| Author | Comment | JBarrax
(9/5/00 9:48:27 pm)
| VP & II Timothy 2:15. "Error upon error"
Well. Moving right along, let's look at VP's handling of II Timothy 2:15. I'm still mulling over the Jesus is man/Jesus is spirit and other contradictions, so I'll be brief on this. Just thought someone might be edified or enlightened to read this.
There are four problems, as I see it, with Wierwille's presentation of II Timothy 2:15 in PFAL. Here we have an unappetizing melange of doctrinal error, "unsupported leaps in logic", as Sunlight 8 mentioned, and just plain hypocrisy. We'll delve into the warped logic of PFAL in a moment, but first a word from our Father.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
I.) TO WHOM IS IT ADDRESSED?
The first is a matter of hypocrisy; VP contradicting his own "keys". According to TWI, II Timothy is a pastoral epistle, addressed to leaders in the Church. Therefore, "by sheer logic", II Timothy 2:15's exhortation to study to shew oneself approved of God only applies to leaders in the Church. Yet VP said repeatedly that the only way anyone can stand approved before God is by rightly dividing the Word. On page 120 we read, "And the only way you are going to stand approved before God is to study and rightly divide the Word." Again, on page 122, "...To have God's approval we must study the Word and study it in the right way. "
TIMOTHY was supposed to stand approved before God by rightly dividing the Word. According to Ephesians 3:4, we are merely supposed to read it for understanding. These statements are yet another example of VP contradicting himself.
II) ORTHOTOMOUNTA?
The Greek word translated "rightly dividing" does indeed mean 'a straight or right cutting.' However, according to Young's Concordance, Bullinger's lexicon, and Berry's interlinear, the Greek word translated "rightly dividing" is ORTHOTOMEO, not orthotomounta. Orthotomounta isn't even in the Bible! In this case,
Wierwille got the definition of the word right, but he assigned it to the wrong word! This is pretty sloppy work from someone who claimed to be a master teacher and was so concerned with "scientific precision".
III) HOW TO STAND APPROVED
VP's assertion that the only way to stand approved before God is to rightly divide the scriptures is an unsupported leap of logic. Just because Timothy was told to do stand approved before God by rightly dividing the scriptures doesn't mean there's no other way to do so. Paul's exhortation to Timothy is in the context of a Church in which error is running rampant and overthrowing people's faith (2:18) . Does every believer share this responsibility? The word "approved" is used elsewhere and sheds light on this question. VP made
reference to the second of those uses, (Romans 16:10), but skips the first one. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, what he said about the second
occurence contradicts what God's Word says in the first!
Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household.
"It does not say that he was approved in the community or by the society or in the denomination, but he was approved in or of Christ."
Dr. Wierwille's unmistakable implication is that we are not expected to stand approved before men. This is a direct contradiction of Romans 14:18. First, let's note the context. It will be important in a moment. Verses 4, 10, and 13 all tell us not to judge one another. Verses 14 & 15 teach us not to offend our brethren with our liberties. These are the "things" referred to in verse 18.
14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and state that if you're acceptable to God, you stand approved of him. I can't imagine that one could be called "acceptable" unto God, yet not "stand approved" of him. So VP's assertion that the only way to stand approved before God is wrong. Furthermore, he bypassed this verse so he could go on to the next one and contradict it with his comment about Apelles' not standing approved in the community. It clearly says that one who serves Christ in these things will not only be acceptable or approved of God, but of men also. Now why do you suppose VP would seemingly go out of his way to imply that we aren't supposed to care about the community's assessment of us? Could it be that he knew his own liberties would never pass the test?
Hmmmm....
What is even more puzzling about this 'oversight' is that, in his assertion that the only way to stand approved before God was by rightly dividing the Scripture, VP quoted verse 12! He swooped in, plucked a verse, then proceeded to ignore and contradict its context. What an amazing feat of biblical research.
IV) BUT WHY DOST THOU JUDGE THY BROTHER?
Speaking of contradicting the context, VP did this not only in his remarks about standing approved, but by his derisive comments about other Christians throughout this chapter. Remember, we are not to judge our brethren. This truth is stated and repeated throughout Romans 14. Dr.
Wierwille did the opposite:
"..I like sincere people, but I have also been hoodwinked by them. The insincere people have never deceived me, but the sincere people have.
An example of people trying to stand approved of God is a sadly ridiculous commentary on so-called Christians."
Wierwille ridicules Christians throughout this chapter, and in so doing, invites us to follow suit and judge our brethren as inferior, and deceitful. The final hypocrisy of this is that he started the chapter by stating that division is caused by wrongly dividing God's Word. This is wrong! According to I Corinthians, Ephesians, and
Philippians, division is caused by PRIDE; the same kind of condescending arrogance exhibited by VP himself in this very chapter!
I Cor. 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
Ephesians 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Philippians 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
Division isn't caused by wrong dividing of the Word. It's caused by arrogant people who think they know more than anyone else and therefore can judge, condemn and belittle God's people; by Pharisees. Division is caused by people who want to carve out a following after themselves by magnifying themselves, no matter what the will or Word of the Lord says.
And, like Hymenaeus and Philetus of II Timothy 2:17, "their word will eat as doth a canker"
Peace
Jerry
| evanpyle
(9/4/00 4:23:08 pm)
| Re: VP & II Timothy 2:15. "Error upon error"
Jerry, while some may term your observations as increasingly strident, I term them increasingly incisive and to the point.
If I may add a postscript about division:
Divisions do not occur between Christian groups who already disagree. There, no division is possible. There are no splits happening between the Mormons and the Nazarenes, the JW's and the Baptists. Divisions happen between those who are the closest in doctrine, for they are already together. As you said the strife is born of pride...those who think they are right and everybody else is wrong.
Being "right" is not the gospel!
| Sunesis
(9/5/00 11:55:32 am)
| Doctrine
Jerry, I have been enjoying your posts and this thread very much. Thank you for sharing.
Over the weekend I was thinking about how could Christ be physical and spiritual at the same time.
The only thing I could think of, is that, I don't think there are too many Christians, TWIers and ex-twiers who do not believe that angels can appear. We know angels are heavenly beings, but there are many records in the OT and Acts of them appearing in the flesh. It seems to me that spirit is able to manifest in flesh when it is needful to do so and so instructed by God.
We know that Christ fills the universe. I do not think he is sitting up in heaven in a physical body. But when needful, on earth he must have a physical body or no one would see him. I think its interesting, that after his
resurrection and he was seen of people, he was flesh and bone, the blood was omitted (correct me if I am wrong).
I believe we too at the gather will have spiritual, not physical bodies.
I think it is a mystery as to how this happens. But, please, don't lose too much sleep over it!
| Sunlight8
(9/5/00 2:15:55 pm)
| Re: PFAL REVIEW
Jerry, marvelous work on II Tim. (I haven't been to this thread in awhile, so will have to catch up.)
If you consider 2 Tim 2:15 in conjunction with Hosea 4:6a (My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge, first session), it gets real interesting. What in reality we are being asked to do at this 2 Tim. stage of the class (but not outright) is choose between being destroyed, or let VPW save our lives with his “right dividing.” He narrows it down to those two choices by saying all denominations are wrong (so there’s no other alternative than VPW, only he can rightly divide), and by saying it is the only way to stand approved by God. (If God ain’t your on side, then what?) Now I realize he doesn’t put those two verses together in the same session, but nonetheless, the stage was set (If I am going to keep from being destroyed, I must have knowledge. Then later, it’s made clear not only knowledge, but this special kind that is “accurate” that no one else has.) In essence, he manipulates the Bible in order to manipulate us. Cult experts refer to this as “false choices,” the result of scripture twisting. Because of that false choice, we made another one: I am of VPW. Or how about this one: In order for God to approve of me, I must stick with the ones who rightly divide the Word…and since no one else has it…. Strangely, I don’t remember consciously making those decisions, but I know I did, maybe because on the surface it seemed like a no brainer.
So my point is, as we go through this, I plan on looking not only at the surface errors, but also the underlying messages. Try to recognize the false choices, and how it impacted my reasoning processes. Those points of surface error also contain points of wrong direction. Identifying them begins to point the way to what is right and serve to at least partly explain what occurred.
Jerry, since I have tossed my PFAL book, would you mind telling me what is next?
| evanpyle
(9/5/00 4:58:57 pm)
| Re: PFAL REVIEW
Excellent & illuminating reasoning, Sunlight.
Consider that I remember thinking, and hearing others say, "as long as this ministry has the rightly divided Word, this is where i'll stay...if somebody comes along who has it better, that's where i'm going.
This was deliberately implanted.
| JBarrax
(9/8/00 9:32:16 pm)
| Re:
Spiritual bodies and such
Hi Sunesis, God Bless
I agree with you on the distinction between flesh and bones, which Jesus said comprised his resurrected body and flesh and blood of which we are made. I think that's why the Bible says "flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.". We will be transformed into spiritual bodies like his before we ascend, so we will no longer be flesh and blood. I think the spiritual body has no need of blood because blood is the means by which soul life is carried to every living cell of the body (Leviticus 17:11). Our soul life will be replaced by the spirit life of which we now have but a token (Ephesians 1:14).
I was mulling over this during the weekend too. I suppose one of the reasons we have trouble believing Jesus can be both a flesh & bones man and a spirit is because Dr.
Wierwille's dogmatic interpretation of John 3:6
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit"
He used this verse to refute the teaching that angels could have impregnated human beings and, in so doing, stated that flesh and spirit are two completely
separate realms. Does this make sense? If flesh and spirit are so disparate that they cannot interact, how the heck do we receive revelation? Aren't we spirit-filled flesh? If flesh and spirit cannot cohabitate, how can a man be body, soul, and spirit without going insane?
Maybe Jesus was a flesh & bones man only until the ascension and afterward, being lifted into the realm of the heavens, became a spiritual man who transcends time and space. I John says we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is. So maybe we too will one day be spiritual men unbound by time and space. Maybe that's how we were chosen in him before the foundation of the world. Who knows? But whatever God has in store for us, I'm sure it'll be mighty good. 
SUNLIGHT:
I think your observations about Hosea 4:6a and II Timothy 2:15 are quite correct. The entirety of the first two sessions of PFAL is designed to carve out a following from among traditional Churches. He presents himself as a lone voice of truth; "a safe anchorage in the ocean of doubt with which we are surrounded." "Who has taught us figures of speech?" And, as self-serving as that is, it wouldn't be so bad if he had done it HONESTLY, by presenting the TRUTH as it is. Instead, he made up definitions, presented half-truths, quarter-truths, and one-eighth truths, ignored context, and contradicted the very Word of God he claimed to be unveiling. That, in my
mind, is what makes the class so objectionable.
What comes next? Chapter Eleven, "The Translations of the Word of God", involving punctuation, paragraphs, etc. Then we delve into Section III, How the Bible Interprets Itself. I only hope it gets better, not worse.
Peace
Jerry
| evanpyle
(9/5/00 10:42:54 pm)
| Re: what's on next
I think it gets worse, which is better, I mean it gets better, you know, only worse.
Oh, never mind
| Ex10th
(9/6/00 9:47:47 am)
| Re: what's on next
Hello Jerry and all
I've been trying to keep up with this thread, but am having a little trouble, because it's getting sooooo long. Would it be possible to somehow break it up a little? so if anyone would like to see what it written here about a certain section, it would be possible to just go to that part of the class? Maybe you even need your own forum. Seems like there still is a long way to go.
Just a suggestion.
Ex10th
BTW, Jerry, I applaud your ambition to take on such a task.
| Orange Cat
(9/7/00 8:23:43 pm)
| Re: what's on next
Jerry, I can't tell you how much I look forward to your weekly installments on this thread. You knucklehead, you. :-)
Orange Cat | JBarrax
(9/8/00 9:30:57 pm)
| The Word of God cannot contradict itself?
Thanks OC.
We're now at the end of PART II: The Bible is the Word of God. The final chapter thereof, dealing with punctuation, chapters, paragraphs and such is fairly simple. There's only one point in this chapter that bothers me, but it's a big one. We've already touched on it in pursuit of the truth about the presence or absence of Christ; the belief that God's Word cannot contradict itself. This is the foundational principle of the class upon which everything else rests. Unfortunately, due to the frustration I've encountered over the past year in trying to make this work, I now come to the depressing conclusion that this tenet may not be true.
I can think of at least a dozen topics on which the Bible contradicts itself, in addition to the two above regarding Jesus Christ. Most of these contradictions I've tried to ignore for years, assuming someone had "the answer". It has been only in the past year that I've dusted them off and taken a hard look at them. I don't think the "keys" taught in PFAL are sufficient to resolve these
contradictions. Here are just a few.
Can a murderer be saved?
Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Acts 22:4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.
I John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. And ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
D o we need teachers or not?
Ephesians 4:11 And he gave, some apostles, and some, prophets, and some, evangelists, and some, pastors and teachers
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.
I John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Are we under the law or aren't we?
Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
I John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
If Christ is the end of the law and we're delivered from it, how can we be convinced of the law as transgressors?
Is prophecy for believers or unbelievers?
I Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
I Corinthians 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
If prophesy "serveth not for them that believe not", why, if "...there come in one that believeth not..." would everyone prophesy?
Does God tempt people or not?
James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man
Genesis 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
Did Paul's companions hear the voice of Jesus or not?
Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice , but seeing no man.
Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Admittedly, some of these are nitpicky. What does it matter if Paul's companions heard a voice or not? The point is, we were taught that the words in the Word are perfect, etc, etc. So according to the basic dogma of PFAL, it does matter because it beaks the perfection of God's matchless word. There are several more like this I could offer, but I'll end with one that many of us have probably pondered over the years. This is one that affects our basic understanding of who God is and how He deals with people.
I John 1:5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
VP says if God kills people, there's darkness in Him. Remember the "idiom of permission"? We were taught that, whenever the Bible attributes evil or harmful acts to God, it's the idiom of permission and should be understood as an act of the devil that God had to permit. Therefore, whenever it says God slew someone, it really means he permitted the devil to
kill him. God didn't do that, we were told. The devil did it, and God, because of the unbelief of the people, was unable to intervene. He lifted his hand of protection and the evil wicked devil wiped them out. Okay. What about Exodus 32:26-28?
Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
The Devil didn't kill those three thousand men. Moses and the Levites did. Were they possessed? I don't think so. What of Elijah's slaying of the 450 prophets of Baal? Wasn't he doing God's will? Apparently. So what about I John 1:5? Either we don't rightly understand that verse, or it's contradicted by about half the Old Testament. Hmmmmm. Not to mention the
contradictions we've already discussed about Jesus Christ; man or spirit? Present or absent? human or divine? If the Bible contradicts itself throughout, then we have no conclusive answers.
And on that cheery note, I conclude this post. Next up: Part III: How the Bible Interprets Itself. I'll probably honor Ex 10th's request and begin Part III on a new thread this weekend. Seeya there.
Peace
Jerry
| jessejoeb
(9/9/00 10:55:30 am)
| Re: The Word of God cannot contradict itself?
Jerry, I couldn't keep up with this thread so I printed it. It took awhile to print. It will take even longer to ponder!
I am thankful for the work you have put into this, and the love you have in sharing it with others. For me it is much needed and has rekindled the seeking nature I lost long ago.
To everyone else who has contributed, I thank you as well. Your insights are priceless!
Help me understand something. VPW taught heavily on 1 Cor. 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" . BTW, without the humility and remembering where WE came from, I think, this led to much of the "I'm spiritual and you are not" arrogance TWI cultivated.
In the OT few people could understand spiritual matters, thus they had the law. From what I have understood, (via TWI teachings) the law was to protect God's people from contamination, preserve the Christ line and teach a love which was beyond the scope of the peoples senses at the time. Jesus Christ fulfilled the law and it all hinged on love, from father to son, son to father, father and son to us, and not necessarily in that order.
Anyway, wouldn't the people not understanding, or even being aware of spiritual matters, explain why so much that is attributed to God in the OT is not attributed to God after the day of Pentecost?
I'm just thinking out loud and wondering what Y'all think.
And Jerry, I eagerly await your next thread!
JesseJoeb | JBarrax
(9/9/00 12:28:28 pm)
| Re: I Cor. 2:14
Hi Jesse, God
bless, and thanks for the kind words. I'm glad this thread has blessed you. I'll start a new one today so the length of this topic
won't become an obstacle to people trying to read it.
I think your basic premise is right. People in the Old Testament had less understanding of spiritual matters than is now available because of the light Jesus Christ shed on humanity. He revealed the devil's kingdom to a greater degree than had ever been done before.
Luke 10:24 For I tell you, that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
So there is a distinct difference in how God deals with people today, after the accomplished work of Christ than he did before. The problem is
that Dr. Wierwille, in his attempt to homogenize our picture of God, ignored these truths in PFAL and instead blamed all human suffering in the Old Testament on the devil. His article "Job: From Victim to Victor", in God's Magnified Word, is a good example of this teaching. Every good thing he attributes to God and every bad thing to the devil, via the idiom of permission. This simplistic doctrine is first presented in PFAL in his discussion of I John 1:5.
The interpretation of I John 1:5 coupled with the idiom of permission leads us to believe that every calamity that befell mankind was the work of the devil. Obviously this is not true. God told the children of
Israel to go in and wipe out entire communities, including women, children, and infants. This cannot be attributed to the "idiom of permission". It can be understood though, in the terms you mentioned above. Much of what happened was the work of the devil. But much of it was the work of God designed to prevent devil spirits form infiltrating and subverting Israel to the point that the Messiah could not come.
I was just pointing out that Dr. Wierwille's simplistic presentation of I John 1:5 is misleading. It glosses over the severity of life before Messiah in an attempt to appeal to our desire to think of God as a big cosmic Teddy Bear.
I think it was a deliberate simplification of the truth. VP had a tendency to tell us what we wanted to hear (i.e. the magic of believing). No one wants to believe that God counted certain people as too dangerous to live and therefore ordered their genocide so that Christ could come and save humanity. Sometimes the truth isn't as easy to sell as a polished up watered down half-truth.
Peace
Jerry
|
|
