranged in the structure called inversion [a,b,a,b]. All of God's word can be distilled into two basic messages; What to do/believe and what not to do/believe.
Doctrine-What do do or believe; righteousness defined.
...Reproof-What you're doing is wrong. sin defined.
Correction-What to do to recover; Righteousness restored.
...Discipline-What you're *still* doing is wrong. sin purged or punished.
In Eden, it was very simple. What to do, was eat freely of every tree of the garden.
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
What not to do was eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
[btw, there were two trees named in Eden named; the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil. These two trees represent this simple framework of God's will to man: righteousness and sin]
Under the law, God presented a choice between blessing or cursing; obey the law or suffer the consequences.
Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Today, God still presents us with a choice: serve sin unto death or serve righteousness unto holiness
Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
See also Romans 8:5-8 & Galatians 1:6, 5:16-23. One might also present these choices as walking by faith or walking by the works of the law/flesh. As Evan has pointed out, the Old Testament saints were not justified by works, but by faith in God's promise of the coming Messiah. Today we can access God's grace by faith in Christ and walk by the spirit in service to God or we can walk by the flesh and fall to either legalism or self-serving licentiousness. We can choose sin or righteousness.
So back to doctrine reproof, correction and discipline. I think doctrine and correction are "what to do" and reproof and discipline are what not to do. We start with doctrine. If we do otherwise, we have sin and God exposes it and says, "don't do that, that's a sin". Once we have
sinned, we can be set upright again by correction, such as with the sacrifices of the Law
administration or I John 1:9. The scriptures concerning sacrifice and confession are correction. Heeding them restores one to righteousness. If we don't heed correction however, and stay in sin,
judgment is the result. the plagues of the law, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues of Egypt, premature death, being delivered unto Satan, or otherwise "chastened of the Lord", and of course most of Revelation is
discipline or judgment resulting from continuing in sin.
So you see the whole of scripture is contained in these four categories. That is, the entire *reign or
jurisdiction* of scripture. The beginning of Genesis and the end of Revelation are outside this jurisdiction because in the first heaven and
earth there were no people on earth to serve God, and in the new heaven and earth, there won't be any need for doctrine, reproof, correction, and discipline. Sin will have been purged, the final judgment made and God's guidebook of
righteousness will be replaced with the presence of God Himself.
Jeremiah 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
II Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
The scripture is profitable for doctrine reproof correction and discipline which is in righteousness only during the *second* heaven and earth. During the first heaven and earth, there was no man, so no scripture. During the third heaven and earth, there will be no need for doctrine because we'll all know God inherently and intimately and all sin and punishment will be passed. There will be no need for scripture for righteousness because the new universe will be inherently righteous.
Well I guess that's about all. I have a few more ideas along these lines, but it's now well after midnight and this post is long enough. I'd appreciate your
thoughtful feedback, both positive and negative.
Peace
Jerry
| evanpyle
(7/31/00 7:05:08 am)
| Re: II Timothy 3:16
After reading these latest posts I'm beginning to think my approach to pfal & wayteach is cheap & lazy. I've stated before that I reached a point of discarding everything I had been taught in pfal & in the way, and then starting over fresh. What was good has come back to me. In light of these posts, that seems lazy. I see great value in the honest re-evaluation going on here. Thanks Jerry.
As far as IITim 3:16 goes, I can't comment on the structure aspect of it, but I will say that your observations regarding vp's teaching of doctrin-reproof-correction=instruction in righteousness are spot-on. This is clearly a teaching that carries an agenda. VP's teaching twists the meanings to support his extreme dispensationalism and to soften the totality of the Bible message.
Even on the surface, Wierwille's position is blatantly self-contradictory. How? By stating first that ALL scripture is EITHER for doctrine, reproof OR correction. (I refer to Jerry's excellent work above) Then he turns around and asserts that the entire Bible outside the church epistles is not addressed to us but is merely 'for' our learning, using the tortured (and artificial) logic of 'to whom' & for whom'. Well if it's not 'TO' us, then it is neither doctrine, reproof or correction, is it? See the self-contradiction?
The worst effect of this error, imo, is in excising Jesus' teachings and making Him a giver of distant lessons not applicable to Christians! Sheesh.
| Rafael Olmeda
(7/31/00 8:45:59 pm)
| Re: Study and stuff
Jerry:
I do believe Enoch died: i just don't buy Dr. Wierwille's explanation of "that he did not see death."
Jesus Christ made it clear that NO MAN has ascended into heaven. No man. Period. (John 3:13). That would include Enoch and Elijah.
So I think VPW was right when he suggested Enoch was translated from one place over to another, but I don't agree with his meaning of "that he should not see death." Enoch lived 360 years before he was translated. Of course he had seen a dead person or two. Heck, I've only lived 30 years and I've seen dead people (paging Harry Joel Osment...).
I believe the only explanation that fits all the available facts (which are few) is that God saved Enoch's life by moving him from one place to another. How? I don't know. It doesn't say. I agree with the premise that Hebrews 11:13 includes Enoch when it says "These all died..."
But if Enoch was taken to "heaven," and Elijah was taken to "heaven" (that is, to be with God), then Jesus was off by two when he said no man has ascended to heaven.
And to clarify: I'm bringing this up not to highlight where we disagree, but to emphasize that I agree with just about everything you have observed in this thread about PFAL. Very, very nice work.
Blame me. I'm with the media. Edited by Rafael Olmeda at: 7/31/00 8:45:59 pm
| Danny Mahar
(7/31/00 3:26:40 pm)
| Re: II Timothy 3:16
Jerry,
Your discussions here have been immensely insightful and invigorating.
One work that comes to mind that VP perhaps discarded at the legendary trash heap:
"The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles" by P.N. Harrison.
I highly recommend this work for anyone pursuing further investigation
into these writings.
Best regards,
Danny
| Prothimos
(7/31/00 5:46:17 pm)
| Re: Romans 15:4
Jerry - Good Stuff and something to chew on. Here's something else regarding Rom 15:4
Rom:15:4: For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
While in pfal we were taught that whatsoever things were written "aforetime" were the law and the Old Testament, VP made a grave error in his handling of this Scripture that led to leaving the Gospels and the very teaching of Christ out of TWI's form of Christianity, as i believe Evan alluded to.
Your notice of the word "didaskalia" and its true Biblical usage as it is used in 2 Tim 3:16 should direct us to what this verse is referring to. That is..."that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."
I have believed for quite some time now that this verse from the pen of Paul was referring to what had been written previously to the Thessalonians (ie. didaskalia concerning hope) Paul wasn't referring to the law and Old Testament, but rather the epistle to the Thessalonians which was written before Romans.
Evan and all, this next statement (question) is in reference to the absolutely horrible Theology that taught that the Gospels were not written to us (ie. Christians)
When were the Gospels written? Depending on who you believe regarding the dating of the gospels let's just say roughly from 20 to 50 years AFTER Christ's death. Well, according to waythink then, God had the gospels written "to" an administration that had lasted for only a year and ended nearly half a century earlier. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
I guess the "great commision" was only written to the so-called Christ administration. Unbelievable.
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
| David A Anderson
(7/31/00 8:44:52 pm)
| Jerry
Just to clear up a possible misconception Jerry, I am not at all vexed by this thread. In fact, I would hope that everyone who ever took PFAL would read it. By the way, I've had the same problem as you have with posts getting nuked when I hit the "add reply" button. Hopefully this is resolved by my going back to Ezboard and logging in again- at least I no longer have to type my name and password each time I write a reply.
But to my point that the spoken word enjoys a liberty that the written one does not- especially in a classroom setting, perhaps an example will help. Long about 1975-76 I went back to school and got a masters in science education. Part of the deal was student teaching. And so long about the end of March I found myself in a small country public school teaching chemistry, math and physics.
The chemistry class was a disaster area and no matter how much time I spent the night before figuring I had just about the most delicious instruction to bring to the class the following day, when I walked into the room and saw all those blank faces- faces that so eloquently revealed that the teacher had lost them sometime back in September of the previous year- my great enthusiasm got deflated in a hurry and it was a mere war just to get through the hour.
This went on for days and so one day while they were doing lab, I spent the entire period writing numbers on the black board- and they had not the foggiest idea of what I was doing. And so about ten minutes before the end of the period I asked them to wrap up their lab work so I could cover the information I had on the board.
Oh, the moans and complaints! "We can't do it, the labs too long, why can't we do it tomorrow?" To which I responded in about as dead a voice as I could muster, "Because I don't want to write all that stuff over again." Ah, so another has the solution for that, "Put a 'do not erase' sign on the board." To which I replied, "We're in the other room tomorrow."
Ah, but they were working up their boldness now and so another student quipped, "What are teachers for anyway?" Ah, now we were at the issue! So I replied with the biggest heresy I could muster and said that I finally figured out what the problem was with the class and said, "It seems to me that your idea of a teacher and mine are not at all the same and that you think a teacher is a guy who should know everything about everything so he can teach you what you really don't want to hear." I continued, "Now my idea of a teacher is that he's a guy who really doesn't have to know much about anything because surely if one student doesn't have an answer to a question another one will- and in the rare event that no one has the answer, then the teacher can go down to the library and look it up."
Oh, this got their attention! Such contempt for the role of the teacher they had never heard before. So I told them that I was really only interested in their learning something and could care less what they thought about me, or the school, or their neighbor, and in fact I had no intention of even giving them an exam let alone grading them. Oh, they liked to hear that!
So the next day, the bell rang and I said, "OK, everyone take out a sheet of paper because I'm giving you a quiz." Oh, revolution was close at hand. They now knew that their teacher was a liar! Boy did that get their attention! They moaned and they groaned and then finally asked what was going to be on the exam. I said, "Write down this question, 'What do you know about ammonia reciprocating compressors?"
Oh did they want to object to that question and so answered it verbally with "We don't know anything about ammonia reciprocating compressors!" So I reminded them that the instruction was to write down the question, and once they had done that it was perfectly acceptable to answer it with one word "Nothing"- provided that was a truthful answer.
Well, in the next five minutes we went over all those numbers I'd put on the board the day before and hurried thru- about boiling points, vapor pressures, heats of vaporization, etc. and for the first time I got the oooos and ahaas. You see, they were all farm kids and no doubt all of them had a cooler in the milk house. But now they knew how it worked and so their chemistry class wasn't quite so bad as it had been. They had actually learned something.
Don't know that I ever ran into any of those students again and for all I know they might all have remembered only that that rotten student teacher was a liar. But I'll bet that they also remember how an ammonia refrigeration system works- and that is something that I didn't know until five years after I'd received my mechanical engineering degree.
And so my bottom line regarding PFAL is that, at least during my tenure at twi, the class did get my attention, it did teach me that there was a whole lot more to the Bible than I'd previously thought, it taught me how to study it and read it for myself- and to delight in doing so (not a mean feat in itself) and no matter what the folks think of VPW in hindsight, he was an effective teacher- and I don't mean by that that he was a God or even the kind of person I'd normally hang around with, but merely that he got me to think and gave me tools to work with- even tools that helped me to discard a lot of the BS that he threw in with the good stuff.
I forget now who said it, but the line I remember is "their passions form their fetters." As long as VPW had that class to teach, he had plenty to keep him busy (like the chemistry students mentioned above.) Perhaps I did him a disservice by getting the class on film because he no longer had the recalcitrants, the stubborn, the resentful, the know-it-alls, and the bored to teach but merely sheep who thought he was the
shepherd. But that was a later time than I remember fondly.
Now if only someone could come up with an authoritative class on how to walk by the spirit, we'd all be blessed! To this day I don't know anyone who can teach that (and I hope no one suggests that the "advanced class" did it because it didn't. I rather suspect that the Lord reserved that class for himself-
but. of course, I could be wrong. I do think that "letting the peace of God RULE in your heart" has a lot to do with it- but then how does one teach someone how to do that, except by perfect love casting out fear.
Again, thanks for the thread Jerry.
Edited by David A Anderson at: 7/31/00 8:44:52 pm | jjabigman
(7/31/00 8:54:32 pm)
| Re: Jerry
PFAL: Throw that baby out with the bath water. The poison is mixed right up with the good. It is not a foundation to build on. It set up a persons mind into a form of group think that allowed the perpatration of abuse.
run away , run away !
| lilome
(7/31/00 8:55:14 pm)
| Re: Authoritative classes et al.
David A. Anderson wrote that
if someone could come up with an authoritative class on how to walk by the spirit we'd all be blessed.
Are we still looking for someone to tell us what the
"x steps to..." are? Haven't we learn a thing yet?
IMHO we are in desperate need of someone to remind us that we need to seek God to teach us, and teach us how to pray, and lead us, and give us wisdom and understanding (that includes His word). SEEK GOD. Not someone who will put Him in a tiny little box by giving us the steps to something.
| yeck15
(7/31/00 9:30:26 pm)
| Class
Come on now lilome, David A. did say he suspects the Lord reserved that class for Himself. (The Lord).
Good thread Jerry. Most of my PFAL stuff is long gone, but the journey continues.
|
|
