| Author |
Comment |
JBarrax
Likes the Lunch Menu
(11/19/00 2:42:57 pm)
|
PFAL
REVIEW
Hello and God Bless.
As you probably know, Waydale is now closed. The PFAL REVIEW
thread will continue according to the will of the people and the
rule of law. Since the closing of Waydale took place at least a day
early, I wasn't able to download part three of the thread, but I
have downloaded and reedited parts one and two and am in the process
of posting them on a new website called PFALREVIEW.
Parts One and Two are now posted. Part Three and the sidebars may
take another week or more.
I guess we should start with a summary so we can try to pick up
where we left off. So without further ado, away we go.
PFAL REVIEW SUMMARY
PFAL ERRORS: A SUMMARY
SESSION ONE:
1) John 10:10 Out of context. The "thief" is not the
adversary, but rather all of the false messiahs who had come before
Christ, the true Shepherd. The hirelings are appointed ministers who
aren't faithful and leave the sheep as prey for the wolves. The
subject of this passage of scripture is not 'manifesting abundance',
but rathter the difference between Jesus Christ the true Shehpherd
and counterfeit messiahs, and unfaithful ministers. The inescapable
irony of VP's mishandling of this sectio of scripture is that it
places him in the category of the thieves and hirelings of which
Jesus spoke
2) Hosea 4:6 “My people” To whom is the
verse addressed and Of whom does it speak? For VP to use this verse
and apply it to the church is a violation of his principle of
interpreting the Bible according to "to whom" the Word is written.
3) Matthew 22:37. The Greatest sin a man can commit is
the Unforgivable sin, not to “put anything else ahead of God”. Here
again, VP contradicts himself. He later teaches that the
unforgivable sin is to receive seed from Satan. But here, he makes
"an unsupported leap of logic" to imply that the greatest sin is to
have anything else ahead of God in your life. Why? To try to scare
the class into staying put, imho.
4) How to Receive
Anything from God. VP’s claim that these five keys are in every
record of deliverance in the Bible is obviously wrong. Where in this
record does God's Word say the man had his need and want parallel?
Where does it say he knew God's ability equal God's willingness? The
statement VP made is so blatantly wrong, it's a wonder we didn't see
this right away. Even more perplexing is why he chose this section to
demonstrate something it so clearly does NOT.
Why did he
choose Mark 3:5? Because, imo, it depicts Jesus being angry at
religious people. He takes it one step further and compares the
synagogue with the modern Church. So this is VP's first attempt at
depicting the Church as a bad place and subtilly comparing himself to
Christ.
5) Need and Want Parallel. One, it’s not
supported by Scripture. VP’s reference to Matthew 18:19 has nothing
to do with needs and wants. Neither do John 14:13 and 15:16. Second,
it’s nonsensical usage of English. It should be expressed need and
want "balanced".
6) God’s ability equals God’s
willingness. VP says that what God is able to do, He is willing to
do, and vice versa. Not so. God is willing that all men should be
saved, but since He has given us freedom of will, many will suffer
condemnation in Gehenna and die the second death. God’s
will was
for the children of Israel to take the promised land, but they
refused to believe His promise of victory and therefore died in the
wilderness. Was He able to lead them into Canaan? No, they failed
because of unbelief. Therefore this principle is another half-baked
idea of
Wierwille’s that, although may sometimes be relevant to a
Christian’s prayer life, cannot be elevated to the status VP gives
it.
7) Apistia: VP’s definition of apistia is obviously
wrong. Matthew 17:20 says Jesus’ disciples had it, Romans 3:3 says
Israel, after having received the “oracles of God” had apistia. So
Wierwille’s definition of it as unbelief resulting in not having
heard or not having heard enough
is wrong. Based perhaps on his
reading into Romans 10:17ff without having actually worked the
Scripture. This is a frightening example of shoddy
research.
8) Fear is negative believing. Wrong. If fear
is negative believing Isaiah 8:13 says let God be your negative
believing and let Him be your unbelief. Fear is an emotion; nothing
more, nothing less.
9) Fear is a law. Wrong again. If
fear were a law, Hagar’s son Ishmael would have died in the dessert,
and God would have been unable to intervene in Jacob’s behalf when
he fled in fear of Laban his father-in-law.
10) ‘No one
ever gets rid of his fear unless he is born again of God’s spirit
and filled with the power of the holy spirit’. Then Psalms 34:4 is a
lie, for David was delivered from his fears centuries before either
the new birth or being filled with holy spirit were available. What
makes this error so grievous is the fact that Wierwille quoted
Psalms 34:4 earlier in the session.
11) Believing is a
law. Wrong. You cannot get whatever you want just by believing.
Faith only appropriates the promises of God. One cannot reject God’s
promises and still receive His blessings. VP’s statement, “You say
it, you believe it, God will bring it to pass” sets the foundation
for a carnal double-edged sword which elevates man to the point of
thinking he can order God around by “believing for” things God
hasn’t promised while at the same time
breeding condemnation and
guilt in those who don’t “manifest the more abundant life in a
remarkable way”.
SESSION TWO:
12) II Timothy 3:16. Wrong dividing of the phrase “instruction
which is in righteousness” The
verse should read, “All Scripture
is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for discipline, which is in righteousness.”
The Word is composed of two basic things; truths and commandments.
These can be summarized as what to believe and what to do and what
not to believe and what not to do. Doctrine is what to do and
believe; righteousness and truth defined. Reproof is what not to
do/what not to believe: sin and error defined. Correction is what to
do or believe in order to recover oneself from sin: righteousness
restored. Discipline is what happens when we ignore reproof and
continue in sin; sin punished or purged.
VP’s separation of
the Church epistles into categories of doctrinal, reproof, and
correctional epistles ignores the proper understanding above and is
arbitrary in that it ignores the fact that there is doctrine in I
Corinthians and reproof in Romans.
13) Dr. Wierwille’s
teaching about ‘correction’ is fraught with error. He says that
David, as King, had a right to any woman in Israel. This is such a
blatant error, I’m amazed it’s in the foundational class. David was
subject to the law and could not help himself to other men’s wives.
This is the OBVIOUS meaning of Nathan’s parable about the man who
stole his neighbor’s lamb. Why VP believed such an erroneous and
carnal thing is baffling, but the fruit
of that erroneous belief
manifests itself in the past and present crises in The Way
International. VP insists Nathan was hesitant to reprove David
because he was afraid David would have him beheaded. There is
nothing in the Scripture to support such a claim.
Furthermore, VP says “then it says in the Word “ that he was
a man after God’s own heart, stating that David was not a man after
God’s own heart until after he accepted Nathan’s
reproof. This is
a contradiction of I Samuel 13:14, which comes years before this
incident.
The final and ultimate folly in VP’s handling of
this record is in his summary. Having gone through the entire story
without once quoting a single verse of Scripture, Wierwille wrote,
“"Isn't that a tremendous verse of scripture when we examine it
closely to see the greatness of
God's Word?" He never cited a
verse of scripture much less “examine it closely”. Sheer bullpuckey.
14) How we got the Word of God. Wierwille states that
God, being spirit can only speak to what he is and therefore, could
only give the revelation of His Word to holy men of God with spirit
upon them. This comes up later in the context of the manifestations
of the spirit in the form of
“The Great Principle”. This is
another example of a half-baked doctrine not based on thorough
research. Genesis 3:9 and 4:6-8 record God having conversations with
Adam and Cain, neither of whom had spirit upon them. Genesis 31:24
tells of God speaking to Laban the Syrian in a dream. God’s
communication with man is not limited by the presence or absence of
holy spirit. Exodus chapter 20 says that the Ten Commandments were
originally given, not by Moses from
the tablets, but from God
Himself who thundered them into the ears of the children of Israel
from a mountaintop! God can speak to anyone He wants to, however He
wants to and whenever He wants to; because He is GOD!
15)
II Timothy 3:17. VP says the word “man” in this usage means “one who
speaks for God.” This is again an utter fabrication. There is no
such usage of anthropos. The most amazing feat of malarkey disguised
as Biblical research in this passage is VP’s obsession with the
reading of the word “throughly”. He states that people who read
“throughly”
as “thoroughly” will never see the great accuracy of
God’s Word. He then goes on about how a man of God is “throughly”
perfected, meaning on the inside, by the gift of holy spirit. This
is incomprehensibly idiotic because the word “throughly” is
NOT in the Greek text. It was added by the KJV translators to
fully communicate the meaning of the Greek word exartizo. The fact
that VP spends an entire paragraph on the meaning of exartizo in the
context of this passage makes his statements about being “throughly”
perfected even more baffling.
16) Spiritual Weakness and
inability. VP asserts that spiritual weakness and inability are the
result of not having a full accurate understanding of the
scriptures. This contradicts Deuteronomy 8:1-3 and John 4:30-34,
which assert that the our spiritual food is to DO the will
of
God, not just know and understand it. This is another example
of VP’s consistent elevation of knowledge at the expense of
obedience and righteousness.
17) John 1:1. VP asserts
that the word pros means “together with yet distinctly independent
of” and then surmises that if any other word was used, your whole
Bible would fall to pieces. This statement is erroneous on at least
two, perhaps three levels.
One: the word pros is a
preposition used 674 times in the NT, usually meaning “toward”. It
is only translated “with” in the accusative case, a situation that
only occurs 42 times. Of these 42 uses, only about 13 can possibly
be interpreted as “together with yet distinctly independent
of”
It is more often understood simply as “among”. So VP’ presentation
of pros as together with yet distinctly independent of is misleading
at best. If one presents an interpretation that is only accurate 2%
of the time as THE correct interpretation, he may technically be
right, but he is deceitful at best. Such communication is on par
with Bill Clinton’s answer before the Grand Jury, “It depends on
what the meaning of “is” is”. Pros and meta are both translated with
and can be used interchangeably. More on that in part
three.
Two: Wierwille went through these linguistic gyrations
in order to refute the common belief that Jesus existed in the
beginning with God. He says the use of pros indicates that Jesus was
only present at creation in God’s foreknowledge. However, there is
an abundance of Scripture that supports the belief that Jesus did
preexist his physical birth. [John 1:14 & 15, 3:12 & 13,
3:31, 6:32 &33, 6:38, 6:50-58, and 6:61 & 62]. I submit that
the Bible teaches that Jesus
was present at creation and played a
significant role in it. This is also supported by Colossians
1:15-18. Perhaps Jesus was born in Bethlehem in linear time and was
exalted into the heavens and beyond the bounds of linear time on the
day of the ascension. Then he could be present at
any point in
time God wanted him at, including the beginning. Thus he is still a
man but also the Alpha and Omega, the firstborn of all
creation.
Three: Wierwille’s assertion that if any other word
[than pros] were used, your whole Bible would fall to pieces, is
based on his belief that each word in the Bible is perfect and has a
specific meaning. Hence his term “mathematical exactness and
scientific precision”. But as we’ve seen in II Corinthians 6:14-17,
these words are interchangeable; they’re synonyms. VP’s treatment of
the words of the Bible make no allowance for God’s use of synonyms.
However, he also taught that God’s Word was given to holy men of God
who wrote it in their vocabularies. Are we to believe that Moses’
the vocabularies of Moses and Jude are a precise match? No. Wierwille
admits as much when he says these differences account for
the variation in tone and style throughout the Bible. He asserts
that Amos was a herdsman and that his book is much terser and
simpler than those of John. The logical conclusion of this doctrine
is that if certain men wrote with much more limited vocabularies
than others, they would have had to use fewer words to communicate
the same truths conveyed by the fuller vocabularies and linguistic
skills of men like John. The
inescapable conclusion is the words
used by men like Amos will have to have more variations in meaning
to make up for their simplicity. This is why there are so many
variations in usage among the words of the Bible. Therefore the
meaning and interpretation of a certain word is
determined not
its use elsewhere, but primarily by its usage in its context. The
interpretation of Scripture therefore, is not a function of ‘word
studies’ but of context and scope.
18) The Word takes the
place of the absent Christ in our lives. This teaching has been the
focus of much criticism and scrutiny, not only by myself and others
on the WayDale forums, but by the principals of CES as well. I would
like to be able to say conclusively that God’s Word supports
or
contradicts this doctrine, but I can’t. It was in the pursuit of
such an unequivocal statement from the Bible that I ran headlong
into the most challenging and disturbing revelation of this project;
the contradictions of the Bible. One of the foundational, if not THE
foundational creed of PFAL is that the Bible, as the revealed Word
of God, cannot contradict itself. The bulk of
Wierwille’s “keys
to the Word’s interpretation” are presented as ways to explain
apparent contradictions in the Scriptures. However, as we’ve seen,
many of Wierwilles’ keys are nothing more than invalid
extrapolations from single verses or incidents. In short, they are
not based on a thorough and comprehensive study of the Bible. As we
tear down the smokescreen of these ill-conceived “keys”, we begin to
see a very disturbing truth. The Holy Bible does indeed contradict
itself.
The topic that lead me to that unsettling conclusion
is this one concerning the purpose of the New Testament Scriptures.
VP asserts that the Word takes the place of the absent Christ in the
lives of Christians. I set about to find Scriptures that support or
disprove this doctrine and
found both. Verses in support of the
“absent Christ “ doctrine include II Corinthians 5:6, John 7;33
& 34, 12:8 & 35, and most notably, John 13:33-36, which do
indicate that Jesus left his disciples and told them His Word and
the holy spirit would serve them in his absence.
Verses that
contradict the absent Christ doctrine are not as numerous, but they
nevertheless must be considered. They include Matthew 18:20, 28:20,
II Thessalonians 2:16
&17, 3:16, and II Timothy 4:22, and
Acts 9:10-17 and 23:11.
The study of these verses raises
related and equally ambiguous issues. Did Jesus leave the Apostles
in charge in his place? Is he physically absent but spiritually
present? If so, why are we instructed to pray not to the Lord, but
to God instead? If so, why does God’s Word attribute
revelation,
in all but one verse, to God and not Jesus? In all of these
questions, the majority of Scripture supports Wierwille’s absent
Christ theology. It states repeatedly that Jesus left his apostles
with authority in the Church. Acts 2:42 speaks of the “apostles’
doctrine”, Acts 5:1-11
speak of the power of Peter to judge in
the Lord’s behalf, and numerous verses in Paul’s epistles admonish
us to follow him, to accept his judgments, and to respect his
authority in Christ. If the popular movement toward each individual
believer having direct access to and fellowship with the Lord is
true, I see these Scriptures as misleading and confusing. However,
one must also acknowledge that the theology of fellowship with Jesus
rests on a small body of verse, some of which must be liberally
interpreted [such as Paul’s references to Christ as the head of the
Church
and its members as his body].
I cannot in good
conscience conclude that the Bible supports either the absent Christ
theology or the fellowship with Jesus theology. It supports both.
Therefore the belief that God’s Word does not contradict itself, the
foundational principle of PFAL, is invalid and the discovery
of
one harmonious and coherent body of Biblical doctrine, which is the
primary pursuit of Biblical Research, is fruitless.
The next
question that must be asked is why did God leave us with such a
patchwork of theological confusion? I suspect it was done to avoid
the resurgence in the Church of that bane of the Lord’s existence;
legalism. The Pharisees used their knowledge of the Scriptures
to
oppress and condemn people rather than to serve. The
collective experience of those of us who have lived through and left
The Way International’s metamorphosis from its “groovy Christian”
era to an oppressive cult is that the “mathematical exactness and
scientific precision” in
Scripture are not conducive to walking
in love and walking by the spirit. Rather they produce a carnal
obsession with our works, our believing, our knowledge and our
understanding; all of which fail to minister God’s grace, God’s
love, and God’s power to His people. An honest
approach to the
Bible must conclude that Biblical research supports and sustains
walking by faith, not by sight. Neither by sight of Jesus Christ,
nor by sight of the “rightly divided Word of God.” Walking and
living by faith are not based on a precise knowledge of Scripture,
but on an experiential knowledge of God.
19) II Timothy
2:15 VP uses this verse to add brick and mortar to the towering idol
of knowledge. He asserts that the only way to stand approved before
God is to rightly divide the Word of Truth. This is an illogical
assumption. Just because Timothy was exhorted to study to show
himself approved of God as a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the Word of Truth doesn’t mean that there is no
other way to stand approved before God, as VP asserts. The sloppy
and/or hypocritical element of this teaching is the fact that VP
used Romans 16:10, the second occurrence of the word “approved” but
ignored the first. He further adds that the verse doesn’t say
Appelles was approved in his community, thereby implying that we
as Christians are not to expect or seek such approval. This is
sloppy because it contradicts the principle of “previous usage” he
teaches in the fourth session. This is hypocrisy because the context
of the first usage of the word contradicts his teaching. Romans
chapter 14 deals with division in the Church and admonishes us
not to judge one another, but to sacrifice our personal freedoms in
order to avoid offending our brethren. The passage concludes with
verse 18, which says that a man who lives this way will be
acceptable to God and approved of men. So VP skipped the first usage
of “approved” and went to the second where he added comments that
contradict what God’s word says about the first. VP says we are not
to be approved in the community, Romans 14:18 says we are. VP
says the only way to stand approved before God is by rightly
dividing the Word. Romans 14:18 says a man who doesn’t judge his
brethren will be accepted of God.
Furthermore, the tone of Wierwille’s remarks in this section ridicule Christians. He
derisively dismisses all of the things people do to avoid offending
one another and then raises the standard of knowledge as the only
way to God’s heart. His conduct is a living contradiction of the
very Scriptures he skirted. Wierwille also uses II Timothy 2:15 to
state that division is the result of people wrongly dividing the
Word. Again he is at odds with Romans 14, which clearly teaches that
division is the result of selfishness on the part of those whose
knowledge surpasses
their humility; those who judge their
brethren. Almost everything VP said about this verse is either a
doctrinal or practical contradiction of the Bible he claimed to be
rightly dividing.
20) II Peter 1:20. “No Private
interpretation”. This is a simple case of twisted scripture. The
context of this verse is not about what we do with the Bible, but
how we got it. The phrase “no private interpretation” refers to the
source of our doctrine. It was not received by one’s own letting
loose, but by divine revelation. VP turned this truth on its head
and, by excessive repetition, redefined it to mean stating what we
think the Word means. It is in this section that he says
emphatically, “I don’t give a care what you think!” and then goes on
to warn us of the dangers of thinking about what we’re reading. I
believe this is the root cause of why so many of us accepted so much
of what he taught. He intimidated us into accepting it without
question, without “private interpretation”. By so doing, he laid the
foundation for our blind acceptance of his doctrine as
God’s.
More importantly, this “no private interpretation”
mantra is the logical premise on which VP based his teaching on “How
the Bible Interprets Itself”. But since his premise is wrong, we
must also consider the possibility that its resulting conclusion is
just as erroneous. And once considered, this possibility becomes
an obvious reality. If Wierwille is right, there is no portion of
the Bible that is not explained by and in the Bible. This is an
absurd, simplistic, and fallacious notion. Orientalisms are an
entire body of verses that are not explained in or by the Bible, but
must be interpreted in light of the customs of the cultures to which
God’s Word was first spoken. Furthermore, there are numerous
verses, including the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, that are
not interpreted in the Bible, and many others, like I Corinthians
11:10, that are neither Orientalisms nor prophecies that simply
cannot be fully explained.
21) How the Bible Interprets
Itself: In the Verse. The Cry of Triumph. This is a brilliant
example of how the Bible does NOT interpret itself in the verse. It
must be seen in the context of the culture. Jesus was citing Psalms
22, witnessing to the crowd from the cross. The people
who
recognized his reference would have also seen themselves
depicted in that prophecy as the mockers of Psalms and been smitten
by the enormity of what was transpiring before their eyes.
22) The Four Crucified; This presentation is just loaded
with error. For the sake of brevity, a short list of its
problems;
One: The major problem with this presentation is
that VP compares Luke to Matthew and notes the differences in the
chronology as reasons to suppose that they are speaking of different
people, but he fails to note that there are many more differences in
the chronology of Matthew and Luke that cannot be explained by
adding people or events. The rending of the veil of the Temple is
just after Jesus’ death in Matthew and just before it in Luke. In
all, there are at least 8 differences in the chronologies of Matthew
and Luke regarding the events of Jesus apprehension, trials, and
crucifixion. The variation of the time of the crucifixion of the
malefactors is only one. So once again, VP saw and presented only
what supports his unique theology. A more thorough examination of
the se records supports the traditional doctrine that there were
only two others crucified.
Two: VP makes much of the
definitions of allos and heteros, alleging that their
use in John 19:32 means that there must have been four malefactors.
He defined allos as another when there are more than two
involved, and heteros as the other of a pair. Just as VP made
up his own definition of apistia and made too much of the
definition of pros, his distinction between allos and
heteros is illusory. These words are synonyms. In fact, their
respective uses in Matthew 5:39 and Luke 4:43 are the opposite of
what Wierwille says they should be.
Three: John 19:18. The
word “midst” here is the only item of evidence in Wierwille’s case
that is valid. This word is always used of something being in the
center of a large body or a group, never between two. However, the
phrase enteuthen kai enteuthen, “on either side”
doesn’t mean there were, as VP said, “two on this and on that
side”. This is an unusual and difficult usage of the word enteuthen,
which means “hence”. There is no direct English correlation for the
literal translation which would two others “hence and hence”, so the
King James translators opted for “on either side one.” The word
“one” wasn’t added to obscure the truth, as VP claimed, but to
communicate a difficult bit of language as clearly as possible.
23) Context: Are the Dead Alive Now? Most of what VP
writes in this section is a condensation of his book. He does well
until he gets into the subject of the Gathering Together at which
time he dismisses the idea of a deceased saint’s spirit going to
heaven. This highlights a contradiction in TWI teachings about
the nature of the new birth.
24) Enoch. The only
teaching in this section that I think VP got wrong is his assertion
that Enoch died. Hebrews says that by faith Enoch was translated
that he should not see death. VP says that means God kept him from
seeing anyone else die, which is a silly notion in itself. To
make matters worse, he says that when we check the Old Testament
record, we find that Enoch had never seen anyone die. This statement
is almost as misleading and sloppy as his handling of the David and
Bathsheba story. The record of Enoch in the Old Testament says
nothing of the kind. The context of it in fact, indicates the
opposite. Genesis 5:6-24 lists the geneology of Adam’s descendants.
Of each person, the record concludes, “and he died.”. Yet of Enoch
it says, “and he was not for God took him."
The "was", being
italicized, represents an addition to the King James from the
Hebrew. There is no word there. The literal is “and he not for God
took him.” This is the figure of speech ellipsis or omission.
In the context of this list, the word supplied should be “died”. And
he died not for God took him is the truth conveyed by this figure.
That also fits with the record in Hebrews that asserts that Enoch by
faith was translated that he should not see death. He was not
translated upward to heaven, but forward to the coming age to live
in the new heaven and earth. Enoch by faith received immortality the
only way God could grant immortality to men at that time. God is no
respecter of persons. We who are alive at the time of the return of
Christ will receive immortality, so immortality must have been
available to other saints at other times as well by faith.
25) Where it’s Been Used Before. The principle of
previous usage is a valid one that seems to work well. The erroneous
bit here is a parenthetical comment Wierwille inserts in the book in
his quotation of II Corinthians 12:9. He inserts the word “God”
after “he” to imply Paul was talking to God despite the fact that
the context indicates that Paul’s plea was to the lord. “For this
thing I besought the Lord thrice that it might depart from me.” This
is a pattern that was carried through the teachings of TWI for
years. Wierwille never failed to shift emphasis from Christ to
God whenever possible. Whether or not this is an honest valid
practice is the subject of some controversy. I have found much
Scripture to indicate that Paul had a personal relationship with
Christ that was not available to the rest of the Church. One might
assume this was part of the function of being an apostle. For
Paul to have besought the Lord thrice indicates that he and the Lord
had a relationship. However, this doesn’t logically dictate that we
have the same relationship, as many ex-Ways and most Christians
believe.
26) To Whom the Word is addressed. The
recognition of the truth that parts of the Scripture are addressed
to different people is necessary for the elimination of potential
contradictions in the Bible. Wierwille’s presentation of this truth
is about half right. As usual, he takes one verse and makes an
extrapolation that doesn’t hold up throughout the Bible. I
Corinthians 10:32 is cited as a comprehensive list of all the
possible groups to whom Scripture can be addressed.
There
are several inherent problems in Wierwille’s logic, including the
above oversight. He says that scripture that’s addressed to you must
be applied by you. He further states that all of the Scripture is
addressed to either Jews, Gentiles, or the Church of God. So to whom
is Genesis 1:1 addressed and what is its application? The
truth of it is, only the commandments of the Bible are addressed to
specific groups. The truths thereof are to all of mankind. If we
start from the beginning, there are six different groups to whom the
commandments of the Bible are addressed; Adam & Eve, the
Patriarchs, the children of Israel, the Gentiles, the Levites, the
Church, and perhaps the Seven Churches of Asia.
27) To
Whom the Word is addressed: Administrations: The list above looks
somewhat like Wierwille’s list of the “administrations” in the
Bible. This is because he inserted the truth of these different
groups of people in the wrong place. That is, his teaching on
administrations is flawed because he reads this list of groups
into the meaning of a single word. Another example of Wierwille’s
tendency to make assumptions about the entire Bible from one or two
verses.
The word oikonomia is only used seven times in the
New Testament and simply means “stewardship”. The principle of
previous usage shows clearly in its occurrences in Luke 16 that it
means to be entrusted with responsibility by another. A steward is
someone to whom responsibility is committed. Paul was a steward of
the mysteries of the gospel, as is clearly stated in I Corinthians
4:1-3. Every use of the word oikonomia after Luke speaks of Paul’s
having received and preached the revelation of the mystery. So to
use this word as “administration” and extrapolate a whole group of
different administrations from Genesis to Revelation is unfounded
and invalid.
Furthermore, this teaching lead to a
misunderstanding of the word “age” which is used in the context of
two of the verses. Having wrongly divided the meaning of oikonomia,
TWI Wierwille then began to speak of “the Church age” and “the
age of grace”. Neither of these phrases is used anywhere in the
Bible. The word age, from the Greek aion, means a very long time;
specifically, in the Bible, it means one of the three ages spoken of
in Scripture; the first heaven and earth, which preceded Adam and
Eve, the second heaven and earth, in which we live, and the third
heaven and earth spoken of in Revelation chapters 20 and 21 and in
II Peter 3:5 & 6.
28)Romans 11:21 & 22. In his
attempt to show how each passage of Scripture must be interpreted
according to To Whom it is addressed, VP uses Romans 11 and says
that the beginning of the chapter is addressed to Israel and that
verses 13-36 are addressed to the Gentiles. Both of these statements
are erroneous. There is nothing in chapter 11 that says it’s
addressed to Israel. Paul speaks about Israel, but not to them. He
wrote to the Church about Israel. This is rather obvious if one
simply reads what’s written. The section beginning in verse 13 which
is written “to you Gentiles” is also addressed to the Church. There
are several such sections of Scripture in which the members of the
Church of the Body of Gentile background are called Gentiles
[Ephesians 3:1 & 4:17]. This passage in Romans is another
such. Verse 17 says they were grafted in to the tree, indicating
that they were saved. Verse 20 says they “stand by faith”. This is
not true of unbelievers, but of born again members of the Church. So
the admonition in verses 21 & 22 to be not highminded lest we be
cut off is also addressed to the former Gentiles of the Church. So
what does it mean to be “cut off”? Certainly not to lose one’s
salvation or holy spirit for these are received by grace and given
unconditionally. Our future rewards and destination in eternity
however, are not sealed. Those who do harm in the Church,
especially ministers who abuse their office, are destined to be cut
off from the Lord in the next age. To these men “the mist of
darkness is reserved for ever” [II Peter 2:17] All of the second
chapter of II Peter deals with these men, their sins, and their
destination.
Well, that brings us up to date. Let the review
continue.
Peace
Jerry
Edited by: JBarrax
at: 11/24/00 5:59:36 pm
|
Graftedin
Had Fries with Gravy last night
(11/19/00 4:07:54 pm)
|
Re: PFAL
REVIEW
Jerry
I have PFAL review part three and the sidebars on my hard
drive. I also have put them on Dewitt’s’ X-files. I can shoot you a
copy or post them in the other forum if you
wish.
Graftedin777@aol.com
|
JBarrax
Likes the Lunch Menu
(11/19/00 5:00:15 pm)
|
Re: PFAL
REVIEW
I would appreciate it greatly if you could email that to me
Grafted. I'm having some trouble publishing the first two parts on
compuserve. I hope to have all the wrinkles figured out by next
weekend.
You can send that to
GBarraxjr@cs.com
Thanks
Jerry
|
JBarrax
Hasn't gotten sick once from the
food
(11/22/00 8:07:03
pm)
|
Re: PFAL REVIEW:
The natural man
I'm still trying to put the original threads back together, but in
the meantime, let's move forward another step.
Having reviewed the first three parts of Power for Abundant
Living, it’s time to delve in to Part IV, The New Birth. There
are a some teachings here that form the doctrinal bedrock of TWI.
Some of these things are very difficult to tackle because they’ve
become such an integral part of my belief system. In fact, I post
this reluctantly because I’d rather not surrender these beliefs,
flawed as they are. My thanks to Sunlight for keeping me going
through this particular section. Were it not for her correspondence,
I may have taken the trial hiatus and the closing of Waydale as an
opportunity to drop this and look the other way. Here
goes...
Dr. Wierwille begins in page 229 by defining some basic terms.
The first is “natural man”. He defines a natural man as “...the man
of body and soul, the man who is not born again of God’s
spirit.” This seems to be an accurate biblical use of the term found
in I Corinthians 2:14. His next statement however is not true. We
have discussed this error before, in the context of how we got the
Scriptures. At the top of page 230, We read,
“The five senses are the only avenues for learning that the natural
man has to gain knowledge. Everything that ever comes to a natural
man’s mind must come by one or a
combination of these five
senses: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching.”
Dreams are not seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt.
Dreaming is not an avenue of communication by which the outside
world reaches one’s mind, but rather an inner activity of the mind
itself. Therefore, information received via dreams does not come via
the five senses.
God communicated by dreams to several people
who, according to VP’s definition, were “natural” men. God spoke via
dreams to King Abimelech (Genesis 20:3), Laban the Syrian (Genesis
31:24), and of course, Pharoah (Genesis 41).
Furthermore, the Bible records several conversations between God
and natural men such as fallen Adam and Cain, the first murderer.
There is no scriptural evidence that God “came into concretion” in
VP’s terms in order to communicate with these men. The Bible simply
says that
God talked to them. So a natural man may not have holy
spirit and may be unable to receive the things of the spirit of God,
but that does not mean he is unable to receive any information from
God. God created man and can talk to man whenever and however he
pleases.
If we go back to the principle of context, we
will see that I Corinthians 2:14 is not saying that an unsaved man
is outside the reach of God’s Word, but that he is unable to
receive and understand the mystery.
I Corinthians 2:6-14
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not
the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that
come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a
mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world
unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world
knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord
of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which
God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath
revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all
things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth
the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so
the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit
which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given
to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the
words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But
the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned.
According to the context, the things which the natural man
receiveth not, are the deep things of God, the things of the
mystery. The erroneous belief that natural man is outside the realm
of God’s reach is a foundational doctrine of PFAL. VP elaborated on
that for quite awhile, philosophizing about "centers of reference
for learning". He postulated that in order to learn anything, there
must be a source of information outside of the individual, and that
that source cannot be God because God is not in the senses
realm.
He then added to this doctrine the idea that one cannot
believe beyond what he is taught and further that there is a chasm
between the natural man and God. Such a chasm didn't prevent God
from clothing Adam and Eve. There was no chasm between God and Cain.
What chasm separated God and Enoch? None. This is yet another
Weirwillism; a false assumption presented as an eternal truth.
Then upon the false premise of a chasm between the natural
man and God, VP built the doctrine of the faith of Jesus Christ,
which we will examine in more detail later (hint: it's not right
either). VP's teaching that a natural man cannot have faith is
rooted in this wrong dividing of I Corinthians 2:14 --the idea that
God cannot speak directly to man.
Besides being erroneous, as Evan pointed out earlier, it elevates
man and diminishes God. God is too small to talk to natural men
[despite the fact that He created man]. But we spirit-filled
Christians are elevated because only we can receive
revelation from on high. Therefore natural men are seen as inferior.
From there it's a small step to paint all "uninstructed believer" as
likewise inferior and to drape ourselves in the elitism that
eventually became "the household". Well, now I'm ranting again.
Sorry.
Peace
Jerry |
evanpyle
Likes Ketchup on Everything
(11/24/00 9:57:07 am)
|
Re: PFAL REVIEW:
The natural man
Jerry, as usual you are, imo, cutting to the heart of the
matter.
You said "God is too small to talk to natural men
[despite the fact that He created man]. But we spirit-filled
Christians are elevated because only we can receive revelation from
on high. Therefore natural men are seen as inferior. From there it's
a small step to paint all "uninstructed believer" as likewise
inferior and to drape ourselves in the elitism that eventually
became "the household".
Exactly so. May I posit, though, that
while unregenerate man is never out of God's reach, God still
remains out of reach for unsaved man. Lacking the great High Priest,
he has no access into God's presence but is yet "outside the
veil".
Now how does the unsaved man get saved? The line we
got in The Way was that we believed Rom 10:9,10...that we came to
the point of believing God rose Jesus from the dead. (Curiously, the
Lordship issue was little-mentioned, eh?). This point is reached by
a simple freewill decision, so the teaching goes. This is the point
at which I'd like to challenge the readers. Did we really have a
"choice" to make, or did He simply choose us cause us to have faith
to receive Christ? This (that He chose us, not us Him) is the
Calvinist/Reformed position, a position that has been thoroughly
articulated in Calvin's Institutes as well as many other places. It
was the Way's (and by no means unique to VP) emphasis on absolute
free will that was the most difficult wrong teaching to shake. I
proudly resisted the Bible's clear (well, and often not-so-clear)
verses on election and predestination saying "yeah, but it *really*
means..."
Gosh, how much of the bible were we doing this
with???
Some challenge verses (submitted prayerfully,
realizing the futility of playing a game of "duelling
verses"):
KJV Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved
through
faith; and that not of
yourselves: [it is] the gift of
God:
(I say that in this verse it is saying the FAITH is not
of myself, it is the Gift of God)
KJV 1Th 1:4 Knowing,
brethren
beloved, your election of God.
KJV 2Pe 1:10
Wherefore the rather,
brethren, give diligence to make your
calling and election sure: for if ye do
these things, ye
shall never fall:
KJV Rom 8:29 For whom he did
foreknow,
he also did predestinate [to
be] conformed to the image of his
Son,
that he might be the firstborn among
many
brethren.
Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did
predestinate, them he
also called:
and whom he called, them he also
justified: and
whom he justified, them
he also glorified.
KJV Eph 1:5
Having predestinated us
unto the adoption of children by Jesus
Christ to himself, according to the good
pleasure of his
will,
KJV Eph 1:11 In whom also we have
obtained an
inheritance, being
predestinated according to the
purpose of
him who worketh all things
after the counsel of his own
will:
KJV Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen
me, but I have
chosen you, and
ordained you, that ye should go and
bring
forth fruit, and [that] your fruit
should remain: that
whatsoever ye shall
ask of the Father in my name, he may
give it you.
Also, a study of free will, freedom, choice,
choose etc is beneficial in this context.
|
Graftedin
Likes juice squeezed not shaken
(11/24/00 12:13:46 pm)
|
Re: PFAL REVIEW:
The natural man
What about Gods desire that All men would come to the knowledge
of the truth and be saved. If we believe in absolute predestination
that precludes free will wouldn’t that make God a respecter of
persons? Wouldn’t that in its very practice be unjust? Just
asking.
Graftedin
Timothy 2:
1)
I exhort therefore that first of all, supplications, prayers,
intercessions, and thanks, be made for all men;
2)
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we
my lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and
honesty.
3) For it is good and
acceptable in the sight of God our Savior;
4)
Who would have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge
of the truth.
5) For there is one God
and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ
Jesus.
6) Who gave Himself a ransom
for all, to be testified in due time.
|
JBarrax
Hasn't gotten sick once from the
food
(11/24/00 12:44:33
pm)
|
Re: The natural
man & freedom of will
Hi Evan, God bless!
You raise some very good points there.
Romans chapter nine also comes to mind. I was going to quote verse
12, but the context really flows right through to the end of the
passage.
Romans 9:10-24
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by
one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being
not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose
of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him
that calleth)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve
the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but
Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there
unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to
Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have
compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is
not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that
sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even
for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my
power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the
earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have
mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then
unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?
Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made
me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the
same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto
dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to
make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of
wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known
the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore
prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of
the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?As Graftedin
mentioned, there are verses that indicate that man has a say in the
matter of his eternal destination, but this passage seems to me to
be a clear indication that our position in God's family is a result
of God's will, not ours. Perhaps I'll have to add this to my list of
subjects on which the Bible contradicts itself.
Back to the natural man, though, I apologize for the
miscommunication. I don't mean to imply that a natural man has free
access to God. Indeed, the Bible says repeatedly, "flesh and blood
shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven". My point was the other way
around; that God has access to man. God, being omnipotent can reach
down and touch the mind of any man, woman, or child on the planet.
Therefore, there is no chasm between the natural man and God because
there's no barrier God's love and power can't cross. Man, being
limited, can only receive from God of his grace and mercy. But the
fact that he can receive is contradicted by much of what VP
taught.
Peace
Jerry
Edited by: JBarrax
at: 11/24/00 11:46:49 am
|
evanpyle
Polishes the silverware
(11/24/00 2:55:24 pm)
|
Re: The natural
man & freedom of will
Jerry, you dirty dog! I deliberately left out Rom 9 because of its
obvious difficulties. It was, and still is in some ways, one of the
most difficult passages in scripture for me. Of course, Wierwille
simply sidestepped it by saying it was written to Jews. Earlier
portions of PFAL Review showed this to be the farce it is. Combine
this with:
KJV Joh 9:2 And his disciples asked him,
saying, Master, who did sin, this
man, or his parents, that he
was born blind?
John 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this
man sinned, nor his parents:
but that the works of God should be
made manifest in him.
Hmmm. Vic's explanation of this was
always very weak...you know, dancing with the
punctuation.
Graftedin, I am not saying that I understand the
juxtaposition of elements of both choice and election in the
scripture. I am just pointing out that election and predestination
exist in the Bible...abundantly...and cannot be blithely explained
away. I know, I know, my mind shouts "but that's not FAIR, that
doesn't FIT" etc etc. Maybe so...but it undeniably IS there, and
expressed quite plainly throughout the Bible.
I don't want to
derail this thread...I brought up the question because of its
relevancy to the question of the "new birth", and to show that way
dogma on this subject, though nicely self-contained and tied up in a
neat bundle, does not square with scripture.
Edited by: evanpyle
at: 11/24/00 7:03:00 pm
|
Steve
Lortz
Grease Spot Cafe
Discoverer
(11/26/00 9:27:54
pm)
|
Good to be
here!
Jerry, et al - I'm glad to see that the PFAL review didn't end when
WayDale went off the line. I haven't had much time to do this stuff
lately, and may not have much more for several months, but
hopefully, I'll be able to pop in from time-to-time.
Re: free
will - I called on God to help me in the name of Jesus Christ about
6 1/2 years before becoming exposed to TWI. During those years, I
believe the Lord taught me many things, without benefit of the
written Word, about living life. When I did start looking to the
Bible, some of the things I thought the Lord had taught me got
corrected, others got confirmed.
This is what the Lord taught
me back then about free will: nobody is ever able to dictate the
circumstances in which he finds himself, but people are usually able
to decide how they're going to respond in those circumstances. It
doesn't seem to me that anything I've read in the Word contradicts
that. If God didn't extend salvation to me as a free gift, I know
I'd never be saved. I cannot save myself. But on the other hand, I
don't believe God will force me to be saved if I decide I don't want
it.
I'm writing off the top of my head. I don't recall right
now where in PFAL VPW addressed the topic of what constitutes
salvation. The things I've seen in the Word suggest to me that the
TWI version of "salvation" could stand some considerable review.
God bless you all in the name of Jesus
Christ!
Love,
Steve
|
JBarrax
Had Fries with Gravy last night
(11/26/00 10:11:05 pm)
|
Re: Formed,
Made, Created
Sorry to change the subject but I can't help it. I'm predestined to
do so! Sorry Evan, that was a cheap shot. Seriously, I don't have
much more to contribute on the freewill question, but I would like
to offer something from Chapter Sixteen; Body, Soul, Spirit-Formed,
Made, Created
This post has been a long time coming, not only because of the
closing of Waydale, but because I just didn't want to write it.
Finding the errors in this fundamental topic has been surprisingly
discouraging. As VP states in PFAL, this subject deals with the
truths of the origin of mankind. So finding that it too was full of
assumption and error was especially difficult. Thanks to
Sunlight whose correspondence kept me working when I might have
taken the hiatus as an excuse to just drop the whole mess.
The problem here is that, as TWI often said, the class builds
upon itself. One doctrine is laid upon another. As we saw with the
teaching on the natural man, Dr. Wierwille's erroneous belief
that God cannot communicate with a natural man leads to errors
regarding revelation and faith. It also leads to errors in his
dividing of the Word regarding formed, made, and created. So
essentially what we have in the formed made created teaching is
"error upon error". But in addition to the cumulative effect
of the "natural man" error, the problems in this section are caused
by Wierwille's tendency to pluck verses out of their context and
make judgments that indicate a failure to thoroughly research the
terms involved. Having said that, let's take a look at what
VP set forth.
"A very condensed Scripture which we must thoroughly master in
order to understand the origin of man is Isaiah 43:7
Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created
him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made
him.
"I have created him, I have formed him, I have
made
him." Are the three words "created",
"formed", and "made" synonymous? Most people in my classes
say yes. If the Word means what it says and says what it
means, these words cannot be synonymous..."
Pause. This last statement is purely illogical. Are we to believe
there are no synonyms in the Bible? This is yet another
assumption that defies both logic and Biblical truth. This is the
same error made in regarding allos and heteros in the
context of the "four crucified" teaching, and the absurd definition
of apistia. As we have already seen, allos and
heteros are synonyms and are used interchangeably. The same is true
of made and created. Consider the following verses. At this point in
the class and book, rather than delve into the Biblical usage of
these terms, Wierwille jumped from Isaiah to I Thessalonians to make
an arbitrary connection with body, soul, and spirit. So in essence
he presented a teaching involving six biblical terms, none of which
he defined according to their biblical usage. For clarity's
sake, I'll not try to deal with the entire mess at once.
We'll look at body, soul, and spirit a bit later. Right now I'd like
to take a closer look at the biblical use of formed, made, and
created.
The word "formed" is yatsar, and carries the primary
meaning of giving shape to a physical object [Genesis 2:7,8, 19, II
Kings 19:25, Psalms 94:9]. In this usage, it's translated "earthen"
once and
"potter" or "potter's" 17 times connoting the action of
a potter shaping a vessel [II Sam 17:28, I Chronicles 4:23, Psalms
2:9, Isaiah 29:16] . It can also be used as a synonym for make
[Psalms 94:20], and is used of immaterial things like seasons
[Psalms 74:17] So VP's definition of yatsar is essentially
correct and its association with the man's body is valid.
Unfortunately his handling of the words "made" and "created" are
not. VP's definitions are based on his assumptions, not on
their Biblical usage. Furthermore, some of them don't even make
sense. On page 234 of Power for Abundant Living, we
read:
The word "made" in Hebrew is asah, "a substance required
of which the thing made consisted."
One of the basic rules of language and logic states that one
should never use a word in its definition. To define made as "a
substance required of which the thing made consisted" is meaningless
doubletalk. VP then goes on an extended teaching about soul, which
he asserts is the part of man that was made. On pages 237- 239, we
find his definition of "created".
"To find the first use of "create", we look at the first
book in the Bible.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth.
To "create" (bara) literally means "to get something out
of nothing" or "to bring into existence something which never
existed in any form before."...In verse 21, God created
"great whales" and every living creature that moveth..." Their
bodies were brought forth abundantly out of the waters. Water and
earth already existed,
so the substance which made up their
bodies did not have to be created. What had to be created at this
point? Soul life, because it had never existed before...As
God progressed in His work of forming, making, and creating
the earth, and its inhabitants, He finally came to bringing
about His culminating work - man.
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
God had already formed and made man; man already had a body and
a soul. So what was God doing in creating man in his own
image? What is the image of God? John 4:24: "God is a
spirit..."
So according to VP, the word create means to bring into existence
something that had never existed and God created man in his own
image which was spirit. Please bear in mind that VP also started
this dissertation by asserting that formed, made, and created,
cannot be synonymous. There are several problems with this
teaching. Let's look at some of the biblical usages of these
words, beginning with "made" (asah) and see what
unfolds.
Genesis 1:7 And God made (asah) the firmament,
and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the
waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:16 And God made (asah) two great lights;
the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule
the night: he made the stars also.
25 And God made (asah) the beast of the
earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing
that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it
was good.
1:26 And God said, Let us make (asah) man
in our image, after our likeness: and let them have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he
had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which
he had made (asah).
2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it:
because that in it he had rested from all his work which God
created and made (asah).
2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
when they were created, in the day that the LORD God
made (asah) the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the
day that God created man, in the likeness of God made
(asah) he him;
It quickly becomes obvious that VP's distinction between made and
created was not derived from Biblical research. In his
presentation of Genesis 1:27 and his teaching about God having
created man in his own image, he forgot to check the previous verse.
1:26 says God made man in his own image.
Therefore the
teaching that man's soul was made and his soul was created cannot be
biblically sound. Genesis 5:1 plainly says man was both created and
made in the image of God. Not only does this destroy the false
assumption that create refers specifically to the spirit, but it
also shows that asah and bara are often used
synonymously. Likewise, Genesis 2:4 says God "made the heavens
and the earth", using "made" as a synonym for "created" in
1:1. This synonymous usage of "made" and "created" also
appears in Genesis 6:6 &7
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made
(asah) man on the earth, and it grieved him at his
heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have
created (bara)from the face of the earth; both man,
and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for
it repenteth me that I have made them.
Now let's take a closer look at the word bara, keeping in
mind Dr. Wierwille's doctrine that to create means "to get something
out of nothing" or "to bring into existence something which never
existed in any form before."
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created (bara) the
heaven and the earth.
1:21 And God created (bara) great whales, and every
living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth
abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his
kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:27 So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the
image of God created he him; male and female created he
them.
Exodus 34:10 And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all
thy people I will do marvels, such as have not been done
(bara) in all the earth, nor in any nation: and all the
people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD: for it
is a terrible thing that I will do with thee.
Numbers 16:30 But if the LORD make (bara) a new
(berea: creation) thing, and the earth open her mouth, and
swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go
down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men
have provoked the LORD.
Joshua 17:15 And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great
people, then get thee up to the wood country, and
cut
down (bara) for thyself there in the land of the
Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for
thee.
17:18 But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and
thou shalt cut it down: (bara) and the outgoings of
it shall be thine: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though
they have iron chariots, and though they be strong.
Ezekiel 21:19 Also, thou son of man, appoint thee two ways,
that the sword of the king of Babylon may come: both twain shall
come forth out of one land: and choose
(bara)
thou a place, choose (bara) it at the head of the
way to the city.
Exodus 34:10 translates bara as "such as have not been
done". Likewise Numbers 16:30 says 'if the Lord create a creation
and the earth open her mouth...'. It's not talking about the
same creation as Genesis 1:1. It's talking about God doing
something new. No one had ever died by falling into a newly formed
pit and getting literally swallowed up by the earth with all his
belongings. Putting these verses together with those in Genesis
chapters one and two, it seems that the Biblical meaning of
bara is to make something new. It doesn't have to come from
nothing. The earth from which God created the pit that swallowed
Korah and company was already there. He didn't 'bring it into
existence from nothing'. Furthermore, Joshua 17:15 & 18
say Joshua told the children of Manasseh to create for themselves a
land in the woods of the Perizzites, and Ezekiel 21:10 records God's
commandment to Ezekiel to 'create a place' by which the armies of
Babylon would come. So Dr. Wierwille's emphatic declaration that
only God can create is false. To create merely means to make
something new. God can create and so can we.
Furthermore, of God having created man in his own image, we need
to consider Genesis 5:3
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in
his own likeness, after his image; and called his name
Seth:
The words, likeness and image are the exact same words used in
Genesis 1:26 and 27 of God making man after his likeness in his own
image. So again, VP's teaching that God making man in his
image meant the giving of holy spirit is an assumption that defies
the context. Whatever it means to be made after the image of God,
Adam duplicated when he made Seth in his image, after his likeness.
I don't think Adam put conditional holy spirit on Seth, do
you? And since Luke 3:38 calls Adam the son of God, it is
more likely this phrase has to do with sonship and the giving of
life.
So, in summary, the PFAL definitions and distinctions regarding
made and created are false. Made and Created are similar in meaning
and can be used synonymously. The only distinction is that "to
create" means to make something new, and has nothing
whatsoever to do with spirit. Dr. Wierwille's assumption involving
creation and spirit is based, imho, on his false teaching about
natural man not being able to receive revelation. In order
to
make this doctrine stand he had to insert holy spirit into the
record of Adam in Genesis, despite the fact that the word spirit
(ruach) is nowhere in the context. So again what we have here
is literally " error upon error."
Peace Jerry
|
Sunlight8
Read Menu, Afraid to Order
(11/27/00 5:54:15 pm) |
Re: PFAL
REVIEW
Hi y’all… Been out of town.
Predestination. I studied this
word this am. The sense I’m getting from it isn’t so much who but
what. The literal according to Strong’s is limit in advance. The
root of the root is coast (as in water). Proordizo seems figurative
of setting forth parameters.
One occurrence is I Cor 2:7,
“But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden
wisdom, which God ordained before (proordizo=ordained before) the
world unto our glory;”
This is clearly a what. The other
occurrences make much more sense to me as a what in context, and I’m
inclined to think it refers to what was prepared.
VP put it
in the sense of who via foreknowledge, which I think is wrong. Evan,
I do agree this whole subject needs to be looked at.
Formed,
made and created: This one really is aggravating. No where does the
Bible say that Adam had spirit upon him. No where does the Bible
state image equals spirit. A careful reading of Gen. 1-3 shows that
what Adam lost was eternal life. What Jesus Christ won back was
eternal life, which involves receiving holy spirit. It can’t be in
the sense of restoring man to his former state as in before the fall
i.e. spiritual connection line because as Jerry so adeptly pointed
out it isn’t necessary. The function of holy spirit as relates to
the new birth is indeed a spiritual connection line, and the
presence of it is the guarantee that in the resurrection our bodies
will become immortal, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that it is a
restore in a direct sense, and that is more an apples and oranges
comparison based on an unsubstantiated theology. Stated more simply,
a direct comparison can’t be made if half the equation isn’t put
forth to begin with. You can't say A equals B if there is no A. So
that leaves us with B means....
Jerry, I agree image embodies
sonship and life. I do think what God originally gave was eternal
life and what Adam passed on was mortal life. I think that is the
reason for the distinction in Gen. 5:1 and verse three (what God
created in his image vs Seth in Adam’s).
OK, now here is one
of my pet peeves. “Ye shall not surely die.” This was given in
response to are the dead alive now as falling for the Devil’s
original lie. Bull. What died in Adam wasn’t loss of spirit, and it
darn sure couldn’t have been soul.. He became mortal. Genesis
2:17”….for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die.” My center margin gives ”dying thou shalt die.” It would make a
lot more sense to say that whatever it was that caused Adam to be
immortal is what died than to say it was spirit upon, and the
context is clearly dealing with the physical. To say if I believe
soul or spirit goes back to God after death is believing the Devil’s
original lie is another apples and oranges comparison. Again,
bull.
Jerry, I never knew you were considering discontinuing
this thing. I am so glad you are sticking with it. If I had
something to do with it, well, I am more than honored. Maybe I’m
good for something too….
Sunlight
|
evanpyle
Polishes the silverware
(11/27/00 11:10:49 pm)
|
Re: PFAL
REVIEW
Sunlight, this year I read an edition of the Epic of Gilgamesh,
widely considered to be the oldest written literature on earth. It
concerns the mostly fictional adventures and journeys of one
Gilgamesh, a real person, King of Uruk of the old Sumerian culture.
He was somewhere in the neighborhood of only 10 kings removed form
Babel and the founding of Uruk by Nimrod. In his epic he has a
startlingly detailed narrative of the biblical flood and includes
allusions to the original man and woman.
The driving purpose
of this King's adventures and journeys was his search for
immortality...which was the purpose for Babel...attempting to "get
back to the garden".
Loss of immortality was at this time a
loss to which Gligamesh and others of his time still felt a real
connection. As you pointed out, it was immortality that was lost
with the original sin. This is what is regained with the new birth,
pure and simple. The reasoning of I Cor 15 seems clear enough. All
else seems so much gobbledygook. I am not 2 or 3 or 4 life forms
trying to live together in some agreement or truce. I am me. The
fact that the Holy Spirit indwells me doesn't make that some other
entity. It is me, the saved me. Dang, now i don't know how to say
it. But to me it's so much more direct than the dissections
performed by Wierwille.
|
Sunlight8
Sampled the Breakfast Special
(11/28/00 12:07:18 am) |
Re: PFAL
REVIEW
My dear Evan,
You make too much sense. Love your posts
btw.
Sunlight
|
Sunlight8
Likes the Lunch Menu
(11/28/00 4:39:23 pm) |
Re: PFAL
REVIEW
Thinking out loud here….
I just got through attempting to
read something. I say attempted because it was so illogical I
couldn’t make myself read it carefully. But what it was about, was a
thesis of the meaning of the new birth based on the image of
Genesis. But it was real eye-opening in the sense that it made me
wonder about the logic of trying to relate the image to the new
birth. If we are going to do that, then it is real necessary to
define very clearly what that image is exactly. In which case, the
conclusion determines the theology, which of course VP did. I don’t
see where Genesis is real clear about it. There are certain
conclusions that can be drawn based on context, but I don’t see any
more. Regardless, it seems to me that trying to draw direct
parallels between the situation with Adam and Eve (or image) and the
new birth is in and of itself erroneous.
Does the Bible
itself say that the accomplishments of Jesus Christ involved
restoring man back to his original state or place? I don’t recall
reading that. I’ve read a lot about redemption and other aspects
dealing with the consequences of the fall, and God’s plan to deal
with it. I haven’t read anything about God trying to bring about a
replication of pre-fall man. The new birth in general is something
different and superior to what Adam had. If replication were the
object, then why bother with resurrection? Replication and
redemption are not synonymous.
Which takes me to my real
point. Theology to my way of thinking is drawing conclusions based
on a given set of Biblical facts. While TWI claimed not to do this
by way of letting the Bible interpret itself, they most certainly
did. They claimed not to string together things that don’t belong
together, but they did that too. So here we are.
Sunlight |
JBarrax
Had Fries with Gravy last night
(12/3/00 10:52:37 pm)
|
Immortality and
dissection
Hello all. God Bless!
Well, this subject matter in Genesis
is rich material. The abandonment of VP's "dissection" as Evan put
it, and its associated errors opens up some fascinating doctrinal
possibilities. I'm still exploring some of them, but since we're on
the topic of immortality and the expulsion from Eden, I thought I
might as well toss some wild ideas into the mix and see what you
think. Besides, I think I've got a mental logjam. The "receive,
retain, release" principle VP taught in session three seems, in my
experience, to be valid. After having studied something for a length
of time, I reach a point beyond which I can't receive any more or
any clearer understanding until I share it with someone else. So
here goes...
First, I'd like to reiterate that Evan's
point about Wierwille's dissections is precisely accurate. VP
arbitrarily separated man into three parts and just as arbitrarily
assigned these parts to the three words in Isaiah 43:7: formed,
made, and created.
Wierwille said man's body was formed, his
soul made, and his spirit created. I say this was done arbitrarily
because this doctrine cannot be the result of minute study of the
biblical usage of these words. The words "body" and "spirit" are not
even mentioned in the context of the origin of man. The first
use of the word "spirit" as a connection between man and God is not
in Genesis chapter two, but chapter 41 in the story of Joseph. So
where did all that teaching about Adam and Eve having spirit upon
them come from?
Most of you will remember that VP cited
the Hebrew words for "soul"(nephesh) and "spirit"
(ruach). He asserted that man's body was formed, but never
mentioned the Hebrew word for "body". Why? Well, God's Word doesn't
actually talk about bodies. The Scriptural use of the word "body" is
almost always reserved for dead bodies, (Leviticus 21:11,
Numbers 6:6, 9:6, 9:7, 9:10, 11, & 13) and is a usage of the
word nephesh!
Both man and animals are spoken of
in language that indicates a holistic body-soul entity.
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living soul (chay nephesh).
2:19 And out of the ground
the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl
of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call
them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, (chay
nephesh) that was the name thereof.
In these verses, the word "formed", which VP
asserted describes the body, is used in conjunction with soul life.
Men and animals are not souls in bodies, they are living souls whom
God has formed. So again, the categorization of man as a "three-fold
being" has intellectual appeal, but lacks Scriptural support.
Now that we've completely discarded the formed, made,
created, body/soul/spirit hypothesis, let's return for a moment to
the topic of the image of God. As I mentioned in a previous post,
VP's teaching that Genesis 1:27 means God put holy spirit upon man
is erroneous. But what does this phrase mean? After only 26 verses
to describe God, we are told that God made and created man after His
likeness in his image. This statement sets forth some kind of
similarity between man and God. Well, if we look at the context,
there is only one attribute of God revealed. Verse one says "God
created...". Verse seven says "God made...". As we noted earlier,
the notion that only God can create is not Biblically accurate. To
create means to make something new. Genesis 4:17-22 tell us that the
descendants of Cain invented music, shepherding, metalworking, and
cities. Both men and animals are living souls made from the ground,
but only man can invent, create, and build. Animals have
intelligence, but they cannot use it to devise tools, written
language, or even clothing.
I believe one of the truths
conveyed by Genesis 1:26 and 27 is that God gave to man the power to
make and create. In that sense, man was made in the image and
likeness of God. There are even some interesting examples in these
passages of things God did that man has learned to duplicate.
Genesis 2:21
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he
slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead
thereof;
Here we have the first anesthetized surgery, something
that man has learned to duplicate. The next verse, which depicts God
making Eve from Adam's rib, could be considered the first instance
of cloning, something that has been duplicated with animals, and is
a medical possibility with people. (The ethical, not technological,
considerations of cloning are its primary obstacles.) I do not mean
to imply that man will one day attain the ability to create whole
universes; simply that his ability to build, make, and create things
and technologies puts him on a different plane than our fellow
living souls. In this sense, we are made in the image of
God.
To curtail the length of this post, I'll pick up
here on the next one with some more odds and ends from
Genesis
Peace
Jerry |
evanpyle
Likes the eggs Scrambled and runny
(12/3/00 11:21:29 pm)
|
Re: immortality
and dissection
Hmmm, Jerry, never thought about THAT one. You've really got my
motor running.
I have only recently rethought the concept of
man being made in God's image and questioning what does that mean.
Honestly, I didn't even think of delimiting it to the attributes of
God listed in Genesis up to this point. I simply picked up God's
overarching attributes throughout the Bible...immortality,
righteousness, truth, etc. Well, obviously the attributes must be
limited, because man was certainly not all God was, eh? In fact he
was made a "little lower than the angels". So, this deserves more
thought and reading...
|
JBarrax
Had Fries with Gravy last night
(12/3/00 11:33:43 pm)
|
more Genesis
stuff
Well once again, I've spent about 40 minutes constructing a post
only to be kicked offline by Compuserve and have it
obliterated.
If anyone asks you to sign on to Compuserve your
best response is to kick 'em hard in the shins.
I'll try
again tomorrow.
Peace
jerry
|
Sunlight8
Knows the Waitress's name
(12/4/00 5:08:50 pm)
|
Re: PFAL
REVIEW
I Cor. 15:45 “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a
living (zoe) soul (psuche);…”
Adam was a living soul because
he had zoe. Perhaps a more accurate or better understanding could be
achieved by saying Adam was a living person. Zoe is Biblically (NT)
the opposite of death. That life becomes eternal with the new birth
(zao). Zoe/psuche evidently correspond to nepesh chay of Gen. 2. My
memory is fuzzy, but didn't VP say or imply Adam was a living person
because he had body/soul? And wasn't breath life equal to soul? If
my memory is right, then there is a further problem relating to
definitions of words, ie soul. It would seem to me a person has
breath life because of zoe not psuche. Why did he leave out zoe I
wonder?
If my Greek words aren’t spelled correctly it is
because I usually use Tyndale’s, and I’m too lazy to look up the
correct spellings….
Sunlight
|
JBarrax
Had Fries with Gravy last night
(12/5/00 12:18:31 am)
|
The Battle of
the Senses
Howdy one and all.
There are several questions that have
been raised in my mind while studying this material, but most of
them aren't really pertinent to the task of analyzing PFAL, so I'll
post them on the sidebar and continue here along the lines of the
class material.
The subject that keeps coming to mind in
Genesis is VP's "Battle of the Senses Vs. Revelation faith".
Remember, this teaching in Genesis was the next stop on the godless
world railroad. I say godless world because he effectively removed
God from the world He made by saying that God only speak to what He
is. This necessitated the Scripturally unsubstantiated teaching that
Adam and Eve had holy spirit by which they could receive revelation
from God. In contrast to this supposed revelation, is the "senses
realm", which contradicts God's revealed Word and will. Think about
that for a moment.
God made the heavens and the earth.
Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made...
God made the heavens and the earth
magnificently beautiful.
Genesis 2:9
And out of the ground made the LORD God to
grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for
food...God MADE the "senses world" and He made it to
be pleasant to the senses. So what inherent conflict is there
between what God says and what God made? None. The idea that
the senses world inherently contradicts the Word of God grows from
the error that God, being spirit, is limited to operating in the
spiritual realm. This is of course an extremely absurd notion when
we are studying Genesis, which describes in grand fashion how God
made and created the natural, senses world and made it good and
beautiful. God is not locked out of the realm made by His hand and
fashioned from his goodness.
Speaking of the "battle of
the senses", VP made much of the statement in Genesis 3:6 that Eve
"saw that the tree was good for food and pleasant to the eyes." He
says she walked by her senses and calamity resulted. This teaching
misses the point by a wide margin, as does every other teaching I've
ever heard by TWI on the fall of Adam and Eve. The problem wasn't
the beauty of the tree and its carnal appeal. The problem was in
their failure to obey the will of the Lord.
VP presents a
detailed analysis of Eve's conversation with the serpent wherein he
asserts that Eve fell by responding to and considering the
temptation, omitting the word "freely", adding the phrase "neither
shall ye touch it", and changing "thou shalt surely die" to "lest ye
die". In his detailed analysis of this conversation, He missed the
first and most important step toward sin and death.
Throughout Genesis chapter one, we read of the works of
God. "In the beginning God created,...And God said let there be
light...and God said let there be a firmament..." All these verses
tell of the creative work of Almighty God, Elohim. But in
Genesis 2:4, [in what should be the beginning of chapter two,] we
read, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the
earth and the heavens
EVERY reference to God in chapter
two has the word "Lord" in front of it. Chapter one chronicles the
work of Elohim, the Creator. Chapter two sets forth [not in
chronological order, btw] the work of Jehovah Elohim, the
Creator in a sovereign relationship to man to whom He has delegated
some of His authority, and to whom He issued a clear commandment.
Beginning at Genesis 2:4, EVERY SINGLE REFERENCE to God is written
"the Lord God" -- until the Serpent comes in
Genesis 3:1-3
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any
beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the
woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of
the garden?
The Serpent in his subtilty presented the
Word of God out of context. He removed the word "Lord". It was so
subtle Eve didn't catch it. Apparently, neither did Dr. Wierwille,
because I've never heard anyone in The Way Ministry teach this. Eve
should have responded by saying, "Thus saith the Lord God..." But
instead, she took the bait and got into an abstract conversation in
which God wasn't her Lord, but rather her obstruction.
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the
fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the
tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye
shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye
die.
There are many inconsistencies between what the
Lord God told Adam and what Eve told the serpent. But the one that
made all the difference, in my opinion, is the omission of Lordship.
This is what lead to the downfall of man. THIS is the "crux of
Christianity". The "crux of Christianity", as VP put it, is not the
battle of the senses versus revelation faith, but the battle of
wills; God's will vs. our will.
Time and again in this
process of the PFAL Review, we have seen the importance of context
and lordship. In what has become a more and more telling oversight,
Dr. Wierwille's detailed dissertation failed to point out that Eve's
first mistake was in allowing Satan to present God's Word outside
its proper context of Lordship and obedience.
Peace
Jerry |
Mandii
She who gives good
tips
(12/5/00 4:21:46
pm) |
Re: The Battle
of the Senses
Excellent, Jerry. Wow, I never realized that before about the Lord
God and the serpent and Eve referring to just God.
What is
happening there is the classic conversation of a person who
acknowledges God, acknowledges His Will as in what NOT to do, but
because they only see Him as God, and not Lord God, the sovereign
God in whom they have NOT totally submitted themselves, they do what
they want anyway and damn the consequences.
In other words,
Eve never stopped believing in God, she rejected His Lordship or
Kingship over her.
Kinda like the devils mentioned in the
book of James who believe also and tremble but they should tremble
because they recognized Him as God but never stayed submitted to Him
as being Lord God and followed another.
I think that the
battle of the senses session totally bypasses faith, that it is a
gift from God and puts the emphasis that our faith, our growing
faith is the result of us wearing blinders to that around
us.
Our growing faith is that of God. We all know men who
have read the bible and supposedly had it memorized. It did nothing
to give them faith.
And although I agree with reading the
Bible and studying and praying, we were taught to do it as a "WORK"
to increase our own faith and that is impossible. So in other words
we were taught to ignore what we see via our senses and yet at the
same time we were encourage to USE our senses to build a spiritual
faith. Just doesn't jive especially since Jesus is the AUTHOR and
finisher of our faith.
Many people live in countries to this
day who do not have access to the Bible, daily fellowships or even
weekly fellowship and yet have tremendous faith. That is because
faith is spiritual and of God. |
JBarrax
Had Fries with Gravy last night
(12/5/00 8:25:16 pm)
|
battle of senses
and senses faith
Mandii said,
"...So in other words we were taught to ignore what
we see via our senses and yet at the same time we were encourage to
USE our senses to build a spiritual faith.
Bingo! You've hit
the nail on the head Mandi. There is an inherent contradiction in
teaching that we're to ignore the senses world and walk by faith and
then magnifying the written word to a form of legalism. You can't
profess to walk by faith on one hand and then admonish people to
chapter and verse their way through life on the other. You're going
to do one or the other. And according to the Pauline epistles and
the book of Acts, walking by faith is the heart and goal of true
Christianity. Our knowledge of the Scripture is supposed to support
that faith. It's the means to the end, not the end
itself.
Peace
Jerry | |
