| Author |
Comment |
extwi
(10/17/00 11:24:43 pm)
Reply
|
PFAL
REVIEW: Part 3
and they're off...
Ex-Twi
|
JBarrax
(10/18/00 12:08:33 am)
Reply |
Re:
PFAL REVIEW: Part 3
In response to Steve Lortz's post which brought PFAL REVIEW:
Part 2 to a close;
QUOTE
Jerry - Thanks for your post concerning "To Whom addressed". You
brought up some aspects of the subject that I hadn't considered
before. I have some comments to add, but it may be a couple of days
before I get enough time to post them properly. It seems to me that
the chapter under examination covers several distinct topics. Did
you intend your post to cover the whole chapter, or to serve as an
introduction to examining the chapter? I vote for starting "PFAL
REVIEW Part 3".
Love,
Steve
Thanks Steve, I'm glad it blessed you. But No, I didn't intend
that to cover the entire chapter; just the first couple of pages. I
haven't gotten into the Administrations yet. Hopefully, I'll have
something to post on that in a few days. In the meantime brethren
and sistern, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say
on. :-)
Peace
Jerry
|
L
Anemone
(10/18/00 10:10:36 am)
Reply |
To Whom
It Is Addressed:
Jerry,
One last thing I want
to bring to your attention before signing off from this farce of a
site altogether.
The beginning of the Jewish Nation begins in
Genesis. And although it does not specifically say to: so and so,
it's part of the OT which consisted of the Jewish Nation.
So
to "capitalized" the fact that VPW was wrong because Genesis isn't
addressed to anyone, is an understatement which you use to magnify
your point of Dr. VPW being wrong.
I was raised a Seventh Day
Adventist...and guess what...they still live under the law because
they study from the OT, believing it is still God's Will for us to
do this. They believe in Jesus Christ, but still live out of the OT.
This is what VPW meant by saying we need to understand who the books
are addressed to.
They were written for our learning
and understanding of the scriptures to apply the godly principles
that comply with what we have in Christ and with Jesus Christ being
our main example. The EMPHASIS being made was that we must
understand to whom the books are addressed to or what and who it
concerns and so as not to err as did the 7th Day Adventist. I got
the point he made and it was so LOGICAL. So now you take what he
said and was trying to teach to help us to not err in our beliefs
according to the Grace period, and twist it around to say something
entirely different. A job well done,
Jerry.
Anemone
Edited by: L
Anemone at: 10/18/00 10:10:36 am
|
Steve
Lortz
(10/18/00 10:47:09 am)
Reply |
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written"
Jerry - I agree with your
assessment; that looking to see "to whom addressed" is a valid
principle of Biblical interpretation, but also that Wierwille
oversimplified when he restricted the possible addressees to only
three groups of people. I believe you were right in saying that the
Gentiles of Romans 15:16 and Ephesians 3:1 were not unsaved
Gentiles, but rather Christians who had come to Christ from Gentile
backgrounds. I would further submit that the Gentiles of Romans 11,
contrary to what VPW taught, also fall into the same category.
To All - By this point in our review of PFAL, we
may begin noticing that the verses VPW used to illustrate a
particular principle, when read closely, sometimes contradicted the
very principle VPW was trying to support. For instance, take the
following passage from pages 217 and 218 of the chapter "To Whom The
Word is Written":
-----
"Romans 8 says that nothing
can separate me from the love of God; and yet three chapters later,
Romans 11 says that if I don't continue in His goodness, I am going
to be cut off. What's going on? Look to see to whom each passage is
written.
"Romans 9:3
For I could wish that myself were
accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the
flesh.
"Who were Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh? Verse
4 says, 'Who are Israelites....' To whom is it addressed? Verse 4
says to the Israelites, the Judeans. Paul continued talking to
Israel. Paul wrote in chapter 10 verse 1, 'Brethren, my heart's
desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.'
This is still addressed to Israel. In chapter 11, verse 1, he says,
'I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also
am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.'
Paul was still writing to Israel. But in verse 13 Paul changed to
the Gentiles in his speech."
-----
On the surface,
Wierwille intended this section quoted to teach us how to "look to
see to whom each passage is written". But is that what he *really*
taught? Let's look below the surface:
-----
"Who were
Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh? Verse 4 says, 'Who are
Israelites....' To whom is it addressed? Verse 4 says to the
Israelites, the Judeans."
-----
Is that what verse 4
actually says?
-----
Romans 9:4 "Who are Israelites;
to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants,
and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the
promises;"
-----
This verse says that the adoption,
the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God
and the promises pertain to the Israelites. It does *not* say that
this specific section of scripture is written to the Jews. In fact,
Paul referred in Romans 9:24 to himself and his readers (the
Christian congregation at Rome) as "even us, whom he hath called,
not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles..."
VPW wrote
on...
-----
"Paul wrote in chapter 10 verse 1,
'Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that
they might be saved.' This is still addressed to
Israel."
-----
Apart from its use of the word
"brethren", Romans 10:1 doesn't say anything at all about who this
section of scripture is addressed *to*. It tells of Paul's heart's
desire and prayer *for* Israel. On PFAL page 212, only five short
pages before the quote we're looking at here, VPW wrote "These two
prepositions, *for* and *to*, make the critical difference between
truth and error when it comes to rightly dividing the Word of God."
Did VPW forget his own teaching so quickly? Or is there some other
dynamic operating?
The word "brethren" occurs 14 times in
Romans. In every one of these uses, except that of Romans 9:3, the
word clearly refers to Christians. In Romans 9:3, Paul attached the
qualifying phrase "my kinsmen according to the flesh" to the word
"brethren" to make it clear that, in that specific case, he *wasn't*
referring to Christians. The use of "brethren" in Romans 10:1
indicated that Paul was writing to Christians at that point, not to
Jews.
Besides that, in Romans 10:1 and the next few verses
following, Paul referred to the Israelites as "they" rather than
"you". Grammatically, he could *not* be writing *to* Israel here.
The very next place where Paul reverts to the second person is the
passage that contains Romans 10:9&10. According to the
interpretation Wierwille set forth at this place in PFAL, Romans
10:9&10 were addressed to the Jews *only*!?!
VPW wrote
on,
-----
"In chapter 11, verse 1, he [Paul] says, 'I
say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am
an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Paul
was still writing to Israel."
-----
Hold up there, VP!
Paul didn't say in Romans 11:1 that he was still writing to Israel.
He said that he himself *is*, present tense at the time he wrote, an
Israelite! Wait a minute... according to what VPW wrote on page 208
of PFAL, doesn't Galatians 3:28 say that once you're born again, you
can't be either Jew or Gentile? Apparently Paul would not have
agreed with Wierwille's interpretation.
VPW completed his
paragraph,
-----
"But in verse 13 Paul changed to the
Gentiles in his speech."
-----
Who were the Gentiles
Paul addressed in Romans 11:13? Were they full-leaded Gentiles? or
were they Christians who had come to Christ from Gentile
backgrounds?
In verse 20, Paul wrote that these Gentiles
"stand by faith". Who stands by faith, Christians or unbelievers? In
verse 25 Paul called these Gentiles "brethren". Paul almost always
used this term regarding fellow Christians, and when he referred to
someone else, as he did in Romans 9:3, he attached modifiers to make
his meaning clear. There are no modifiers here in 11:25.
In
verse 30 Paul indicated that these Gentiles had not in times past
believed God, yet "now" have obtained mercy. Were the people Paul
addressed in Romans 11:13 rank, unbelieving Gentiles, or members of
the Christian congregation at Rome who had come to Christ from
Gentile backgrounds? I think the scriptural answer is
obvious.
When we look below the surface in this instance, we
see that Wierwille was teaching one thing on the explicit level of
his statements of principle, and quite another thing on the implicit
level of his examples. On the express level, VPW was teaching us the
principles of "exegesis", or of reading the meanings *out from*
what's actually written. On the implied level, VPW was practicing
"eisegesis", or reading preconceived foreign meanings *into* the
text.
Wierwille taught some wonderful truths in PFAL. He also
taught some terrible errors concerning the message of the gospel and
the nature of the Church. One way to tell the difference is to look
closely at the scriptural examples VPW used to support his points.
If, in a particular case, VPW's express teaching lined up with
what's actually written in the examples he drew, then his teaching
was likely to have been true. If, on the other hand, the scriptures
he cited say something different from his express teaching, then VPW
was trying to read preconceived foreign meanings into the text, a
powerful indication of error.
I don't have time to post much
more right now. Wierwille larded this chapter, "To Whom The Word is
Written", with cases where he tried to read meanings into the
scripture. See how many more *you* can find! I'll be back
soon.
Love,
Steve
|
JBarrax
(10/18/00 5:53:32 pm)
Reply |
ToWhom
Anemone:
You said
The beginning of the Jewish Nation begins in Genesis. And although
it does not specifically say to: so and so, it's part of the OT
which consisted of the Jewish Nation.
So you're saying that because Genesis deals mainly with
Israel, all of it is written to Israel. Re-read your PFAL
book. VP tells us Romans is addressed to the Church, but parts of
chapter 11 are addressed to the Gentiles. So if part of Romans can
be addressed to different people, based on specific content of its
passages, why do you object to my statement that Genesis isn't
addressed entirely to Israel?
You said:
"This is what VPW meant by saying we need to understand who the
books are addressed to."
Quite right. As I said in my post, the basic premise is good,
but, as he presented it, it's still flawed. All I'm saying is we
need to understand this principle more accurately. Is it a
sin to improve on something Victor Paul Wierwille taught?
You said:
...A job well done, Jerry.
Gee thanks!
Peace
Jerry
We're
not to be held spellbound by the fleeting shadows of a few great
names
|
evanpyle
(10/18/00 6:01:07 pm)
Reply |
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written"
To greatly simplify the matter of
'to whom', Romans is addressed, quite simply, to the Church at Rome.
All of it is. Romans 1:1. That is true throughout. And by extension,
to all Christians, by virtue of the 'circular' dissemination of
Paul's letters to the churches.
The problem is, these
sections in Romans cause difficulties for some of VP's prime
doctrines. It steps all over the free-will free-choice,
man-oriented, God-moved-in-Christ-now-it's-your-move,
I'm-where-I-am-because-of-my-believing, paradigm Wierwille espoused
and instead espouses a concept that the mind of the flesh fights
furiously: God's sovereignty and the fear of the Lord.
How to
get out of it? Draw the 'to whom' card. And while you're at it, try
that on Romans 9. Go ahead, try and make it fit Way
doctrine....
|
chastened
(10/18/00 7:52:53 pm)
Reply |
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written"
Well said, Evan and
Jerry,
The epistle to the Church in Rome is just that, a
letter to the church at Rome. The whole letter, all of it. A lot of
learning and instruction in that letter!!
Also , in
Revelation, the seven churches are churches that adhere to( or
warned to return to) the gospel of Jesus Christ, early Christian
churches. So you cannot dismiss what is being said, you must
consider what is said, and adjust your own thinking , if
necessary.
chastened
|
JBarrax
(10/19/00 12:16:54 am)
Reply |
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written"
WOW!
Steve, what a post! The implications of what you've brought up
here are staggering. First, let me say that, after a quick review of
Romans 9-11, it seems you are correct. There is no section there
addressed TO Israel, although Paul did write extensively ABOUT
Israel. The consistent use of third person pronouns (them, they)
indicates that Paul is not addressing the Jews.
He clearly does address the Gentiles in Romans 11:13, but the
$64,000 question is "What Gentiles; those in the Church or those who
are unsaved?" The majority of the context indicates that it is
addressed to born again Christians of Gentile background.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild
olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them
partakest of the root and fatness of the olive
tree;
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken
off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of
unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be
not highminded, but fear:
25 For I would not,
brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye
should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is
happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
It seems apparent that the Gentiles addressed are those IN the
Church, not outside it. This presents an enormous theological
challenge. Namely how to interpret verses 21 and 22.
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also
spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and
severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee,
goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also
shalt be cut off.
To interpret this as it is written means to accept the
possibility that our salvation is conditional. I Peter 1:23 comes
immediately to mind, as well as the familiar argument based on
Ephesians 2:5. If we're saved by grace, how can we become unsaved by
works?
However, there are other verses in the New Testament epistles
that indicate something other than a place before the "reward stand
of Christ" as the destination of born again believers.
My personal journey away from the doctrines of PFAL started a few
years ago with a reading of II Peter chapter two and the realization
that it's not talking about those born of the seed of the serpent,
as LCM taught, but about leaders in the Church. Having just reviewed
it again, Considering this new perspective of Romans 11, I think it
may be talking specifically about wayward leaders in the Church of
Gentile background. Note especially the last few verses.
20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world
[could this be said of former Jews?] through the knowledge of
the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein,
and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the
beginning. [What could be worse than being dead in
sin]
21 For it had been better for them not to
have known the way of righteousness, [again, could this be
said of a former Jew? Wouldn't he have been raised knowing the way
of righteousness?] than, after they have known it, to turn from
the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 But it is
happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is
turned to his own vomit again; [Gentiles were called "dogs" in
Israel. Even Jesus Christ used this epithet once] and the sow
that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
There are many other verses in this chapter that indicate a
horrendous future for such wicked men. It says they shall utterly
perish in their own corruption, that sudden destruction awaits them
and, at best, the mist of darkness forever is their fate. Perhaps
this is what Romans 11:12 & 22 are referring to. Certainly
doesn't sound like the "rewards stand" we were all taught about in
TWI does it? The doctrine that there will be no judgment for the
Church is a fairy tale cut form the same mindset as "the magic of
believing."
Romans 11:20 says to be not highminded. One of the
sins listed in II Peter chapter two is that these false prophets are
presumptuous and self-willed, not afraid to speak evil of
dignitaries. These could be some of the highminded Gentiles to whom
the warning in Romans was originally written.
Well, this is certainly radical stuff and I'm not sure quite what
to make of it, but it bears deep consideration.
Grace
and Peace
Jerry
Edited by: JBarrax
at: 10/19/00 12:16:54 am |
Steve
Lortz
(10/19/00 11:10:12 am)
Reply |
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written"
Jerry - Yes, indeed, it *is* radical
stuff! And it does bear *very* deep consideration!
We've
gotten to a point in our review of PFAL where the most important
things we have to reconsider are the things we've taken for granted.
In this chapter, "To Whom The Word is Written", VPW states many
things as truth without giving any kind of scriptural references.
For the longest time, I never questioned those statements. They
seemed so obviously true, the thought that they didn't *have* any
scriptural backing never crossed my mind. We need to take real close
looks at *everything* in this chapter.
I'll post some more a
little later in the day.
God bless you, Jerry, in the name of
Jesus Christ!
Love,
steve
|
Sunesis
(10/19/00 11:34:00 am)
Reply |
PFAL
I was thinking about what you said
in Romans Jerry. Neat stuff. I have some thoughts.
First, the
olive tree is an analogy Paul is using. Note, God did not break the
jews off, they were broken off by their unbelief. Paul is now
saying, but you gentiles are now born again, so, don't get wise in
your conceits (thinking you're the only ones with an "exclusive"
connection to God like the Jews did), lest you become blind and
deceived in your conceits like the Jews did. I think all of us who
were in TWI can see the results of this type of thinking, and
excluding others who don't "believe like we do."!
It was
unbelief that cut off the Jews.
But, note, as a dog goes back
to his vomit, to leave Christ and our relationship with him and to
go back to the ways of the world, whatever they may be in each
individual case, can have dire consequences. But, nowhere did I
notice that it says if this happens, you will lose your spirit. When
you cut yourself off from God you are miserable.
As for the
wicked men of perdition, I have to wonder if they were ever really
"born again." Religion, even Christianity, makes one feel righteous
and gives one a righteous cause. For example, a Muslim, who though
is not born again, is one of the most righteous, religious people
you will ever meet.
I'd have to reread the context of these
wicked men of perdition who are leading believers away from the
truth.
I still do believe, once we are born again, as God
says in Ephesians (or was it in Romans? Excuse me if I'm wrong,
where Paul talks about nothing being able to separate us from the
love of Christ), even the things of the world cannot separate us
from his love. We may separate ourselves from him, but he still
loves us and does not take back, or repent of choosing us to be his
child.
|
Steve
Lortz
(10/19/00 1:29:53 pm)
Reply |
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written"
To all - I'm a little bit frustrated
right now. We've reached this wonderful spot in our discussion, and
it looks like I may not be able to post again for a few days. I want
to make a couple of points before going off line.
Regarding
the truth that the Gentiles of Romans 11 are Christians from Gentile
backgrounds. There are *two* aspects about this truth that
profoundly effect the theology we learned from PFAL. One aspect
involves the conditionality implied by Romans 11:22. Conversation on
this thread has already gone in that direction. A word of advise.
Don't try to interpret Romans 11:22 outside of its immediate
context, Romans 11:19-23. And be careful to adhere to the language
Paul actually uses. It's real easy to spin off into arguments that
are pointless because they are based on extra-biblical terminology
and concepts.
The second aspect is this: throughout his
teaching, Wierwille assumed that the Christian Church was a new
thing, founded on the day of Pentecost, with no connections to the
so-called "church of Israel" or "the church of the gospels". Pay
careful attention to Romans 11:17&18,
-----
17
"And if some [*some*!, *some*!!, *some*!!!] of the branches
[unbelieving Israel] be broken off, and thou [Christians from
Gentile backgrounds], being a wild olive tree, were graffed in among
them [among the natural branches that remain, the believing remnant
of Israel], and with them [the believing remnant of Israel]
partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree [God's promises
of salvation *to* Israel];
18 "Boast not against the
branches. But if thou boast, thou [Christians from Gentile
backgrounds] bearest not the root [God's promises of salvation *to*
Israel], but the root thee."
-----
I think Paul would
have defined the church as the believing remnant of Israel, under
the new covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, with believing
Gentiles grafted in on the same basis as believing Israel, by grace
through faith.
Does that definition eliminate Christ? No. It
puts him back in as the mediator of the new covenant, as well as the
head of his body. Does that definition eliminate grace? No, it takes
into account the true source of the grace we've received, the new
covenant originally promised only to Israel, but now extended to
*all who believe*!
I have to go... reluctantly. I wonder
where this conversation will have gone to by the time I get
back.
I love you all,
Steve
|
JBarrax
(10/19/00 8:52:27 pm)
Reply |
Re:
Thou Also shalt be cut off
Hi Sunesis
I'd just like to
clarify a bit. I don't think we can interpret Romans 11:21 & 22
as Believers losing holy spirit. I think it's a matter of judgment.
There's more to consider on this topic, but I don't want to veer off
on a tangent, so I'll try to post a more detailed response on the
sidebars thread.
Peace
Jerry
|
Sunesis
(10/20/00 9:50:42 am)
Reply |
PFAL
Jerry, sorry, I thought that's kind
of where it was heading so I was just throwing in my .02
cents.
|
L
Anemone
(10/20/00 11:01:14 am)
Reply |
Re:
Thou Also shalt be cut off
Jerry,
Romans
11:21-22:
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed
lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness
and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee,
goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also
shalt be cut off.
"To interpret this as it is written means
to accept the possibility that our salvation is
conditional."
Whoa!...you never cease to amaze me Jerry. I
have to shake my head. First Enoch vs. All Die in Adam, then Souls
vs "And the dead in Christ shall rise."...and now this. Salvation is
conditional vs INCORRUPTIBLE seed (I Peter 1:23).
Paul was
telling the Gentiles not to be puffed up because the branches
(Israel) were cut off and now they (Gentiles) are in their place.
Israel was cut off because of unbelief. The Gentiles were engrafted
because of faith...they believed. However, this did not make them
better than the Jews and they are not to be highminded or haughty.
It was because of Israel in the first place that the Gentiles could
even be engrafted. God spared not the natural branches because of
their unbelief, they were cut off or cut out from the blessings and
benefits at that time because they stumbled; however, they will be
engrafted at a later time.
They were not cut off from
salvation or eternal life for the covenant still remains between God
and Israel. Paul told the Gentiles that in verse 22 to consider
therefore the goodness (kindness, graciousness, grace) of God and
the severity (cutting off). On those who fell; severity (they were
cut off from the goodness, graciousness and blessings of God
concerning Jesus Christ] but on you, goodness, if you continue in
his goodness; otherwise you also will be cut off. Cut off from
what?...not from eternal life. If they believed and were born again
and received eternal life, God would not take that away...it's
seed...eternal life seed. In order for them to continue or abide in
His goodness, they had to first be born again. The only thing they
could be cut off from if they did not continue to have faith and
abide in His goodness would be the blessings and benefits that came
with the New Birth. This is what Israel was cut off from at that
time...but their time has yet to come. The Gentiles had to continue
to stand and believe in order to receive the blessings, promises and
goodness of God into fruition, which were first awarded to Israel.
Bottom line, they all had to believe...Jew and Gentile.
"To
interpret this as it is written means to accept the possibility that
our salvation is conditional". I Peter 1:23 comes immediately to
mind, as well as the familiar argument based on Ephesians 2:5. If
we're saved by grace, how can we become unsaved by works?"
JERRY, I would be careful not to mislead others or even to
"hint" that there's a possibility that our salvation or the new
birth, or being born again of God's spirit is "CONDITIONAL"! This is
a grave statement to make. It cost God His only begotten Son, Jesus
Christ...that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have
everlasting life.
To say that one can forfeit their salvation
is to say that Jesus Christ died in vain and that they are saved by
their own merit and not on what was freely given to them. Isn't this
why Jesus Christ is both Lord and Savior.? It's by God's grace and
by Jesus Christ fulling God's redemptive that we alone are saved.
Why should it change in Romans, where our justification,
righteousness is the crux of Romans?
I really don't see how
you assume Romans 11:21-22 has any connection with II Peter 2. It
makes no mention of false prophets.
"There are many other
verses in this chapter that indicate a horrendous future for such
wicked men. It says they shall utterly perish in their own
corruption, that sudden destruction awaits them and, at best, the
mist of darkness forever is their fate. Perhaps this is what Romans
11:12 & 22 are referring to. Certainly doesn't sound like the
"rewards stand" we were all taught about in TWI does it? The
doctrine that there will be no judgment for the Church is a fairy
tale cut form the same mindset as "the magic of believing."
According to the Greek text, utterly is rendered "even."
Verse 12 of II Peter 2"...and shall even perish in their "own"
corruption. Also, according to the Greek text in verse 17, "mist of
darkness forever"...."forever" is omitted.
This chapter is
very baffling. The description given to the false teacher contain
very strong and powerful adjectives. I can't imagine such a one even
being born again! How can anyone accept Jesus Christ as their Lord
and Saviour, get born again, taste of the goodness of God, come to
experientially know the spiritual truths of the Word and be as a
brute, animal? So, if its talking in the context of his being born
again, then there is no eternal damnation,...What a miserable way to
live...don't understand it.. Something doesn't click here...need to
study up on it more. As far as judgment, we already have been tried
and judged and declared not guilty...justified...righteous. I don't
claim to understand it all, but I can negate these truths either.
Magic of believing???...What class did you sit
in?
"Romans 11:20 says to be not highminded. One of the sins
listed in II Peter chapter two is that these false prophets are
presumptuous and self-willed, not afraid to speak evil of
dignitaries. These could be some of the highminded Gentiles to whom
the warning in Romans was originally written."
Jerry, I
hardly think you can compare the sins listed in II Peter with Romans
11:20 at all.
I came across this which I found to be
interesting in light of what you shared in your last
posting.
A word of clarification needs to be said at this
point, due to some rather popular misconceptions concerning the
fleshly indulgence of these false teachers. It is often thought and
said that the evils described by Peter are “Gentile paganism.” The
assumption is that Jews would not do the things described here but
that Gentiles would.
One would be hard pressed to prove this
point from the Old Testament or the New. Old Testament patriarchs
like Judah were guilty of immorality, a kind which seemed to even
shock the pagans (Genesis 38:20-23). The Israelites frequently fell
into practicing sins of the flesh. They quickly fell into sin after
the exodus (see Exodus 32:1-6). Balaam was instrumental in the
downfall of many Israelites. It would seem that he knew all too well
their vulnerability to sexual seduction and immorality (see Numbers
25:1-3). Adultery and immorality was practiced not only by the
Israelites but by their prophets as well (Jeremiah 23:10-14). One
can safely say from the Old Testament record that there were
virtually no Gentile sins which were not also, at some point in
time, practiced by the Jews. No wonder the people of God are
sometimes referred to as Sodom and Gomorrah (see Isaiah 1:9-10;
3:8-9; Lamentations 4:6; Ezekiel 16:44-59; Amos 4:11).
The
Jews may have thought themselves to be above fleshly indulgence, but
Jesus did not allow them to think this way for long:
27 “You
have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28 but
I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has
committed adultery with her already in his heart...Matthew
25:27-28.
If the Jewish religious leaders thought Jesus was
speaking of someone other than them, Jesus made Himself crystal
clear on this point:
25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish,
but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 You
blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish,
so that the outside of it may become clean also. 27 Woe to you,
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed
tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are
full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you too
outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of
hypocrisy and lawlessness"...Matthew 23:25-28.
14 Now the
Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these
things, and they were scoffing at Him. 15 And He said to them, “You
are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows
your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is
detestable in the sight of God (Luke 16:14-15).
When Paul
surveyed the history of the Israelites, he made it very clear they
were habitually guilty of fleshly sins:
1 For I do not want
you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the
cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into
Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual
food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were
drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was
Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased;
for they were laid low in the wilderness. 6 Now these things
happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things,
as they also craved. 7 And do not be idolaters, as some of them
were; as it is written, “THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND
STOOD UP TO PLAY.” 8 Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did,
and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9 Nor let us try the
Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10
Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the
destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and
they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the
ages have come (1 Corinthians 10:1-11).
Paul’s epistles give
us further indication that fleshly indulgence is not merely a
temptation promoted by Gentiles or to which Gentiles are more
susceptible. A number of the warnings in Paul’s epistles concerning
false teachers are clearly directed toward Jewish false
teachers:
3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia,
remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not
to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and
endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than
[furthering] the administration of God which is by faith. 5 But the
goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good
conscience and a sincere faith. 6 For some men, straying from these
things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be
teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what
they are saying or the matters about which they make confident
assertions (1 Timothy 1:3-7).
10 For there are many
rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the
circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting
whole families, teaching things they should not [teach], for the
sake of sordid gain. 12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own,
said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13
This testimony is true. For this cause reprove them severely that
they may be sound in the faith, 14 not paying attention to Jewish
myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth (Titus
1:10-14).
There are hints in both 1 and 2 Peter that the
false teaching of which Peter writes has at least a Jewish
component. In 1 and 2 Peter, there is mention of Old Testament
prophets and their prophecies (1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:16-21)
with whom he expects his readers to be familiar. There are numerous
references to Old Testament texts of Scripture in 1 and 2 Peter.
Especially significant are Peter’s citations from the Old Testament
in 1 Peter 2:4-10. Here, Peter applies to New Testament saints (many
of whom are Gentiles) Old Testament statements concerning Israel. In
both of his epistles, Peter refers to Old Testament events (such as
the flood—1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:4-5) with which he assumes his
readers are familiar.
In the third chapter of his second
epistle, Peter’s warnings concerning false teachers seem to have a
Jewish flavor:
3 Know this first of all, that in the last
days mockers will come with [their] mocking, following after their
own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For
[ever] since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was
from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:3-4).
The
expressions “the fathers fell asleep” (verse 4) and “the beginning
of creation” (verse 4) have a distinctly Jewish (or at least Old
Testament) ring to them. Why would we assume that some of the false
teaching would not come from the lips of Jewish false teachers when
other New Testament texts clearly warn Gentile churches of this
danger?
If we think the asceticism of some Jewish false
teachers was an antidote to fleshly indulgence, we are wrong. Often
such self-empowered, self-denial served to inflame fleshly passions
rather than subdue them:
20 If you have died with Christ to
the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living
in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not
handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all [refer to] things
destined to perish with the using)—in accordance with the
commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have,
to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and
self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, [but are] of no
value against fleshly indulgence (Colossians 2:20-23; see also 1
Corinthians 7:5).
The Jews of Old Testament times were often
guilty of the very sins Peter condemns in our text. The Judaisers of
the New Testament were often promoters of fleshly indulgence. How
then do we dare suggest the sins of which Peter warns us are sins of
Gentile paganism, sins which are “typically Gentile,” and not
typically Jewish? The error of which Peter speaks is neither
“Gentile” nor “Jewish.” The error is one which is “common to man,”
regardless of race or culture. Fleshly indulgence may take various
forms, but it knows no racial boundaries. It is for this reason that
Paul can seemingly condemn the sins of Gentile heathen (Romans
1:18-32), only to turn to the Jews and blame them for the same
offenses (Romans 2:1-29).
Anemone
|
extwi
(10/20/00 11:19:31 am)
Reply
|
10
hours to talk me into staying
Quote:
One last thing I want to bring to your attention before signing
off from this farce of a site altogether.
Hi Anemone,
Glad
to see you're staying at our "farce of a site!"
Enjoy it, you're most welcome here!
Ex-Twi
Edited by: extwi
at:
10/20/00 11:19:31 am
|
L
Anemone
(10/20/00 3:18:49 pm)
Reply |
Re: 10
hours to talk me into staying
To extwi
Needed to stick
around a bit longer...
I didn't leave yet because of
unfinished business, but I assure you I'm quite done with likes of
this place. It's about all my stomach can handle.
JERRY...you
said: "We're not to be held spellbound by the fleeting shadows of a
few great names"
Spellbound = held by or as if by a "spell"
I guess you are one of a few great names. You are leading
God's people into false doctrine in many areas and I pray they don't
all get "taken in" by you as some I see already have.
Dr.
Wierwille had more love, heart, brains, knowledge, spiritual
awareness, depth and perception concerning God's Word in his little
pinky than you and extwi have in your entire bodies put
together...
Praying for all of you.
Anemone
|
evanpyle
(10/20/00 7:51:36 pm)
Reply |
Re:
Your previous post
Anemone...that was some excellent
work that went into your previous post.
Perhaps Jerry was
referring to Wierwille's old Study in Abundant Living chapter
entitled "The Magic of Believing". I used to have it myself...until
I consigned it to the Gehenna.
When you say you don't
understand it all I think we suddenly have a basis for constructive
discussion of these topics. Perhaps you could consider moderating
your tone toward Jerry and the rest of us 'blasphemers'. Your
excellent points will stand a better chance of
consideration.
As you, I firmly believe in unconditional
grace: Salvation by grace through faith,...and the daily Christian
walk by grace as well. Have you ever considered the full
implications of grace? That we were unable to receive Christ until
God made us able. That salvation must be preceded by divine
election. That predestination cannot be explained away as merely
being God's foreknowledge...
Things to consider. In these
things are the basis for understanding the very thorny passages of
Rom 8, Rom 9 following v10 (!), chp 11, etc.
|
Orange
Cat
(10/20/00 8:07:38 pm)
Reply
|
Say
what?
L Anemone
"Dr. Wierwille had
more love, heart, brains, knowledge, spiritual awareness, depth and
perception concerning God's Word in his little pinky than you and
extwi have in your entire bodies put together..."
Which
little pinky was that?
These are your Corps sister's
talking....
http://pub7.ezboard.com/fgreasespotsfrm24.showMessage?topicID=8.topic
Orange Cat
|
JBarrax
(10/21/00 4:23:17 am)
Reply |
Re: Say
what?
Well, I just spent an hour
constructing a response to Anemone, only to have it vanish with an
errant keystroke. It's now 2:34 am, so I 'll try again
tomorrow.
Oh, there it is! It didn't vanish, it just got
buried under a can of instant spam. So on we go...
jerry
Edited by: JBarrax
at: 10/21/00 4:23:17 am
|
JBarrax
(10/21/00 4:21:56 am)
Reply |
Re:
Response to Anemone
Hi Anemone
Quite a post there. Let me respond point by
point if I may; You said:
"To interpret this as it is
written means to accept the possibility that our salvation
is
conditional."
Whoa!...you never cease to amaze me Jerry. I
have to shake my head. First Enoch vs. All Die in Adam, then Souls
vs "And the dead in Christ shall rise."...and now this. Salvation is
conditional vs INCORRUPTIBLE seed (I Peter 1:23).
I thought I'd clarified this in my previous post, but perhaps we
missed each other cross-posting. I do not believe we can lose
holy spirit because it is incorruptible seed, as I Peter 1:23 says.
That's what I meant when I said, "I Peter 1:23 comes immediately to
mind." I was acknowledging that to be "cut off" appears to support
conditional salvation, but that this contradicts I Peter
1:23. I was, in effect, "thinking out loud" as I wrote. Perhaps I
should have been more careful. Thanks for pointing that out.
However, I stand behind the posts about Enoch. "As in Adam all
die" cannot mean Enoch had to die, because, as I mentioned earlier,
if Christ returns today, you and I won't die either. So "all" there
doesn't mean all without exception, it means all with a distinction.
All who haven't been granted immortality die. Enoch was granted the
only kind of immortality available then. God translated him forward
to the third heaven and earth.
I agree mostly with what you
said about Israel having been cut off because of unbelief. You
said;
"...Paul was telling the Gentiles not to be puffed
up because the branches (Israel) were cut off..."
However we must also acknowledge, as Steve pointed out,
it doesn't say "the natural branches were cut off." Verse 17 says
some of the branches were cut off. Remember that for the
first 10 years of the outreach of the First Century Church, all of
those saved were of Israel; multitudes of them. So not all of Israel
fell due to unbelief. They made the transition from the Old Covenant
to the New by faith in Christ. When the remainder of the nation of
Israel rejected Christ, they were cut off and we wild & wooly
Gentiles were grafted in.
Speaking of the covenant, you said;
"...They were
not cut off from salvation or eternal life for the covenant still
remains between God and Israel...."
The covenant you're
referring to is the old covenant, which has been replaced. Hebrews
8:6-11 declare that the old Covenant was replaced by Jesus Christ
who brought the New Covenant, the better covenant which supercedes
the old, and is described as "that which decayeth and waxeth
old...is ready to vanish away"
Regarding being "cut off" you said;
"...The only thing
they could be cut off from if they did not continue to have faith
and abide in His goodness would be the blessings and benefits that
came with the New Birth."
This is where we disagree.
And this goes back to what we were taught in TWI about born again
Christians not being judged at the bema for anything but
rewards. I don't believe the Scripture supports that teaching. As I
posted above, II Peter chapter two speaks about harsh judgment for
ministers who lead God's people astray and become a stumblingblock.
Of this chapter, you said:
"According to the Greek
text, utterly is rendered "even." Verse 12 of II Peter 2"...and
shall even perish in their "own" corruption."
You have
emphasized the adverb and ignored the verb. Whether they will
'utterly perish' or 'even perish,' they shall still perish.
This is a word that bears study and consideration; especially since
it seems to be the opposite of everlasting life. The possibility of
a born again Christian perishing is a serious thing and should not
be overlooked. So we must understand what it means for a Christian
to "perish". I say this because there is a figure of speech in this
verse that places the emphasis on the perishing, or "destruction" of
these people.
But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed
[phthora], speak evil of the things that they understand not;
and shall utterly perish [katphtheiro] in their own
corruption [phthora];
The word phthora is used twice along with a
derivative, katphtheiro. This figure (paregmenon, I
believe) should be translated "But these, as natural brute beasts,
made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things they
understand not; and shall be utterly destroyed in their own
destruction.
"Perish", "corruption", and "destruction" are
all legitimate English translations of this word, although it is
usally translated "corruption". Corruption is associated with the
contamination of sin (Romans 8:21) and death & decay (I Cor.
15:42 & 50). Whether we think of it as destruction, perishing,
or corruption, the phrase "shall utterly perish in their own
corruption/destruction" is not the happy reunion at the bema
TWI lead us to expect. By the way, Berry's interlinear also
translates katphtheiro "shall utterly perish". About verse
17, you said;
"Also, according to the Greek text in
verse 17, "mist of darkness forever"...."forever" is omitted.
"
I disagree. According to Berry's interlinear, only
the word "forever", translated from the Greek eis aion is
omitted; [in four Greek texts]. The phrase "mist of darkness" is in
the Greek. So the verse says "These are wells without water, clouds
that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is
reserved." Perhaps this tells us what it means for a Christian to
"perish" or be "destroyed". The mist of darkness is not a joyous
place to spend eternity. Such a person would have incorruptible seed
and eternal life, but be banished to spend it separated from the
light and presence of God and Christ. This is also indicated in the
context by the reference in verse 4 to a similar fate that befell
some angels.
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to
hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved
unto judgment;
The angels are reserved in chains of darkness. Sounds
a lot like "to whom the mist of darkness is reserved" doesn't it?
And the reference to angels only underscores the interpretation of
this chapter as being written of Christian ministers, not
unbelievers, about which you said;
"This chapter is
very baffling. The description given to the false teacher contain
very strong and powerful adjectives. I can't imagine such a one even
being born again! How can anyone accept Jesus Christ as their Lord
and Saviour, get born again, taste of the goodness of God, come to
experientially know the spiritual truths of the Word and be as a
brute, animal?
Strong adjectives indeed. And there are
some difficult and challenging verses here. But as for how anyone
who has received such grace and knowlege of the Lord Jesus Christ
becoming as a brute beast, have you not heard of the lawsuit now
pending against L Craig Martindale and the allegations of sexual
abuse? I think most Christians would agree that for a minister to
sexually abuse his followers constitutes behavior as a natural
brute beast. Or do you, as I did when I first arrived at WayDale,
dismiss all of these allegations as malicious rumors? And, to be
fair, LCM is not the first minister to fall to such depths of
depravity. Nor, I'm afraid, will he be the last. And God's Word is
clear that the Lord does not tolerate such behavior.
I Thess. 4:6
That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter:
because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have
forewarned you and testified.
Forgive me for being painfully redundant, but about
judgment, you said;
"Something doesn't click
here...need to study up on it more. As far as judgment, we already
have been tried and judged and declared not
guilty...justified...righteous. I don't claim to understand it all,
but I can negate these truths either.
Wise words L
Anemone. I submit that the reason it doesn't click is that we have
been taught error regarding judgment. Yes, we are righteous, but
that doesn't give us a license to abuse our brethren and disgrace
the gospel. Those who do will have to face the consequences. Another
verse that needs to be reconsidered in this light is I Corinthians
3:17, which, in the context of rewards for ministers says;
15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he
himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
16 Know ye not
that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth
in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall
God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
I say "rewards for ministers" because the context is
building upon the foundation that Paul the wise masterbuilder had
already lain. Verse 17 speaks of ministers whose work tears down
rather than edifies the Church. Please note that it does not say his
works shall be destroyed, but him shall God destroy. The word
"defile" btw, is the same word translated "destroy" so here again we
have a figure of speech emphasizing the fact that God will judge
those who corrupt or destroy the Church. But verse 15 says, he
himself shall be saved. So how can a man be both saved and
destroyed? By being banished to the mist of darkness. I think these
are the people who are referred to in Revelation 22:15. Pleeeease
keep in mind that this verse occurs AFTER the Great White throne
judgment, the second death, and the beginning of the new heaven and
the new earth (Rev 20:11-21:4).
For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and
murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
So after all of the "unbelievers" are judged and cast
into the lake of fire and after the dissolution of this heaven and
earth and after the descent of the heavenly Jerusalem, we come
across this reference to those who are outside the city; dogs and
sorcerers etc. I believe this is the final fate of those to whom the
mist of darkness is reserved. Those who destroy the temple of God
and are themselves destroyed; those who, "after they have escaped
the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and
overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."
And yes, as EVan said, Dr. Wierwille did speak of "the
magic of believing". He said it not only in his collateral article,
but in PFAL as well; in the same class you sat in I presume.
And, regarding the Gentiles, you said;
"It
is often thought and said that the evils described by Peter are
“Gentile paganism.” The assumption is that Jews would not do the
things described here but that Gentiles would."
The
phrase "Gentile paganism" is appropriate in II Peter and is not
based upon an assumption about the righteousness of Jews, but upon
the context of Peter's epistle. It is clearly written to Gentiles;
that is, to those in the Church of Gentile background. [Yes, I know
Galatians 2:9 says Peter and James agreed to go to the circumcision
and Paul to the uncircumcision, but Peter was the one who first
witnessed to the Gentiles, and the context of his epistles indicate
that, perhaps after Paul's death or because of his imprisonment, he
took up where he had left off.] Consider the following verses
please.
I Peter 1:8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye
see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full
of glory: [The Jews had seen Jesus in the flesh. The Gentiles had
not.]
14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves
according to the former lusts in your ignorance: [This can't be said
to the Jews. Unto them were committed the oracles of God-Rom
3:2]
18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with
corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation
received by tradition from your fathers; [This verse obviously
refers to the traditions of a pagan idolatrous culture. The silver
and gold refers to idols. This is the vain conversation Peter spoke
of.]
Verses 9-12, btw, refer to the prophecies in the Old
Testament about the grace of God to the Gentiles, which Paul also
cites in Romans chapter 15. So the "Gentile paganism" in II Peter
chapter 2 is not an assumption based on the virtue of Israel but on
the context of I Peter. The Judaeans may have been corrupt too, but
that has no bearing on this particular chapter of the Bible and
therefore, on this particular discussion. II Peter 2 warns of the
consequences to false prophets and false teachers who happen to be
Gentiles. Paul's admonition to the Gentiles in Romans 11:21 & 22
to be not highminded is a precursor of the same. Peter's prophecy
speaks of presumptuous men who speak evil of dignities. They may
have been much worse than highminded, but they were defiinitely
highminded; I may start with petty larceny and go on to murder, but
being a murderer doesn't mean I can no longer be called a thief.
Just because the false prophets and false teachers went further down
doesn't mean they can't be called highminded. In fact, a good case
can be made that being proud, presumptuous and highminded, is the
root of the more heinous sins people commit.
Would Craig
Martindale be the disgraced former President of the Way
International, banned from a place he used to run, facing trial for
sexual abuse if he had been humble? I don't think so. Just as in
Romans 1:21-29, men descended from vanity to being reprobate and
worthy of death, some of the Gentiles who failed to heed Paul's
warning against being highminded may have ended up as the
fulfillment
of Peter's prophecy about becoming as "natural brute beasts made to
be taken and destroyed."
On the light side; I don't think this is a fate that awaits every
"Gentile" who doesn't consider himself lower than his brethren of
Judaean descent. I think in order to be "cut off" one has to do a
he!! of a lot of damage in the Church. To whom much is given much is
required.
Grace and Peace
Jerry
PS.
[For the last time I promise] You said;
"JERRY...you said:
"We're not to be held spellbound by the fleeting shadows of a few
great names"
...Dr. Wierwille had more love, heart, brains,
knowledge, spiritual awareness, depth and perception concerning
God's Word in his little pinky than you and extwi have in your
entire bodies put together..."
I think you just made my
point. And no, I'm not a "great name". Just a PFAL grad trying to
separate truth from error.
|
Rafael
Olmeda
(10/21/00 8:21:47 am)
Reply |
Re:
Response to Anemone
Interesting and disturbing work,
Jerry. Two quick points:
I think you and Anemone said the
exact same thing about the "mist of darkness forever" phrase: if I'm
not mistaken, Anemone was only suggesting the word "forever" should
be omitted, not the entire phrase. Unless I missed
something.
Secondly, I don't remember any mention of the
phrase "magic of believing." My thoughts on "the law of believing"
are well-documented, but I don't remember "magic of
believing."
Keep that Bible open.
Blame me. I'm with the media. | |
