| Author | Comment | evanpyle
(9/18/00 12:03:29 pm)
| Re: Jozey & Fremont
What VPW® said about II Pet 1:20 in PFAL™ may seem quite obvious to you, because that's what you already believe. IMO, you're not really seeing what is said. I'm
afraid you may be taking VPW's® unsupported statements as the truth of scripture.
Case in point: You both make mention of the "bible interpreting itself". Now I will third both Jerry & Rafael in their very plain
explanation of the that verse is talking about in context. But you have already ignored these explanations, so I will try another tack.
Wierwille® asserts that if we are not to privately interpret the scriptures then either 1. no interpretation is possible, or 2. the Bible must interpret itself.
Oh really? And where in the Bible does it say THAT?? Hmmm? OK, I thought so.....Nowhere. Then where does VP™ get that statement? "Sheer logic" I hear you saying. Ok, then, try this sheer logic on for size: The bible does NOT interpret itself. Instead the Holy Spirit 'interprets' (makes plain, clear, alive) the scripture to our hearts. Ahhhh, but this is far more than sheer logic...yes, it's SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE...abundantly so. I won't bore you with references, but try on the I Cor 2 references Jerry pointed you toward.
So, which are you going to believe? "Sheer logic", though completely unsupported by the bible....or the Bible itself? Your choice.
By the way®, in the not-too-distant past Jerry was one of Wierwille® and PFAL's™ staunchest supporters. Jerry and I have sparred in the past on this very issue, though I did not present my case nearly as thoroughly or elegantly as Jerry. Now, through honest work, Jerry has changed his tune. I do not say this to gloat, but to help you see where this is coming from. Jerry is not just some foaming-at-the-mouth 'anti' person...he is a thoughtful workman who has earned my deepest respect.
| Twosum
(9/18/00 12:54:34 pm)
| Re: Jozey & Fremont
Evan:
As I would agree with both you and Jerry , that what Dr. VPW taught was not all correct. But, What Jerry is doing is nothing short of destroying. It is "not" building up !
When discussing the Word of God, and someone, no matter whether or not it was VPW, comes into contradiction to "what the Word say". Then they , no matter who they are, stands corrected !
What Jozey needs to understand, is that the Holy Spirit , as you said Evan, is going to reveal the scriptures to us, because they are spiritual matters. You just can't read something in a verse and "claim" to know the interpretation of that verse.
Many, many times the scriptures need to be understood in light of the whole book. Not just one verse, and what is said in that verse. Especially when we know that the originals have no verses in them to begin with.
Sure VPW made mistakes and I could state right now some of his biggest mistakes. But for the subject matter of this thread, I would like to suggest to Jozey as well as Jerry. That the Word of God "can" stand on its own two feet !
Whether or not you understand it , is another thing ! The understanding is a growing unto an holy temple in the Lord ! Its a spiritual growth, that can grow day by day. So VPW is dead, and many of us have grown since 1985, and some of us have slipped backwards in our spiritual growth, because we have gone back to our own understandings, instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to enlighten us. Oh yes, many will say otherwise, and many will say that they allowed the Holy Spirit to help them understand, but the truth will always prevail, whether one knows or understands the spiritual truth.
I was going to enter the PFAL review thread by Jerry, but thought it was nothing more than a waste of my time ! He is trying to prove something to himself and everyone else, and yet he has proven nothing that most of already know. DR. VPW was a man who fell short of the glory of God, and did not have all truth. But is it fair to take his works and look for things to try and destroy ? NO ! Is it alright to make comments regarding VPW and some of his works and statements ? Yes ! But with the intent that we are not to think, nor have any of us every thought of VPW as being higher spiritually than Jesus Christ, nor the Apostle Paul !
Ephesians 1:17 is as much for us today, as it was for VPW and twi in the 60's - 70's and 80's. Did he make mistakes ? Yes, and Jozey "must" take this into account ! But also we must realize that, Jerry is not, and never will be equal in any way to DR. VPW and his (Jerry's) slap hazard way of destroying DR. VPW works !
I have not once - no not once, seen where Jerry made any comments about the heart of Dr. VPW. And if he did , I must have missed it then.
I believe that Dr. VPW did the best he could , with what he knew. As little or as much credit as you want to give him. I also believe that he had some spiritual problems that he was dealing with and were never resolved. However - so did King David and so did the apostle Peter who denied Jesus Christ thrice - yup - three times, because three is not of God - only "two". The @#%$ crew "twice", Peter denied him "thrice" - three times. Peter also taught the circumcision unto the Gentiles, and Paul corrected him in the book of Galatians.
All three of you need to back off on your stances on this PFAL review. Jozey needs to realize that VPW was for his day and time and now its time to grow beyond what Dr. VPW taught. Jerry needs to realize that tearing down another man's work does not edify and build up the body of Christ.
And Evan, you need to defend the Word of God with a greater spiritual awarness , and stop defending that which is not of God !
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| Jozey
(9/19/00 3:02:00 am)
| PFAL - Part II
Edited by: Jozey 9/19/00 3:02:00 am
| Twosum
WayDale Citizen
(9/18/00 2:18:43 pm)
| Re: PFAL - Part II
Well - one comment down, two to go.
Jozey, you said > "Confusion, confusion, confusion....every evil work is at hand here. Twosum, I guess you haven't really read a thing I've said, otherwise you never would have made that statement. And what about you? There are some things you have said that make no sense and mostly because you think you have something better to say than what VPW basically taught...finding out you can't do any better?? Hello...is anyone home??
Jozey, you are defending a man's work, while Jerry is trying to tear it down. Neither of you are right for doing this !
If your going to claim that I said "some things" that make no sense, then share with me what I said that makes no sense to you. How else am I going to help you understand "what I said" ? ?
Yes Jozey , someone is home ! What do you think you meant by such a statement such as this ? ?
Are you here to "tear down" , or are you here to "build up" ? ? I think you better start asking yourself this question, because you are coming across in such a manner that is starting to become derogatory !
BTW - there is always "better" ! Dr. VPW did not fully understand , and I do not either, but there is "better" !
He taught the tithe to the church and the tithe was under the law and should not have been taught to the Church ! The reason I bring this topic up, is because so many other ministries and denominations teach the tithe, and the Way International, and especially the author of Christians should be
prosperous.
Would you like to discuss this Jozey ? This was not a direct part of PFAL, but it was an indirect part , and it contradicted what was taught in PFAL. Now, be that as it may, the "tithe" is not to be taught to the Church !!
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| evanpyle
(9/18/00 5:13:40 pm)
| Re: PFAL - Part II
Twosum, I for one am thankful that Jerry has refrained from making statements as to VPW's® heart. Such is unknowable by man (I Cor 2:14). Instead he has rightly focused on what he said and wrote publicly. Other threads focused on what
Wierwille™ did.
I cannot see how comparing PFAL to the Word of God constitutes tearing down "Dr"™
Wierwille®. It is the only honest thting to do...take your system of beliefs and shine the full light of scripture on it...honestly and unflinchingly. If, in the process, Wierwille's™ words fall to the ground, let them lie where they belong.
| Twosum
(9/18/00 5:55:24 pm)
| Re: PFAL - Part II
Evan: If Jerry would only state certain "facts" that he knows, then I would not have made the comment that I did.
But Jerry goes beyond the "facts" and adds his seemingly ability to add comments about "how" he thought Dr. VPW came up with what he did. I would call that , looking at VPW heart ! It is his
derogatory comments about "how" Jerry perceives the heart of Dr. VPW when he (Dr. VPW), was working the Word for himself, and "how" he came up with what he came up with.
Sure, we can find faults and things that Dr. VPW wrote that are wrong. I agree ! But, to say that Dr. VPW purposely did something by way of something is a fabrication of this man's (Dr. VPW) heart.
It could be said, that Dr. VPW did his best , with that which he knew to be right. "If" that is the case, then then we can only give him the
benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, we know how the adversary works ( don't we ? )! And it is safe to say, that many things were not taught correctly because of the adversary "and" the fact that every man falls short of the glory of God. Yourself and myself included.
Spiritual "growth" is putting off the old, and putting on the new. Just because Jerry has shown
certain things not to be true. Can we say that what Jerry is saying are the things that are true ? My answer is NO !
I have talked with Jerry about Colossians chapter one in my thread about the "logos" , and I am sure within my mind , that Jerry has fallen short of the glory of God also. He mishandled the understanding of Colossians chapter one so bad it is not funny ! :(
I even explained in detail where he made his mistakes and where he needed to correct his understandings. Am I right or wrong - that is up to the individual to decide and his walk with the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, by way of the Holy Spirit ( H S - which is God,and who is the Father).
If he handled those few verses so incorrectly (spiritually speaking), how many other parts of scripture is he going to mishandle ? ?
The PFAL review is a dead end street thread ! It only does one thing, and that is to try and prove that the works of Dr. VPW were wrong ! Thats it ! It only destroys ! It does not build up !! No matter what one thinks otherwise !!
This is why Jozey is wrong also in her defence of the works of Dr. VPW.
I will only stand upon the Words of God, from which we recieved these words from holy men of God , as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. If any other man's words line up with these words, I'll listen !!
I am not living in the 80's anymore, this is the year 2000 and Dr. VPW works ended a long time ago. Do we upgrade them ? NO ! We need to ask God for a greater understanding of "His" Word > Ephesians 1:17
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
Edited by: extwi
9/18/00 5:55:24 pm
| evanpyle
(9/18/00 8:40:39 pm)
| Re: PFAL - Part II
An appeal:
BACK TO THE THREAD,PLEASE!
I apologize to the rest for engaging twosum in a fruitless "discussion".
Bring it on, Jerry!
To God Be The Glory!
| extwi
(9/18/00 9:18:26 pm)
| I second that
EvanPyle - I second your motion. Let's get back to the thread topic please.
Ex-Twi | Fremont
(9/18/00 11:47:40 pm)
| Re: PFAL Review: Part 2
First of all, I never said the Bible interprets itself to us, I merely said that the Bible interprets itself. That is, it's self-explanatory and non-contradictory. Does this mean that any rational man can understand the word. No. For to the Greeks Christ is foolishness and to the Jews a stumbling block. If you want to see how "Reason" makes a hash of scriptures, just read Thomas Jefferson's exegeses. And you are right, a number of different people supposedly using the same tools view scripture differently, but these people also claim they are being inspired by the spirit. But remember this, Jesus himself said, "the scripture cannot be broken." And Paul, "If any preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." The Galatians had decided to go with the James legalism sect rather than believe Paul. And Hymenaeus and Philetus "Who concerning the truth have erred, saying the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some." Doctrinal conflicts were with the church from the beginning, but we cannot therefore assume that because there were disagreements that Paul was wrong. Does this mean that everything in PFAL is correct? No, it doesn't. It is holy spirit that guides unto "all truth." But we must check what we think the spirit is revealing against the proper principles of studying the Word. Otherwise we get antinomianism-why bother with scripture when we have the spirit? There is a correct understanding of scripture, and if God gave it by His own "loosing," then how He "loosed" it tells us how it ought to be interpreted. Even so, one well respected translation of the Nestle Geek text by Rev. Alfred Marshall translates "Interpretation" as "solution." "No prophecy of the scripture is of its own solution." The RSV and AV also agree with the KJV version. Bullinger agrees with you, as does the NIV. If the prophecy is not "self originated by the speaker (Bull)" than neither is the interpretation. There is one truth and one meaning to scripture, and that is to be found within the prophecy itself.
| JBarrax
(9/19/00 12:40:48 am)
| "All Scripture Interprets itself"?
Yes, let's get back to the topic at hand.
But first a brief comment to Twosum; If you are unwilling to read what's already been posted in part one of this thread, not only by myself, but by others who have taken a second look at PFAL, please spare us your derision. I think it is unfair of you to judge the entire thread worthless without at least having read it once. And before you accuse me of treating PFAL with the same unfairness, please be advised that I was in TWI for over eight years, and memorized most of its tenets and much of it's content. I "made it my own" and even 8 years after I'd left the ministry, defended it vigorously; as Evan has testified. I've given it a fair and thorough hearing. I don't ask that you spend 16 years supporting the PFAL Review thread in order to be qualified to comment on it; just read it please; preferably with a humble heart.
Now I must apologize to all for bogging things down a bit lately. Much of what's just been posted I think could have been avoided if I'd posted these next comments sooner. But I want to be thorough--and I have a family and a job to keep up with. Anyway, the related issue to the "no private interpretation" mantra is
Wierwille's assertion that the Bible interprets itself. Specifically, on page 183 he wrote the following:
"II Peter 1:20 declares, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy [none of that which is foretold or forthtold in the Word of God] ...is of the scripture is of any private interpretation." Since I dare not interpret it, or you, or any other person in the world, all Scripture must interpret itself either in the verse or in the context or in previous usage."
We've talked some about the specific issues that arose from VP's attempts to demonstrate how All scripture interprets itself, but we haven't looked at the big picture. I had planned on working toward this and presenting at the end of the "session four" material, but I think we need to discuss this now. We must take an honest look at this creed. Does all scripture interpret itself, either in the verse, in the context, or where it's been used before? Let's look at one of the examples VP used in PFAL, just to set the ground rules.
"The book of Revelation is considered by many to be a very difficult book. The reason it has been difficult is that we have never allowed it to interpret itself in the verse or in the context. Things in Revelation which are symbolic have been taken literally, and things that are literal have been taken symbolically.
Revelation 1:12
And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
Does that verse tell what the seven golden candlesticks are? No, it just says, "I saw seven golden candlesticks." Before looking for the interpretation of the verse, look at verse 16."
Revelation 1:16
And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
The twelth verse talked about the seven golden candlesticks and the sixteenth spoke of the seven stars. What are the seven golden candlesticks, and what are the seven stars? That verse does not tell so we continue reading.
Revelation 1:20
The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
There is the answer. This is how the Scripture interprets itself in its context."
So according to VP, even the prophecies of the book of Revelation are interpreted either in the verse, in the context, or where it's been used before. Well let's take a look at some of the rest of Revelation and see if that's really true.
Revelation 9:2-11
And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
What are the locusts? Are they animals or spirits? Verses 7-10 indicate that they are animals of some sort; they are described as having hair and tails and teeth and faces and heads. But verse 2 says they came out of the bottomless pit, which is associated throughout the book of Revelation with the Devil and the Beast and the False Prophet.
Reading this passage in the verse doesn't tell us what the locusts are. What about the context? Well if you read all the way to the end of Revelation, you won't find "the answer" because there is no further mention of locusts in Revelation. Surely the Bible interprets this passage where the term "locust" has been used before. The first use of the word "locusts" in the Bible is in Exodus 10:4. Certainly if the Bible interprets itself, we'll find "the answer" there.
Exodus 10:4-6
4 Else, if thou refuse to let my people go, behold, to morrow will I bring the locusts into thy coast:
5 And they shall cover the face of the earth, that one cannot be able to see the earth: and they shall eat the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth unto you from the hail, and shall eat every tree which groweth for you out of the field:
6 And they shall fill thy houses, and the houses of all thy servants, and the houses of all the Egyptians; which neither thy fathers, nor thy fathers' fathers have seen, since the day that they were upon the earth unto this day. And he turned himself, and went out from Pharaoh.
So we learn from its previous usage that locusts are very hungry grasshoppers that plague unbelievers. But the locusts of Revelation 9:7 don't eat the food, they attack the people directly. And they don't come from the wind, they arise from the bottomless pit. So are they grasshoppers or devils? I submit that the Bible does not tell us. This passage of Scripture does not interpret itself in the verse, in the context or where it's been used before.
Maybe you're thinking All Scripture (except unfulfilled prophecy) interprets itself in the verse, in its context, or where it's been used before. Not so SOGWAP! Look at I Corinthians 11:10.
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Well right there in the verse it says the woman ought to have power on her head. Because of the angels. See? The word is exousia, meaning authority. Berry's interlinear translates the verse as follows: "Because of this ought the woman authority to have on the head on account of the angels." AHA! So this means....it's not interpreted in the verse. Let's check the context.
I Corinthians 11:2-10
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
So from the context we learn that the woman should have her head covered. Ahhhh. So her hair is the authority she is to have on her head? Or is the authority her husband? And what do the angels have to do with her hair? The real problem here, imho, is the phrase "because of the angels." If All Scripture is interpreted in its verse, in its context or where it's used before, then the previous usage of the word angels will give us "the answer." The first usage of the word "angel" is in Genesis 16:7
7 And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
8 And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
9 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.
So from the record in Genesis we learn that the angel of the Lord told Hagar to go back and submit herself under Sarah's authority! So...for this cause ought a woman to have authority on her head...because the angel told Hagar....um... What does this verse mean? I daresay it does not interpret itself, not in
the verse, not in the context, nor where it was used before.
Please bear with me for just one more VERY important example. This one is so obvious we should have asked about it years ago. And it represents an entire category of Scripture that does not interpret itself.
Proverbs 25:21 & 22
21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
22 For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.
I would think heaping coals of fire on your enemy's head would be an act of great violence. Why would God reward this? There is a similar reference in Romans 12:19 & 20, but is equally confusing. These verses are what we have come to know as Orientalisms. An Orientalism is a reference to an Eastern custom which would have been familiar to the original readers of the Bible, but is not part of Western culture and understanding. Proverbs and Romans refer to an Eastern custom in which someone had to get out of his warm bed and go out in the streets in the chilly predawn darkness to light the street lamps with coals of fire. He would carry them in a basket upon his head and, in serving his
fellow citizens, would be warmed by his burden. Isn't that obvious in the verse or its context or where it was used before? No. You have to have or acquire an accurate knowledge of an ancient culture to fully understand many verses in the Bible. Therefore, "by sheer logic", the Bible does NOT interpret itself.
Therefore, the "no private interpretation" mantra is also invalid and illogical, based on wresting out of context of II Peter 1:20. The Scripture is of no private interpretation because Peter and Paul and Moses and Isaiah didn't make it up. They wrote what God told them to by the holy spirit. Likewise, we can arrive at an understanding of that same Word by the same holy spirit.
Peace
Jerry
| JBarrax
(9/19/00 12:55:38 am)
| Re: PS to Fremont
Fremont, there is little argument that proper principles for Biblical study exist. The problems with the "keys to the Word's interpretation" presented in PFAL are twofold;
One, they magnify the carnal efforts of man; studying, believing, knowing, etc. While the power and grace and will of God are diminished. The keys are used to push us toward a Pharisaic obsession with word studies and with being "right", rather than ushering us into a lifestyle that imitates Christ's love for our brethren. We were lead to using the Scripture to intimidate, belittle, and ridicule God's people rather than enjoy fellowship within and contribute to the body of Christ.
Two; while expounding on the research principles that "let the Word speak" Dr.
Wierwille violated them in order to set forth *his* agendas and opinions. Is it a sound principle of Biblical research to make up definitions of Greek words that only apply to 16 out of 400 Biblical uses? Is it a sound research principle to state that King David had a right to any woman in Israel? I don't think any of us would call these things sound research
principles. Yet that's the kind of maneuvering PFAL is built on.
Our challenge is to sort out what genuine principles of Biblical study were presented from the sloppy and deceitful mishandling of the Word that surrounded them.
Peace
Jerry
| Twosum
(9/19/00 1:03:26 am)
| Re: "All Scripture Interprets itself"?
Jerry: This is in response to your comments to me.
I did not memorize PFAL, what I did was take from it "that" which offered the best spiritual awareness that it had to offer.
I was in twi for 12 years and though nothing was wrong with PFAL until the last full year. Then I also found problems within, not only PFAL, but other writing of Dr. VPW. But the road you are taking is a road that is a dead end, and a road of destruction , and not edification ! ! It is not unfair to judge this thread worthless, because that is what it is !!
It is the Spirit of God that will reveal things, and even during PFAL, I believe God revealed much to a lot of people , that brought about good spiritual growth ! Even amongst the errors that were in PFAL. AS it is true that "truth" will set you free, and untruth will bring one down a road of spiritual deciet. There has to be a moral to all of this, and the moral is, is that during those years of the 60 's and 70's and 80's , the PFAL class was the best spiritual food available to mankind on the face of the earth . And God was big enough to help open our eyes to the mistakes that were in PFAL - "when" the need arose. A lot of us were leaving trinitarism and the need to find a better understanding of there being no such thing as trinitarism within the Word of God was a "need" - spiritual speaking !!
Not only that, DR. VPW and "his ministry" that God called him out for, came into manifestation by those who spoke in tongues at the end of his class on PFAL. There is your "profit" if you can see this ? Along with knowing that there is no such false doctrine as the trinity !
What a God to call such a man as VPW and all of his faults ,and still call him to this calling ! !
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| Danny Mahar
(9/19/00 6:50:00 am)
| Re: "All Scripture Interprets itself"?
Jerry -
You could not have picked a more classic example of an interpretive puzzle than 1 Corinthians 11:10. Scholars are still exploring and debating its meaning, and even after many theories have been proposed, as in the more recent "Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls"; it's a brain teaser.
One interpretation, explored by Everling in 1888 in "Pauline Angelologie und Demonologie" was that this passage may have had something to do with the tale of the angels who seduced the women in Gen.6, which tale showed up quite a lot throughout the
inter-testamental literature and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and was even subscribed by Tertullian in the second century.
While others think that this passage may have originally had something to do with womens' exercise of the spiritual gifts. And of course there remains the question of
cultural practices, and perhaps even the reasoning behind why certain practices were adopted to begin with. In any event, the interpretation behind this passage remains an open question.
A fine example, Jerry, of why a proper interpretation or a right answer does not always fall onto one's lap when they open up the Bible, or even with the benefit of studying historical, literary and cultural material. Keep up the good work. For those who are crying that you are being "destructive" here, I would only respond that a critical approach to old teachings is a very necessary process, and is oft times required before one can gain new insight.
BTW - My review of C.H. Dodd's classic study, "The Parables of the Kingdom" at the Greasespot Cafe -
pub7.ezboard.com/fgreases...D=13.topic
may not be without some relevance here.
Danny
Edited by: Danny Mahar 9/19/00 6:50:00 am
| Twosum
(9/19/00 8:41:09 am)
| Re: "All Scripture Interprets itself"?
Danny, you said > "A fine example, Jerry, of why a proper interpretation or a right answer does not always fall onto one's lap when they open up the Bible, or even with the benefit of studying historical, literary and cultural material. Keep up the good work. For those who are crying that you are being "destructive" here, I would only respond that a critical approach to old teachings is a very necessary process, and is oft times required before one can gain new insight. "
Danny: I totally disagree with this mental mind set.
Interpretation is a "revealing" and not a searching out of "one's own ability" ! Looking at the old teachings is just that, looking at the old teachings. Finding fault , is just that, finding fault. Still, no answers are received by finding fault. It might work in the five senses world, but not in the spiritual world !
Man's wisdom is just that - man's wisdom. But the Holy Spirit teacheth ; comparing spiritual things with spiritual > I Corinthians 2:13.
One can dissect the Word of God, and PFAL ,and compare worldly things with
worldly understanding, and never come to a knowledge of truth !
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| evanpyle
(9/19/00 9:31:27 am)
| Re: "All Scripture Interprets itself"?
In all fairness, didn't
Wierwille® say that if I read the Bible through and there is no answer, then we just don't know...or something to that effect?
| Danny Mahar
(9/19/00 12:46:35 pm)
| Re: "All Scripture Interprets itself"?
Twosum -
"criticism" (in view of my mention of "a critical approach") may result in finding faults and errors but it is
after all a process "to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : EVALUATE"
(Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition). It is also "the art of evaluating and analyzing works of art or literature"...."the scientific investigation of literary documents (as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history". Under the word "critical",: "c. exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation..". Yes, the word "critical" can have the meaning of "fault-finding" and "nitpicking" but it can also suggest a needful process of "evaluation".
Thankfully, you are not exempt from exercising this very process as evident from your opinions expressed on the views of others in this thread, so I have very little choice but to assume that you must be just as "unspiritual" as the rest of us, if I was to take to heart your notions that would seem to suggest that anyone engaging themselves in a process of critical evaluation and thinking is somehow walking less spiritually.
I disagree and hold the opinion that a God might actually work best when one is endeavoring to exercise the full use of their mind, as opposed to one who doesn't think at all.
The fruits of such lazy-mindedness through the making of VPWs class into an untouchable "sacred cow" are still quite evident to this very day.
Your protesting against inspecting the gaping cracks in the old Way "foundation" is quite curious considering that the entire "house" has been crashing down all around. At least Jerry is courageous and honest enough to bring attention to those cracks, which requires a process of critical evaluation.
with best regards,
Danny
| Twosum
(9/19/00 1:19:16 pm)
| Re: "All Scripture Interprets itself"?
Danny:
I will not fault you or Jerry for your opinions. But opinions are just that opinions. The PFAL class should be canned in my opinion, for a better way of teaching spiritual truth. However, tearing down the PFAL class is not going to bring one unto a greater spiritual understanding.
I don't believe that God likes a lazy person either, but if one is going to put forth their efforts into something, why not put forth your efforts in the direction of asking God to enlighten our understanding of spiritual things ?
Jerry is not coming up with any new light whatsoever ! All he is doing is tearing down, destroying - trying to prove something wrong.
I never said anything about anyone's spirituality ! What I have done, is judge the tearing down of PFAL as a fruitless act, and this act does not edify and build one up spiritualy. There is no spiritual growth in tearing down ! ! That is what I said ! !
Jesus Christ said - tear this temple down - "and I will raise it in three days". Spiritual growth is in being raised ,edigying and building up, not in tearing down. It is the spiritual misguidedness of tearing down something that indeed does not help people to a higher spiritual awareness ! God was able to work in people who took PFAL, and to help open the eyes of their understanding. However faulty it was, it was still full of some great spiritual insight , if compared to the spiritual darkness that was around us in the 60's and 70's and 80's. I agree that PFAL should be retired and put in a grave somewhere, because "now" it is being worshipped as being the Word of God, and it is not ! ! At the end of the 80's it also was being worshipped "as" the Word of God - and like I said already, it is not !! Follow me so far ?
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| Twosum
(9/19/00 1:47:34 pm)
| Re: Four Crucified: Allos vs. Heteros
Jerry - you said on 9 - 17 > "Of course there are other reasons for believing there were four crucified with Jesus; the difference in the sequence of events in Matthew and Luke, the use of the word "midst" and the addition of the word "one in John 19:18, but the impact of this teaching has been for me anyway, as a testimony to the "minute accuracy" of the Bible. If we take this view we fall into the Pharisaic mindset that Lilolme criticized above. We spend so much time studying the jots and tittles of the scripture that we miss the point and become blinded to the Living Word and the heart of the God who authored it."
Jerry, is that not what you are doing with this PFAL review ?
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| evanpyle
(9/19/00 2:06:33 pm)
| Re: Pharisaic nitpicking, or freeing from bondage?
I know jerry can answer for himself, but I will say that rather than nitpicking, I see many of Jerry's points leading toward understanding the underlying
truth and heart of the scripture. Read again and i'm sure you'll see it.
| Steve Lortz
(9/19/00 2:16:01 pm)
| Separating truth from error
Twosum - When the lady who witnessed PFAL to me thrust the green card at me, she showed me the back, which listed a number of benefits people claimed to have received as a result of taking the class. She asked me, "Which of these benefits would you like to receive?"
I read them over, and picked out the one that said the class would enable me to "separate truth from error". I believe that some of the principles I learned in PFAL *did* set me on the road to separating truth from error in the
field of biblical interpretation. For a long time though, I was encouraged to separate truth from error in the writings of people other than VPW, and highly discouraged from applying those same principles to the teachings of Wierwille himself.
After I disassociated myself from TWI back in 1987, a friend and I set out to do what Jerry is doing now, applying the principles of separating truth from error to PFAL itself. There isn't anything wrong with that. In fact, Paul called the Bereans more noble than the great believers in Thessalonica, because they searched the scriptures to verify the things they were being taught. Wasn't that what PFAL was supposed to equip us to do?
My friend and I got discouraged back in '87, and gave up our attempt at a systematic review of PFAL in its entirety, because of the gross errors we found at almost every turn. I applaud and highly encourage Jerry to continue his effort, and I offer him my assistance in any way that I can be of service.
Love,
Steve
|
|
