| Author |
Comment |
Ex10th
(10/22/00 3:33:15 am)
Reply |
Re:
Magic of Believing
I don't want to get sidetracked
here, but I have just one comment about the "magic of believing". I
was a WOW in 1978, and there was a book by that title that we were
required to read on the WOW field.
I remember it because it
caused me alot of distress. Even asked VP about it. Long story. He
was really good at sidestepping issues.
Don't know about any
collaterals by the title, but I could gather them up from family
members if I need to check it out. We all took PFAL in the 70's, and
I know alot of things were edited in later publications.
Rock
on,
Ex10th
|
Rafael
Olmeda
(10/22/00 3:54:03 am)
Reply |
Re:
Magic of Believing
Well, we can't go back in time and
prove that VPW wanted people to read a book by that title, but we
CAN prove that the book exists.
"The Magic of Believing" was
written by Claude Bristol and published by Simon and Schuster in
March 1976. There were certainly earlier publication dates (there's
a 1955 edition with an intro written by Liberace. I'm not
kidding).
The reader review on Barnes and Noble's Web Site is
just devastating.
shop.barnesandnoble.com/b...merReviews
Blame me. I'm with the media. |
Ex10th
(10/22/00 4:21:59 am)
Reply |
Re:
Magic of Believing
That's it! That's the book we were
told to read. Still have my copy. Unbelievable.
|
JBarrax
(10/22/00 7:16:09 pm)
Reply |
Re:
Magic of Believing
I seem to remember it as a casual
remark. "..what I like to call the magic of believing..." or words
to that effect. It struck me and I put it in my notes during one of
my grad retakes of the class. But I can't find it now, so perhaps I
was mistaken.
Jerry
|
evanpyle
(10/22/00 8:31:59 pm)
Reply |
Re: OK,
one final comment
Sorry to beat this very dead horse,
but Wierwille authored a Study in Abundant Living titled The Magic
of Believing. When I took PFAL I got the Holy Spirit book,
Christians Should be Preposterous, the Job booklet, a boatload of
Studies in Redundant living mini-booklets and a green paperback
called Studies in Abundant Living, Vol 1 that had The Magic of
Believing as its first chapter. I was reluctant to part with it,
despite the horsey poo-poo espoused within, and tossed it in the
trash only 4-5 yrs ago.
|
Orange
Cat
(10/22/00 9:14:53 pm)
Reply
|
Re: OK,
one final comment
Yup, I still have mine, Evan, and
just checked. Chapter 1 in the slim green paperback was "The Magic
of Believing"
Orange Cat
|
JBarrax
(10/22/00 11:20:35 pm)
Reply |
Re: The
Magic of Believing
SO
THERE!
[snicker]
Peace
Jerry
|
Rafael
Olmeda
(10/23/00 8:02:16 am)
Reply |
Re: The
Magic of Believing
I stand corrected.
Blame me. I'm with the media. |
Steve
Lortz
(10/23/00 10:48:55 pm)
Reply |
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written"
In this chapter of PFAL, Wierwille
bases his definition of the Church on the concept of people being
"born again", presumably because of "the new birth". How deeply
Wierwille's teaching has effected our thinking is amply demonstrated
by use of the phrases "born again" and "the new birth" in L
Anemone's defenses against conditionality. Here's a very
illuminating exercise. Go to a concordance and find all the uses of
either "born again" or "the new birth" in the "Church" epistles.
Find all the uses of these phrases that are in regard to the events
of the day of Pentecost, and all the uses concerning what happened
to Cornelius' household. Then come back and tell us what you
found.
I'm with Rafael, or whoever it was that said it up
above, keep those Bibles open!
Love,
Steve
|
JBarrax
(10/25/00 10:20:38 pm)
Reply |
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written: Administrations
Having taken a fresh look at the principle of interpreting the
Bible in light of TO WHOM it's addressed, it's time to review the
PFAL teaching on Administrations. Before we do, let's review for a
moment, because what I'm going to set before you Dear WayDalers, is
a logical progression from what I've posted about II Timothy 3:16
and the TO Whom principle. First of all, I'd like to take a step
backward.
You may recall that, in the TO WHOM post, I said Revelation is
addressed to the seven churches of Asia, but that, until I could
find a contradiction of some sort with the rest of the Bible, I
wouldn't consider that a distinct group. Well I think I've found
such a distinction. This is a good time remind ourselves what this
whole concept of Administrations and To Whom the Word is addressed
is based on; the idea that the Bible cannot contradict itself.
[Although I have run across several seemingly unresolvable
contradictions, I still think we should work toward that goal] So,
the designations of groups to whom Scripture is addressed or the
identification of "administrations" should be based only upon
the resolution of apparent contradictions; not on accepted theology
or on our preconceived ideas about divisions of time, but only on
the harmony of Scripture. You may also recall that I make the
distinction, not on the content of an entire book of the Bible, but
on its commandments. Commandments may change, but truth does not.
The reason for distinguishing the Seven Churches of Asia from The
Nation of Israel is the commandments given to Israel cannot be the
same as those given to the Seven Churches of Asia because the Law of
Moses was fulfilled in and by Christ. So the Seven Churches of Asia
are a unique group in the Bible. The commandments to those people
will echo those given in Egypt in that Israel will again be
separated from the Gentiles and the Gentiles will be judged by how
they treat Israel [Matthew 25:33-45].
With that in mind,
the first thing I need to do is revise my list of groups To Whom
Scripture is addressed. The groups are, in chronological order:
ADAM
THE PATRIARCHS
THE NATION OF
ISRAEL
THE LEVITES
THE GENTILES
THE CHURCH OF
THE BODY OF CHRIST
THE SEVEN CHURCHES OF
ASIA
At first glance, this list may look a little like Dr.
Wierwille's
list of the "Administrations" in the Bible. As I said in the To Whom
post, VP's teachings on this topic are not quite accurate. He
accurately presented the basic concept of the need to discern that
there are different groups to whom Scripture can be addressed, but
the details of what he taught aren't right. However, that he taught
the basic principle is a boon to us who are trying to get at a
fuller understanding of the Bible. If he hadn't at least set this
idea forward, it might be terribly perplexing to arrive at a
harmonious overview of the Bible. In other words, he might not have
gotten the details right, but the basic structure is good. And it's
a lot easier to make corrections on an existing building than to
start from scratch and build your own. So VP is to be commended for
including this idea in PFAL. So much for the preamble and
disclaimer. Now, having acknowledged what VP got right, let's take a
closer look at the PFAL teaching on Administrations, which,
unfortunately starts in error and presumption.
"As a part of understanding to whom the Word of God is written, a
person must accurately recognize the administrations in the
Bible.
I Corinthians 9:17
For if I do this thing willingly, I
have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation [an
administration] of the gospel is committed unto me.
Paul says that an administration of the Gospel was
committed unto him..."
Actually that's the opposite of what Paul said.
Why VP chose this verse to launch his teaching on Administrations is
baffling. This verse says a dispensation of the Gospel is committed
unto Paul if he preached the gospel against his will,
but that if he preached willingly, he got a reward. Well did he
preach willingly or unwillingly? The answer is in the next verse.
"Why don't they ever read the next verse?"
What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may
make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power
in the gospel.
Obviously Paul got a reward, so he must have preached
willingly; So a dispensation of the gospel wasn't committed
unto him; at least not according to the conditions of this verse.
This is a difficult verse which appears to contradict what Ephesians
says about Paul and the dispensation of the mystery. For VP to base
his teaching on administrations on this verse is a violation of one
of his principles of Biblical research; difficult verses must be
understood in light of clear ones and not vice versa.
Furthermore, it's a blatant case of unfounded assumption. An
"unsupported leap of logic" as one poster called it. He doesn't
explain why he rejects the word "dispensation" in favor of his term
"administration". Nor does he examine the Biblical use of the word.
He just casually inserted his own term and took off from there. The
word "dispensation", as many of us will recall, is translated from
the Greek word oikonomia which is introduced in the Scripture
as "stewardship". Using the principle of Where it's been used
before, we should pay attention to the previous usage of this word
and compare it to VP's definition.
Luke 16:1-8
1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was
a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused
unto him that he had wasted his goods.
2 And he called him,
and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an
account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.
3 Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for
my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I
am ashamed.
4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put
out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.
5 So he called every one of his lord's debtors unto him, and
said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord?
6 And
he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy
bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty.
7 Then said he
to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred
measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write
fourscore.
8 And the lord commended the unjust steward,
because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in
their generation wiser than the children of light.
The word "stewardship" in verses 2, 3, and 4 is
oikonomia. There's nothing in the use of this word here that
implies a period of time. All of the meaning conveyed here is that
of someone being faithful or unfaithful in his assigned duties on
behalf of his lord. A stewardship is the responsibility entrusted to
someone by his master. I Corinthians 4:1 plainly says that Paul was
a steward of the mysteries of God. There is nothing in any of these
verses that implies a period of time. So to interpret this word the
way VP did is a classic case of reading into the Scripture.
Oikonomia is only used seven times in the Bible. We've
already looked at the first three in Luke and the fourth in I
Corinthians 9:17. Now let's look at the other three.
Ephesians 1:10
8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all
wisdom and prudence;
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of
his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in
himself:
10 That in the dispensation [oikonomia] of the
fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in
Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in
him:
Ephesians 3:2
1 For this cause I Paul, the
prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have
heard of the dispensation [oikonomia] of the grace of God
which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he
made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in
the mystery of Christ)
Colossians 1:25
25 Whereof I
am made a minister, according to the dispensation [oikonomia]
of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from
generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
27 To
whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this
mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of
glory:
There are some truths woven through all of these
verses. Faithfulness is required of stewards. A "dispensation" is a
stewardship in which someone is entrusted with something of value.
The word "committed" is used in Luke 16:11 of that which is given or
entrusted to stewards, and again in I Corinthians 9:17. This is a
variant translation of pisteuo, from which we get the concept
of a steward being faithful, which is also reiterated in I
Corinthians 4:2.
The mystery is also a recurrent topic related to stewardship;
specifically, Paul's. I Corinthians 4:1 clearly states that Paul was
a steward of the mystery. And the Mystery is mentioned in the
immediate context of each of these last three verses. So the thing
of value which was committed to Paul's trust was the mystery;
specifically the understanding and preaching thereof. God gave the
revelation of the mystery to Paul and entrusted Paul, a faithful
steward, with the responsibility of preaching the gospel thereof.
That is the simple and, imho, accurate Biblical interpretation of
the word oikonomia.
So what's wrong with the way Dr. Wierwille taught it? Well for
one, it leads to an erroneous and confusing interpretation of the
word "age". Because VP read the 'To Whom' categories into the word
oikonomia, and because of the use in Ephesians 3:5 and
Colossians 1:26, we have carried a similar meaning into the word
"age". We speak of the "age of grace" and "The church age"
effectively using the word "age" as a synonym for "administration."
Neither of these phrases is used anywhere in the Bible. They are
man-made. Neither are any of the rest of VP's administrations
referred to as ages in the Scripture.
I don't think this is an accurate understanding of this word.
Age, aion in Greek, refers to a period of time much longer
than any of VP's "administrations". If we think of it as an
administration, the following parable/prophecy doesn't make
sense.
Matthew 13:37-39
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed
is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed
are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of
the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil;
the harvest is the end of the world [aion]; and the reapers
are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and
burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
Matthew 24:3
3 And as he sat upon the mount of
Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when
shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and
of the end of the world [aion]?
If the harvest is the end of the age, and VP's
administrations are correct, this prophecy is flawed. The harvest is
at the end of the age, but what age was Christ speaking of?
Certainly not his earthly ministry, "the Christ Administration." But
if we interpret the word "age" according to Dr. Wierwille's
theology, this is the meaning. Obviously, Jesus wasn't speaking of
the end of his earthly ministry when he spoke of the "end of the
world."
Most of the uses in the New Testament of the word
aion are translated "forever" or some variant thereof
communicating an eternity. The word "eternal" is translated from
aion. I believe a more accurate understanding of "age" is
that of the second heaven and earth; the entire period of time
between Genesis 1:2 and Revelation 21:1. This world or age is the
period of time until the return of Christ and the Third Heaven and
Earth. Jesus promise to be with us even unto the ends of the world
is not a statement of geographical scope, but a promise to be with
us until His return.
Paul says the mystery was hid from ages and generations because
it was a secret even in the previous age; during the first heaven
and earth; it was kept a secret from Lucifer, who would become the
Prince of this World (I Corinthians 2:8).
So, in essence, VP put the right truth in the wrong place. He
recognized that there are portions of Scripture addressed to
different people and that they don't agree and so must be
differentiated. But in a hasty interpretation of I Corinthians 10:32
lead to his missing the full truth of To Whom the Word is addressed.
So he transplanted those truths into the word oikonomia, and
fabricated the administrations of the Bible, which lead to further
confusion about the "age of grace" and the "church age". But then
again, I could--I say, I could be wrong.
Peace
Jerry
|
Mandii
(10/27/00 5:59:50 am)
Reply
|
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written: Administrations
I have it written down somewhere,
but actually the dispensation/administration theology is pretty new,
late 1700-early 1800's and is NOT something that the first century
church knew and believed.
No one attained righteousness by
the law in the OT, no one does now. They looked forward to and
believed in God's promise of a coming Messiah, we believe in Him
too.
I do agree that administration or whatever ever the
word used does relate to one's certain function/responsibility
assigned to him by God.
Mandii
|
Steve
Lortz
(10/27/00 9:33:35 am)
Reply |
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written: Administrations
Jerry - You've posted a very
perceptive analysis of VPW's teachings regarding "administrations".
I'm preparing some comments, but it may be as late as Sunday before
I can post them.
Good work!
Love,
Steve
|
Steve
Lortz
(10/27/00 4:35:53 pm)
Reply |
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written: Administrations
Well, I managed to clear enough time
to go ahead and post this today.
Jerry - Cudos on your post
of 10/25/00, 10:20:38 pm. Outstanding analysis! There are some
details I could expand upon, and I may do so later over on the
sidebars thread, but here I just want to address a few of the issues
you raised in your post.
You wrote, "This is a good time to
remind ourselves what this whole concept of Administrations and To
Whom the Word is addressed is based on; the idea that the Bible
cannot contradict itself... Although I have run across several
seemingly unresolvable contradictions, I still think we should work
toward that goal..."
I agree that the Word of God itself is
without contradiction, and that one of the greatest objects of our
research efforts should be to reconcile apparent contradictions. I
also find, as you do, what appear to me to be unresolvable
contradictions.
One way to approach this dilemma is to
recognize that the Word of God and my understanding of it are two
different things. The Word itself is perfect and without
contradiction. My understanding of it, for the present time, is
necessarily less than perfect. Apparent contradictions are
indicators to me of the places where my understanding is deficient.
I don't believe I'll ever get rid of *all* the contradictions before
I know even as also I am known (so much for "having the rightly
divided Word"!), but I have certainly grown and benefited over the
course of my life from pursuing a more accurate understanding of
God's Word. I intend, as you also appear to do, to continue that
pursuit. It's good to be able to do at least some of it
together!
In your post you noted that VPW started his
discussion of "administrations" by quoting and expounding on I
Corinthians 9:17. Then you wrote, "Why VPW chose this verse to
launch his teaching on Administrations is baffling." It isn't quite
so baffling when we realize that VPW didn't compose PFAL in a
vacuum.
In this chapter, "To Whom The Word is Written",
Wierwille was covering the same subject matter that Bullinger
presented on pages 65 through 104 of "How To Enjoy The Bible".
That's 39 pages of very dense copy. PFAL was originally composed to
be taught vocally, either in live classes or by means of recordings.
Wierwille had a lot of ground to cover in a very limited amount of
time, so he edited Bullinger's material quite heavily. That's one
reason why VPW's presentation of I Corinthians 9:17 seems so hasty.
Even when PFAL was transcribed into book form, Wierwille took only
18 very loose pages to cover Bullinger's 39 pages of dense
material.
From page 207 of "To Whom The Word is Written"
through most of page 218, Wierwille followed Bullinger fairly
closely, but when VPW started teaching about "administrations" at
the tail end of page 218, he began to veer away from "How To Enjoy
The Bible". First, he omitted Bullinger's discussion of the meaning
of "oikonomia" and its uses in Luke. Did he do this to save time and
space? Or did he do it so he wouldn't have to address the actual
meaning of "oikonomia", that is, "stewardship"? I can't say. Maybe
VPW thought he could kill two birds with one stone. At any rate, I
Corinthians 9:17 stands where it does in Bullinger's treatment
because it's the first use of "oikonomia" following those in Luke.
It stands where it does in PFAL because of Wierwille's editing of
Bullinger.
Wierwille also departed from Bullinger in three
other ways. First, Bullinger used the words "dispensation" and
"administration" interchangably. VPW focused in on "administration"
and disparaged use of "dispensation". Why? I don't know, unless he
was trying to create a brand differentiation between the regular
dispensationalism taught in most fundamentalist churches and his own
variation.
Second, VPW rejected Bullinger's
ultradispensationalism because it claimed that the present
"administration" began at the end of the book of Acts rather than at
its beginning, and that the manifestations of holy spirit are,
therefore, not for this day and time.
Third, VPW conflated
Bullinger's fifth and sixth "administrations" into one, which VPW
called the "Appearing Administration", and inserted the "Christ
Administration" between Bullinger's third and fourth. Therefore,
even though both men taught that there are seven "administrations",
Wierwille disagreed with Bullinger as to what exactly constituted
those seven "administrations".
The stuff Wierwille came up
with himself is much less coherent that the things he cribbed from
Bullinger. At one place, Jerry, you wrote, "He [VPW] doesn't explain
why he rejects the word 'dispensation' in favor of his term
'administration'. Nor does he examine the Biblical use of the word.
He just casually inserted his own term and took off from
there."
Notice two other important omissions. The first thing
Wierwille omitted was an explicit definition of "administration".
However, on page 223 we find an implicit definition in this
sentence, "We must understand that the rules of life change in the
various time periods so that we must see each administration within
its distinct context." Wierwille's definition of an "administration"
was a "time period" distinguished from others by "changes" in "the
rules of life".
The second major thing Wierwille omitted from
his discussion was any kind of criteria... whatsoever... for
determining when one "administration" ends and another begins. How
big does a change in the rules of life have to be before it rises to
the level of constituting a change of "administration"? Without
these criteria, looking for "administrations" in the Word is like
looking for pictures in the clouds. A person will find whatever he
wants to find.
When the Bible talks about changes in the
rules of life, it always does so in terms of changing covenants,
never in terms of changing "administrations". From other things
you've written, Jerry, I think you've already come to appreciate
this truth.
At one place in your post you wrote, "I believe a
more accurate understanding of 'age' is that of the second heaven
and earth, the entire period of time between Genesis 1:2 and
Revelation 21:1. This world or age is the period of time until the
return of Christ and the Third Heaven and Earth. Jesus promise to be
with us even unto the ends of the world is not a statement of
geographical scope, but a promise to be with us until His
return."
From Matthew 12:32 and Ephesians 1:21 we can see
that the writers of the New Testament concerned themselves primarily
with two ages, "this age" and "the age to come". I think you've
correctly identified "this age". We learn from Luke 20:34-36 that
Jesus associated resurrection with the age to come. I believe the
phrases "eternal life" and "everlasting life", translated from
"aion" in the Greek, actually mean something like "resurrection life
in the age to come", rather than something like "life that lasts a
long time" or "life without end".
At another place in your
post you wrote, "God gave the revelation of the mystery to Paul and
entrusted Paul, a faithful steward, with the responsibility of
preaching the gospel thereof. That is the simple and, imho, accurate
Biblical interpretation of the word 'oikonomia". In my opinion, also
hopefully humble, you've hit the nail on the head.
It seems
important to me to remember that there are more mysteries than one,
as indicated by the plural in I Corinthians 4:1, and that not all of
these mysteries were first revealed to Paul. In Ephesians 3:6 Paul
exactly described the contents of the mystery that was first
revealed to him; that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the
same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.
There isn't anything in Ephesians 3:6 about a secret, parenthetical
period of time.
The only place where I might disagree with
your post is in your assessment that the Seven Churches of Asia were
not also members of the Church of the Body of Christ. To the best of
my understanding, the people to whom John sent the book of
Revelation were members of seven Christian congregations living in
the Roman province of Asia toward the end of the first
century.
Revelation 2:13 says, "I know thy works, and where
thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my
name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein
Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan
dwelleth." When John's messenger first stood up at Pergamos and read
these words, it's very well possible that Antipas' very own parents,
or spouse, or children... certainly his friends... were sitting in
the congregation and listening. Think of the anguish they must have
felt, to be reminded of that awful time when Antipas was slain among
them. Think of the grief this must have brought back up. How
comforting it must have been for them to hear that the Lord Jesus
Christ knew their Antipas by name, and cared about the sacrifice he
had made.
The people who first received and heard John's
letter to the Ephesians recorded in Revelation 2:1-7 were the
children and grandchildren of the very same people who first
received and heard *Paul's* letter to the Ephesians. It may very
well have been that some of the older people in the congregation
that received John's letter could still remember the events of Acts
19, and Paul's personal warnings against wolves that would enter in,
and perverse speakers who would arise from among their own selves
(Acts 20:29,30). As these older people sat there listening to John's
messenger, they may well have reflected back to the time when they
sat there listening to Tychicus reading Paul's letter for the first
time. They may also have remembered the events that led Paul to
write to Timothy "all they which are in Asia be turned away from
me." I believe all these things happened well within the span of a
single lifetime. I'm only 51, but I can still remember lyrics to the
Davy Crocket and the Zorro theme songs.
In my opinion, one of
the major reasons Revelation seems so alien to our theologies is the
fact that Victorian Anglicans and American evangelicals have never
been subjected to the persecution and tribulation that have shaped
so much of the experience of our brothers and sisters in Christ. If
the things written to the seven churches in Revelation don't line up
with our notions of what it means to be Christian, then maybe we
need to re-examine our notions.
Toward the end of your post
you took a stab at reconstructing the train of thought Wierwille
must have followed to arrive at the things he taught regarding
"administrations"... "So, in essence, VP put the right truth in the
wrong place. He recognized that there are portions of Scripture
addressed to different people and that they don't agree and so must
be differentiated. But in a hasty interpretation of I Corinthians
10:3 lead to his missing the full truth of To Whom the Word is
addressed. So he transplanted those truths into the word
'oikonomia', and fabricated the administrations of the Bible...
"
Trying to reconstruct trains of thought can be a very
useful thing to do. The problem in this case is that *Wierwille* was
not the person who originated the basic ideas we learned about
"administrations" in PFAL. Those basic ideas came from a theology
called "dispensationalism", developed by John Darby in the
mid-1800s. Darby is the person who stripped the meanings from "aion"
(age) and "diatheke" (covenant) and wrongly attached them to
"oikonomia" (stewardship). Reconstructing *his* train of thought was
highly interesting, at least to me, but far too complex to go into
here. Maybe on the sidebars thread.
Again, Jerry,
congratulations on an analysis well posted!
Love,
Steve
|
JBarrax
(10/27/00 8:01:59 pm)
Reply |
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written: Administrations
Hi Steve, thanks for your comments.
And thanks for the background on Bullinger and Darby. That explains
why the PFAL presentation on "administrations" is so abrupt.
As
for Revelation, you raise some good points. I'll ponder it some more
this weekend.
So I guess that wraps up our analysis of Part III
of Power for Abundant Living: How the Bible Interprets Itself. Next
up. PFAL Part IV. The New Birth. Stay
tuned.
Peace
Jerry
|
jessejoeb
(10/28/00 12:40:35 pm)
Reply |
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written": Waydalers
Well, I am almost caught up on my
reading. I find I am approaching these threads like I did the class.
I tune out some subjects and hang on every word of others. I guess I
am a respecter of "chapters".
What I find most amazing is
everyone's steady analysis of the subject matter. I don't see this
as destroying but building upon. I see it as applying the definition
of research I received while involved with TWI - To take what
someone else has searched and "re"search it to see if it holds
water. It appears that many of the broken cisterns we were warned of
in PFAL, were often times promoted by PFAL.
Just want to say
thanks for all the thought and heart, not to mention typing, you
each have invested in this work.
I excitedly await future
insight into what bound us together for so long - PFAL. It is
refreshing to see "The class, The Class, The Class" replaced with
"The Word, The Word, The Word".
May God continue to
illuminate our understanding,
JesseJoeb |
JBarrax
(10/28/00 2:26:41 pm)
Reply |
Re: "To
Whom The Word is Written: Administrations
Speaking of the sidebar Steve, I see
ours is now locked. Whydontcha start us a Sidebars to PFAL Review:
Part II so we can go off on a tangent on Revelation and them seven
churches of Asia.
Jerry
|
JBarrax
(11/1/00 8:22:28 pm)
Reply |
Re: The
Story so far...
Well in light of the imminent interruption of the forums posting,
I'll take this opportunity to do a little review. Actually, this is
quite timely because I was thinking that this would be a good time
to pause and remind ourselves what we've learned (or contended
about) so far, before taking the plunge into the New Birth. Then, I
noticed that VP does exactly that in the beginning of the next
section. So it's only appropriate, as VP reviews PFAL Parts 1-4 for
us to review the PFAL Review. While the forum is in read-only
status, I'll be working on the New Birth stuff; the crux of
Christianity. Hopefully, by the time posting resumes, I'll have some
relevant observations to share. So without further ado, let's review
our review!
Session One; The Greatest Secret in the World
Today
John 10:10 Out of context. This verse is not
about manifesting a more abundant life than the unbelievers, it's
about Jesus Christ being the Good Shepherd, as opposed to thieves
(counterfeit Messiahs) and hirelings (appointed helpers: ministers
who care not for the sheep). It's ironic that Dr. Wierwille would
begin Power For Abundant living not only by taking God's Word out of
context, but by doing so in a manner that paints him as one of the
thieves or hirelings about whom Jesus was talking.
How to Receive ANYTHING from God. VP covers his
famous five keys to receiving anything ["and you'll notice I've
underscore the word "anything"] then boldly declares that every
record of deliverance in God's Word contains all five keys. Then to
prove this, he goes to Mark chapter three. The record of the man
with the withered hand does NOT contain all five keys. It makes no
mention of the man knowing God's ability equals God's willingness,
nor of him having his need and want parallel, nor of his knowing
what to do with his hand after it was healed. Wierwille's statement
was blatantly false and an obvious case of reading into the
Scripture. So why did he pick this record? Perhaps because it shows
Jesus being angry at the hard-hearted "church" people. VP does draw
this comparison clearly in this section so we can't miss it.
Regardless of what you think his motives might have been, his
assertion that all five of his 'keys' are in every Biblical record
of deliverance is poppy@#%$.
Apistia unbelief Wierwille the great researcher says
apistia is unbelief resulting in not having heard the word or not
having heard enough to believe. Stuff and Nonsense! This word is
attributed to Jesus' disciples (Matt 17:20) even after his
resurrection! If VP is right, then Jesus was a pretty shoddy
teacher. Furthermore, it's attributed to the entire nation of Israel
who had received the oracles of God. Obviously, VP's definition of
apistia is erroneous. What's so baffling about this is that the word
is only used 12 times, so it doesn't take much study to arrive at
this truth. Why didn't VP see it? Or if he did see the truth, why
did he teach such blatant error?
Fear is negative believing Rubbish. VP cites Isaiah 8:12
and says fear is negative believing. He neglected to read the next
verse ["why don't they ever read the next verse?"] which, using the
same Hebrew words says, "13 Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and
let him be your fear, and let him be your dread." Let the Lord be
your negative believing, let him be your unbelief. I don't think so.
"Fear always encases, always enslaves, always binds you...fear
is a law" Balderdash! Rafael has done an excellent job of
pointing out the errors of this twisted doctrine on the Blue Book
thread. Suffice to say, fear is not a law. As I mentioned, if fear
were a law, Hagar would have lost her son in the dessert. Jacob's
fear of his father in law was overcome by God giving him revelation
to not even speak ill to Jacob. If fear was a law, Laban would have
put a hurtin' on him (Genesis 31)
No one ever gets rid of his fear... Baloney! At the close
of his teaching on fear, VP does a brief comparison of Peter after
the crucifixion and on the day of Pentecost, showing his fear in the
former verses and his boldness in the latter. Then, in another
brilliant example of biblical research concludes that nothing stands
between John 20:19 and Acts 2:39 except the giving of the holy
spirit and the new birth (conveniently overlooking the Resurrection
and Ascension of Christ). He then surmises that no one ever gets rid
of his fear until he gets born again of God's spirit and born again
of the holy spirit. Unfortunately this is a contradiction of Psalm
34:4, [which he quotes earlier in the same session] which says David
sought the Lord and the Lord delivered him from all his fears. David
of course, was not "born again of God's spirit and filled with the
power of the holy spirit; at least not according to VP's theology.
So here we have another confusing doctrine from the master
teacher.
There's much more in Session One that I haven't yet taken the
time to comment on; I may try to slip that in before the midnight
deadline. One that comes to mind is VP's citing of Hosea 4:6 "My
people are destroyed for lack of knowledge". Wierwille says there's
only one reason God's people can be destroyed today for lack of
knowledge, citing science, physics, etc. etc. But Hosea 4:6 isn't
speaking about the modern Church in the Industrial Age, it's talking
about Israel. His basic point that the lack of knowledge is
spiritual is valid, but the means he used to get there are illogical
and a direct contradiction of his own "To Whom it is Written"
principle.
Another such maneuver in Session one is his
question about what's the greatest sin a man can commit. He poses
the question, and then, instead of going to the Bible to present the
Word's answer, quotes Matthew 22:37 & 38 and says, if the first
and great commandment is to love God with all our heart, soul, mind,
and strength, "by sheer logic", the greatest sin a man can commit is
to put anything else ahead of God. This is of course a direct
contradiction of several Bible verses including Matthew 12:31 which
speaks of the unforgivable sin. Why this blatant disregard for the
"keys to the Word's interpretation"? Well we may never know the
answer, but it seems to me it was just an attempt by an old country
preacher to manipulate the emotions of his audience; to set the
hook, so to speak, so that we would be scared into continuing the
class, and furthermore, scared into throwing aside our 'broken
cisterns' of preconceived ideas. Much of the beginning of PFAL
contradicts the principles of positive preaching and Biblical
research VP espoused. At this stage, apparently VP was less
interested in teaching God's Word than he was in getting us to come
back for more.
Peace
Jerry
| |
