| Author |
Comment |
Rafael
Olmeda
Likes Ketchup on
Everything
(12/24/00 12:50:16
am)
|
The Fourth
"Archangel"
This has always been the source of great amusement to
me.
The fourth archangel is... Raphael.
Coincidence? I
think so.
Here are some references, FYI...
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintr02.htm
www.newadvent.org/cathen/12640b.htm
One
of these articles refers to only three angels being named, including
Raphael. Clearly, the exclusion is Lucifer.
Edited by: Rafael
Olmeda at: 12/24/00 12:03:43 am
|
lovematters
Only likes
sourdough
(12/25/00 12:30:29
am)
|
Rafael -
Archangel/High Priest of THE
The Book of Enoch
Quote:
[Chapter 2![0]](PFAL0403_files/alien.gif)
1,2
And these are the names of the holy angels who watch. Uriel, one
of the holy angels, who is 3 over the world and over Tartarus. Raphael,
one of the holy angels, who is over the spirits of men. 4,5Raguel,
one of the holy angels who takes vengeance on the world of the
luminaries. Michael, one 6 of the holy angels, to wit, he that is
set over the best part of mankind and over chaos. Saraqael, 7 one
of the holy angels, who is set over the spirits, who sin in the
spirit. Gabriel, one of the holy 8 angels, who is over Paradise
and the serpents and the Cherubim. Remiel, one of the holy angels,
whom God set over those
who rise.
From: The Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament
R.H. Charles - using his
verse numbering system.
Oxford: The Clarendon Press
Re:
Gabriel - Emmanuel Velikovsky maintained that, according to Jewish
legend, Gabriel sometimes was a warrior/avenging angel. |
JBarrax
Likes Ketchup on Everything
(12/25/00 11:36:42 pm)
|
Raphael,
Archangel of THE
AHA! So the truth is out! Raphael is the archangel of healing and
reeeaaaallly long threads! LOL
Seriously, Rafael, thanks for
the info! Pretty cool stuff.
Sunlight: Thanks for the kind
words; nice post too.
God bless us everyone!
Jerry |
Mark
Sanguinetti
Likes the Lunch
Menu
(12/27/00 12:32:48
am)
|
more Genesis
stuff
Jerry:
Some good posts here. I hate it too when I write up
some good biblical material only to have AOL, without warning, log
me off the internet and in so doing I lose my work before I can post
it. If you have long posts I recommend always writing them
beforehand with your word processing program. Then when it is time
to post your material, highlight it, then right click and click
copy. Then go to the forum where you want to post your research work
and right click again, and then click paste to copy your material to
the board.
You probably know this already, but it is a good
habit to get into if your internet provider tosses you offline
without warning. Keep up the very good work.
Best Regards,
Mark
|
Rafael
Olmeda
Likes Ketchup on
Everything
(12/27/00 2:09:02
am)
|
Re: Further
notes...
I've had a number of private responses to my challenge and I want
to reiterate it for clarity's sake.
1. Prove from scripture
that Gabriel is an archangel.
2. Prove from scripture that
Gabriel is/was in charge of any other angels.
3. Prove from
scripture that all the angels were EVER divided into three groups
under Gabriel, Lucifer and Michael.
I want verses, not vague
conjecture.
I contend that NONE of the above statements can
be proven from scripture. ALL of the above statements are presented
as FACT in PFAL, a class which taught us not to accept doctrines
that were not based on solid scriptural basis, from an organization
that taught me to ask, "chapter and verse, please."
The
closest you'll get is Revelation 12, where it says the dragon "drew
a third of the stars of heaven" when he was cast down to the earth.
Assuming the dragon to be Lucifer, we still have no evidence that
the stars he drew with him were under his control in the first place
(nor do we have evidence that this was not the case).
My
point is, in order to declare something as truth, I believe the
Bible has to actually SAY it. VPW's presentation of the divine and
angelic order prior to the fall of Lucifer has absolutely no basis
in scripture itself. That's my opinion, subject to change if anyone
can establish BASED ON SCRIPTURE AND NOT CONJECTURE that I do not
have my facts straight.
|
lovematters
Only likes
sourdough
(12/27/00 1:57:13
pm)
|
Re: Further
notes...
Sorry Rafael, I didn't understand that you were asking a serious
question and I posted the Enoch piece as a bit of a joke.
Upon consulting the dictionary it looks to me like only one
entity per group can have 'arch' status. - The prefix means "main,
chief, principal." So you may be quite right, and, as a consequence,
"the archangels" is a misnomer.
Below are the only verses in
the Bible that mention the name of Gabriel.
Daniel 8:16 And
I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and
said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.
Daniel
9:21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel,
whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly
swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening
oblation.
Luke 1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I
am
Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God
Luke 1:26
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a
city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Edited by: lovematters
 at: 12/27/00 3:13:29 pm
|
Rafael
Olmeda
Likes Ketchup on
Everything
(12/27/00 9:19:54
pm)
|
No sweat
My comments were not directed at you, lovematters.
Is the
book of Enoch in the Catholic Canon? I honestly do not know. I know
there's a book of Baruch, Tobit, I and II Wisdom, Canticles. But I
don't remember if Enoch is in the Catholic Bible.
If a
Catholic takes a stand based on what he reads in a Catholic Bible, I
can't very well argue with that. There is no angel Raphael in the
Protestant tradition.
I think I'm off topic at this point, so
forgive me if I stop discussing this (unless anyone would like to
carry this on at sidebar). |
JBarrax
Likes Ketchup on Everything
(12/30/00 3:55:05 pm)
|
In God's Image:
Take Two
I've noted before that the PFAL doctrine on Genesis 1:27 is flawed.
VP taught that the image of God is spirit and that this verse means
Adam had spirit upon him.
As we've already noted, there is no
mention of spirit in man in the early chapters of Genesis. I said
the phrase "image of God" indicates that man has the ability to make
and create. (To create means make something new, not bring into
being out of nothing.)
Upon further reading, it occurs to me that
the meaning of this passage is much simpler than that. This is
another of those cases where we were exhorted to read what's
written, but didn't. The first thing I missed was that the word
"image" isn't the only operative word involved.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make 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.
Adam was made and created in the image and
likeness of God. The phrase "after our likeness" was ignored in
PFAL, and so I too ignored it until this morning, but it needs to be
considered. It is also used in Genesis 5:1 which refers back to
creation.
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that
God created man, in the likeness of God made he
him;
The word "likeness" is translated from the Hebrew
word demuwth, meaning appearance. Demuwth is used 25
times in the Old Testament, mostly in some rather enlightening
verses in Ezekiel.
II Chronicles 4:3 And under it was the similitude
demuwth of oxen, which did compass it round about: ten in a
cubit, compassing the sea round about. Two rows of oxen were cast,
when it was cast.
Isaiah 40:18-20
To whom then will
ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
19
The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it
over with gold, and casteth silver chains.
20 He that is so
impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not
rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven
image, that shall not be moved. Isaiah 40:18 has been
cited by those who claim that God has no visual appearance. The
verse doesn't say that God has no likeness, it merely challenges the
reader as to what that may be. The context of this challenge is the
idolatry that was taking root in Israel. The children of Israel were
fashioning idols of gold, and wood just as the pagans did.
Demuwth is used 16 times in the book of Ezekiel in the
context of Ezekiel's remarkable visions, the first of which seems to
begin with a description of a mushroom cloud.
Ezekiel 1:4 And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of
the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a
brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour
of amber, out of the midst of the fire.
5 Also out of the
midst thereof came the likeness demuwth of four living
creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness
demuwth of a man.
22 And the likeness demuwth
of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the
colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads
above.
23 And under the firmament were their wings
straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered
on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side,
their bodies.
24 And when they went, I heard the noise
of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the
Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they
stood, they let down their wings.
25 And there was a
voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood,
and had let down their wings.
26 And above the firmament
that was over their heads was the likeness demuwth of a
throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness
demuwth of the throne was the likeness demuwth as the
appearance of a man above upon it.Ezekiel's vision
describes heaven, and the throne of God and one with the likeness of
a man above upon it. Does anyone but God sit upon God's throne? This
verse describing God as having the appearance of a man sheds more
light on Genesis 1:26 & 27. By the way, He wasn't a paunchy
balding man wearing khaki's.
1:27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of
fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even
upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as
it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.
28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the
day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about.
This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the
LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a
voice of one that spake. Your average guy doesn't
appear to be full of fire radiating from his loins [although we'd
like to think so :-)] nor does he emit a rainbow aura. So we're not
exactly made in God's image, but generally speaking, we are cut from
his mold. He is the spiritual pattern of which we are the physical
copy. This should not be so surprising a concept considering that
angels, who are called the sons of God, appear in human form, but
are obviously not human. They too are made in the image of God.
Another indicator that the physical form of man is patterned
after the appearance of God comes in Genesis 9:5 & 6
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the
hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at
the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be
shed: for in the image of God made he man.
The context
is bloodshed, physical violence, the body and soul of man. And in
this context, Noah was told that in the image of God made he man. So
the image of God is not spirit, nor is it creativity, although that
too may be true. The image of God is just what it seems; an upright
body with a flat face, two eyes, two ears, two arms, a torso and two
legs; khakis optional.
Peace
Jerry |
JBarrax
Likes Ketchup on Everything
(12/31/00 12:44:39 am)
|
Final Questions
from Genesis
Well, we've just about covered all the PFAL doctrine from Chapters
Sixteen and Seventeen, which correspond to session six. I've just a
few more notes to add.
First let me say that I think what Wierwille
taught regarding the preexistence of dinosaurs and Cavemen
was accurate. That is, the teaching that there is a great span of
time between the creation of the heavens and the earth (verse one)
and the statement that the earth "was" without form and void (empty
and lifeless: verse two). What caused that first heaven and earth to
fall into ruin is not clear. As we've noted, it could not have been
the fall of Lucifer, because Lucifer has not yet fallen from heaven.
But it could certainly have been the rebellion of Lucifer that
caused the apparent collapse of the original "firmament". The first
heaven and earth certainly could have been home to Tyrannosaurs and
Neandrethals who died when the first heaven and earth were
overflowed with water, according to II Peter 3:6.
There are just three more points of contention I have with PFAL
in this section.
"After his kind" The Bible vs. Darwin.
"There are many things we ought to know about the great
accuracy of God's Word in Genesis because in it is the foundation of
the accuracy of His matchless Word.
Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth
grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit
after his kind...
"His kind" should be translated "its
kind". To bring forth after its kind means, for example, when a
tomato seed is planted, tomatoes are reaped... The word "kind" is
the Greek word genos, which is transliterated into English as
"genus". If cows are bred, a calf is born..."
Here
again we have an example of Wierwille breaking his own stated
principles in order to make a point. He talked of the "great
accuracy of...His matchless Word". This statement is a reiteration
of his sermon in session three he preached about the mathematical
exactness and scientific precision of each word in the Bible. God
means what he says etc, etc. Then in the next paragraph, he throws
that right out the window by saying that the word kind in Genesis
1:11 is the GREEK word genos. Genesis was written in
HEBREW, not Greek! The word translated "kind" is not
genos, but miyn.
So why did VP switch languages on us? Because one can't make the
statements about evolution within species not genus using the
Biblical word miyn. It loses its "scientific" veneer. Rather
than 'letting the Word speak', Wierwille put words in its mouth. The
Bible does not support any of the statments made in this session of
PFAL. Rather what we have here is an extended attempt to make
acknowledged scientific "facts" fit the Bible.
The biblical use of the word miyn is not nearly as
scientifically precise as Wierwille indicated. Genesis 1:20-25
divides all animal life into five broad categories; aquatic life and
birds, which were created on the fifth day, and beasts, cattle, and
creeping things, which God made on the sixth day, along with
man.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the
earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created
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.
22 And
God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the
waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And
God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his
kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his
kind: and it was so.
25 And God made 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.
The use of the phrase after his kind
(miyn), may be interpreted as one big group, or specific
kinds of birds and beasts. So we could read into this the teaching
about genus that VP presented, but it is backward to say that the
biblical language is scientifically precise.
Dominion and spirit Sunlight has been
working extensively on this topic and probably knows more about it
than I do. But I do want to point out that VP's assumption that Adam
had spirit upon him ripples into two other errors. One is his
statement that, by that spirit, Adam had dominion as "God's
under-ruler" over all of creation. As we've already noted several
times, all of Wierwille's teachings about spirit upon man in Eden
are brought in from his rash association of Isaiah 43:7 and I
Thessalonians 5:23, not from the context of Genesis. Nowhere in
these chapters does the Scripture indicate that Adam had dominion
because of spirit. His dominion was over the animals and land;
physical only.
Genesis 1:26-28
26 And God said, Let us make 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.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the
image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
There's nothing here to indicate that Adam was a god
having spiritual authority over all of God's creation. More
importantly, VP's assertion that Adam's dominion was transferred to
the Serpent when he sinned is contradicted by Genesis 9:1-3
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the
fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the
earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the
earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they
delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat
for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
The same dominion God originally gave to Adam was
again given to Noah after the flood. So Adam didn't lose it by his
sin, therefore VP's teaching about Adam's "High Treason" is not
accurate. That of course leaves us with the question of how to
explain the Devil's offer of the authority of the kingdoms of the
world (Luke 4:6), but Wierwille's answer doesn't fit the Biblical
evidence.
Thou shalt surely die The other error
relating to the assumption of spiritual life is that of spiritual
death. Wierwille interprets Genesis 2:17 as a warning of the loss of
the spirit God had conditionally given Adam. In the absence of
Scriptural evidence of such a spirit, it's illogical to teach that
Adam lost it.
Of course this leaves us with the nagging question: "In what
sense did Adam die?" Beats me. I'm not sure he did. And this is
where the whole shebang starts to fall apart.
I suppose we should congratulate VP on his attempt to put
together a somewhat logical presentation of biblical teaching. I
find myself unable to do that because the more I read, the more
contradictions jump up and slap me in the face. Genesis 2:17 is only
one. We might also ask why God made the stars, sun and moon on the
fourth day to divide the day from the night when He had already done
so on the first day.
Genesis 1:3-5
3 And God said, Let there be light: and
there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good:
and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God
called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the
evening and the morning were the first day.
16 And God made
two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser
light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God
set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and
to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
So once again I come up against the frustrating conclusion that I
cannot arrive at one truth for any major biblical doctrine. Does the
soul survive death? Depends on whether you believe Solomon or
Matthew. But back to the subject at hand, the real "corker" is
Genesis 2:17. God said, "in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou
shalt surely die". A more accurate translation would be, "dying thou
shalt die". Some have surmised that this translation takes the
immediacy out of it, but the immediacy is supplied not by the phrase
"thou shalt", but by the words "...in the day that thou eatest
thereof...". The Serpent said otherwise and is called the Father of
Lies.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then
your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and
evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for
food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired
to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and
gave also unto her husband with her; and he did
eat.
However, the results of Eve's disobedience
indicate that everything the Serpent said was true.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that
they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made
themselves aprons.
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man
is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put
forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live
for ever: Their eyes were opened just as the Serpent
said. The Lord God said the man is become "as one of us" just as the
Serpent had said. And if the Lord God hadn't given them the boot
before they got to the tree of life, they wouldn't have died:
just as the Serpent had said. So where's the deception? I don't see
any. All I see is disobedience. God said, 'don't eat that.' They ate
it, lost their innocence, got tossed from Eden, cursed, etc.
But the death warned of did not come on the day they ate thereof.
And since they had yet to eat of the tree of life and live forever,
our assumption that Adam and Eve would have lived forever if they
hadn't eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is
not entirely logical. Let me repeat that. Since Adam and Eve did not
eat of the tree of life, our assumption that Adam and Eve would have
lived forever if they hadn't sinned is not entirely logical.
How do we know they didn't eat of the tree of life you say? Well if
they had, verse 22 makes no sense because it says, "...and now, lest
he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat,
and live for ever:". So this verse indicates that they had not eaten
of it.
What if they had avoided both trees? Would they have lived 1000
years and died of old age without sin? What if they had eaten of the
tree of life and then eaten of the tree of KG&E? Then the
Serpent's words would have come true, but they may have been, as VP
said, stuck in an unredeemable state forever and God would have to
wipe everyone out and start all over--again. Maybe they died in some
other way.
Maybe....just maybe the "skeptics" and the "faithblasters" are
right. Maybe Genesis is just a primitive attempt to explain who we
are and how we got here. [If you want to know what I mean by
"primitive" consider Revelation 6:13].
I am sorely tempted to just take VP's advice and just "chuck the
whole thing". But then I wouldn't know how much screwy doctrine
still lurks undisturbed in my mind, clouding my perception of life,
the universe and everything. Isn't learning an exciting
adventure!
Peace
Jerry |
evanpyle
Grease Spot Regular
(12/31/00 11:16:23 am)
|
Re: Final
Questions from Genesis
Jerry, there are serious biblical holes in the "gap Theory"
presented in PFAL. However, the discussion would be too much to
handle here...I just don't have time to type that much. But I did
see that Creation Science Evangelism's website now has their seminar
online at www.drdino.com
Check it out. Dr. Hovind is a
scream.
|
JBarrax
Polishes the silverware
(12/31/00 10:30:32 pm)
|
Faith and
Believing
In a sense the PFAL Review has come full circle. The discussion
that gave rise to this project was one I had this summer with a
ninth Corps lady about faith and believing. I had long been an
ardent proponent of VP's "faith of Jesus Christ" doctrine, defending
it among ex-way on forums from Rendy's Forum to CES to Waydale. It
was after one such discussion that I remarked to Marza that people
just don't understand what VP taught. I was convinced that a fuller
exposition of Dr. Wierwille's doctrine would set everyone straight.
So I picked up my PFAL book and my Companion Bible and got to
work.
What I found was an astonishing contradiction between the words
of Victor Paul Wierwille and the Word of God. That stunned and upset
me and inspired me to take a closer look at Power for Abundant
Living. As most of you know that experience of being stunned and
upset has only repeated and intensified itself in the process. That
process has revealed gross errors both small and great, one of the
most important being the teaching about the chasm between the
natural man and God. That error and its ramifications comes to full
bloom in this section, chapter Seventeen, "Faith Comes by Hearing."
Since much of the error in this section we have already discussed,
I'll concentrate on VP's teaching about faith and believing which
has only been touched on in the original Waydale "Sidebars to PFAL
Review" thread. I'll quote VP at length here in order to fully
present the contrast between his doctrine and the Scripture.
Before we get to the faith and believing topic, we have to wade
through yet another offshoot of VP's body, soul, spirit doctrine and
note the significant contrast between Christian doctrine and Wierwille's. Without further discourse, let's turn to Power for
Abundant Living, page 269.
When the Devil was given dominion and man became a being of body and
soul, what happened to man's relationship with God?
Ephesians 2:11, 12
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being
in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by
that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens
from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
They were without God because when man sinned he lost
his spirit, his innate connection with God. Man, being without
spirit, was without God, and without hope in the world.
There are three errors here. First, the patented
Weirwillian context-jump. He asks what happened to man's
relationship with God when he sinned. The answer to that question is
found in Genesis chapter three, but VP jumps instead to Ephesians
chapter two an entirely unrelated Scripture. Had he stayed in
Genesis, he would have found that when man sinned God continued to
talk with him and provide for his physical and spiritual needs.
(Genesis 3:9-21). Why not go to Genesis to get the answer to a
question asked about the events of Genesis? Perhaps because that
would reveal the error of VP's teaching about the natural man being
unable to receive anything (including information and clothing) from
God. That would be bad. So instead, he hops from Genesis to
Ephesians, which, by the way is addressed "to" the Church according
to VP. So not only is this a context jump it's a violation of his
"keys to the Word's interpretation": applying Scripture written to
the Church to Adam and Eve. So here we have error number
one.
Error number two is a seemingly minor edit which reveals the
depth of the roots of the controversial "absent Christ" doctrine.
Apparently VP, believing that Christ is absent from our lives,
attempted to erase him from certain Scriptures. Notice that
Ephesians 2:12 says the Gentiles were "without Christ and without
hope in the world". Wierwille said, "They were without God because
when man sinned he lost his spirit, his innate connection with God.
Man, being without spirit, was without God, and without hope in the
world." Where the Bible says we were without Christ, VP changes it
to "without God" and mentions it twice for good measure. If he'd
been a Trinitarian who believed God and Christ are identical, this
would be understandable, even defensible. But given the Way's
unorthodox Christology, this is Biblical sleight of hand, a
deceitful mishandling of the truths of God's Word.
Error number three is another attempt by VP to squeeze his
body-soul-spirit/natural man doctrine into Scripture. As he changed
Christ to God, he changes "having no hope" to having no spirit. The
verse says we former Gentiles were without Christ and without hope.
It says nothing of being without spirit. And, as we have seen from
Genesis 9, even animals have spirit. It's called the spirit of life,
otherwise known as chay nephesh or soul life, the spirit of
man. So much for Wierwille's adamant exhortation to "read what's
written!" In the next paragraph, not only does VP insist on
injecting the no spirit doctrine where it's not written, but in
doing so, we see the seed of yet another major problem with Way
doctine.
Ephesians 2:1
And you hath he quickened, who were dead
in trespasses and sins;
What does dead mean?
Man appeared to be lively. He had body and soul but was dead in
trespasses and sins because he had no spirit...Man is conceived and
born in sin because he has no spirit.
As we have before testified, there is no Scriptural
indication that Adam ever had holy spirit upon him. So the
repeated claim that man had lost spirit is a fabrication. But that's
not the main problem here. What the Bible attributes to the
consequence of sin, Wierwille attributes to the loss of spirit. Just
as he did in his mishandling of the nature of Eve's sin, he is again
hiding the awful consequence of sin and therefore, the paramount
importance of obedience unto righteousness. Ephesians 2:1 says we
were dead in trespassed and sins. Why were we dead? Because "the
wages of sin is death", not because we lacked spirit. Romans 5:12-14
expands on this truth.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin
is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death
reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after
the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him
that was to come.
We were dead because Adam and Eve disobeyed God; they
sinned and brought death to their seed, their offspring. To ignore
that is to ignore the core doctrine of the Bible. But ignore it we
did. The teaching that follows in session seven about "broken
fellowship" further obfuscates this pivotal issue. The
licentiousness that corrupted so many ministers, marred so many
lives, and brought disgrace to the Way started here in Power for
Abundant Living. Speaking of which, let's look at what comes next on
page 270.
Having only a body and soul, how does a natural man ever again have
a connection with the spiritual realm? Spiritual things can only be
known by the spirit, even as things in the natural realm can only be
known by the five senses. Since natural man cannot know God, what is
the bridge that spans the chasm between the natural man and God? The
bridge is faith.
Again with the chasm nonsense. Only here, as VP
attempted to weave it into the doctrine of faith, it reached new
heights of absurdity. "...even as things in the natural realm can
only be known by the five senses...." What? Does this mean that God,
being spirit, can't know the natural realm? What an insane
statement! As the Old Testament amply demonstrates, the natural man
can know God. There is no such chasm that keeps God from his people.
But I digress.
But natural man does not have faith because faith is a spiritual
element. How then does he get faith to span that chasm?
Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God.
Faith comes to the natural
man by hearing. ..
Before going further, let us clarify the
difference between the two words, "faith" and believing". These two
words are not synonymous although the King James and other
translations have used them interchangeably. Faith is an inner
spiritual development, while believing is an action of the human
mind. The natural man of body and soul can believe, but the natural
man cannot have faith.
Faith cometh by hearing...the Word of God. God's Word
is the food by which faith grows. One quick note here. Many have
said the fundamental problem with this teaching is that both "faith"
and "believing" are translations of the same Greek word,
pistis, and therefore, must have the same meaning. That is
not necessarily true, as an examination of the various meanings of
the word pneuma will demonstrate. Pnuema is attributed
to "natural man", God, and devils. Same word; three very different
meanings. So faith and believing could be different usages of
the same word pistis. The problem with the paragraph above is
not necessarily with what's in it, but where it came from [the
natural man chasm error] and where it's going. So where's it going?
In the interest of efficiency, I'll touch briefly on Galatians 3:22
and then look ahead to pages 273 and 281.
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the
promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that
believe.
The natural man of body and soul, the unsaved
man, does not have faith. Faith is spiritual and the natural man
cannot have it. But the man of body and soul can believe.
Galatians 3 continues, "But before faith came..." Then there must
have been a time when faith did not exist.
Galatians 3:23, 24
But before faith came, we were kept
under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be
revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us
unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
If
faith came by Jesus Christ, was there faith in the Old Testament?
Was there faith in the Gospels? There must not have been, because
Jesus Christ came to make it available, and the law was not entirely
fulfilled until Pentecost. So far, this looks somewhat
plausible. Galatians 3: 23 does say "before faith came". But here VP
forgot his principle of Biblical interpretation regarding figures of
speech. The Bible must be taken literally whenever and wherever
possible. But where the Bible fails to be true to fact, it must be a
figure of speech. [Actually this is too limiting, for there are many
grammatical figures that add emphasis without making a verse not
"true to fact"] Obviously, there was faith in the Old Testament. But
rather than investigate the figurative possibilities of Galatians
3:22-25, VP made a separate doctrine out of the faith of Jesus
Christ that blatantly contradicts the Biblical record of the Old
Testament saints.
Most people think there is faith in the Old Testament because of
Hebrews 11: "By faith Noah", "By faith Abraham", "By faith Isaac",
"By faith Jacob", "By faith Sarah". Yet in the Old Testament, it
does not say Abraham had faith. It says Abraham believed God, Isaac
believed God, Jacob believed God...(page 281)...The Old Testament
and the Gospels are about men who existed solely by their five
senses. They could only understand and believe what they could see
for faith had not yet come."
Wierwille
mentions Hebrews chapter 11 and then says
plainly that the men and women of whom it speaks walked by their
five senses. This is a blatant contradiction of the
Scriptures.
Hebrews 11:1,
1 Now faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This
entire chapter speaks of the faith of the Old Testament saints and
it begins by saying "Faith is the evidence of things not
seen". Therefore, it is not limited to the five senses.
Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned of God of
things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the
saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became
heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
This is
perhaps the strongest testimony to VP's error. Wierwille said all
the men of the Old Testament "...could only understand and believe
what they could see". Hebrews says Noah had faith regarding things
not seen as yet. Not only had Noah never seen rain, but no
one had ever seen rain (Genesis 2:5 & 6). Noah definitely
did not walk by his five senses. He walked by faith, just as we do.
II Corinthians 5:7 says we walk by faith not by sight. Noah did
likewise, as did Abraham when God told him to leave his homeland and
go to an unknown land.
Hebrews 11:8
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go
out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance,
obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
This is where Wierwille's "faith of Jesus Christ"
doctrine falls apart. Obviously Abraham, Noah, Isaac, Moses and the
other saints of the Old Testament had faith. Of Moses it says he
forsook the riches of Egypt "as seeing him who is invisible". Can't
do that by the five senses. One could make a case for faith being
associated with people who had spirit upon them, but VP's
declaration that these men walked by their senses is indefensible.
So what is the faith of Jesus Christ? Merely believing in the
work of Jesus Christ on our behalf, trusting in his redemption
rather than relying on our works. And in the context of Galatians,
it means to rely on his work rather than ours. The faith of Jesus
Christ is the opposite of legalism because legalist trust in and
magnify their own goodness and knowledge and works. We are exhorted
rather to trust in and magnify Christ's work on our behalf and to
walk by the spirit, rather than a strict adherence to commandments,
traditions, and doctrines of men.
There are a couple of related points we need to look at. VP
touches on the redemption issue atop Page 274.
In the Old Testament God covered their sins. Members of the Church
of Grace do not have their sins covered, they are completely washed
away. God can cleanse us because one thing came into being and that
is faith.
Here again we see VP inserting his doctrine into the
Bible. God can cleanse us of our sins not because of the coming of
faith, but because of the cleansing power of the shed blood of Jesus
Christ the lamb of God.
Romans 12:3
For I say, through the grace given unto me,
to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly
than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath
dealt to every man the measure of faith.
What is the
measure of faith which God deals to every man when he believes? The
word says that it is the faith of Jesus Christ
Chapter and verse please. The Word says no such thing.
This is essentially a lie. The word only mentions the measure of
faith once, in this verse. And it does not say that the measure of
faith is the faith of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, once again, VP has
taken this out of its context in order to make a point not supported
by the Scripture. The context here is equality, humility, the unity
of the Church which is established by the awareness that we are all
given the same measure [which is holy spirit, which God measures to
each of us] BY faith. What is measured is not faith but spirit.
Faith is not the measure, but the avenue by which spirit is measured
to each believer.
When Christ was crucified, I was crucified with Him; nevertheless, I
am still living - body and soul...And now I live not by my senses,
but by the faith of Jesus Christ which is spiritually given to me. I
simply utilize my senses to put that faith in operation.
"I live not by my senses,...but I utilize my senses to
put that faith in operation". HUH? Not only is this wildly
contradictory language, it simply makes no sense. I'm sure many PFAL
grads through the years have wondered, as I did, how we were
supposed to utilize our five senses to activate something that can't
be received by the senses. You cant' utilize your senses to put
faith in operation because faith not in the senses realm. We walk by
faith, not by sight. The very idea of using one's senses to "put
faith in operation" is carnal and defeating. To "put faith in
operation" implies that it's like a car one can activate with the
flip of a switch. "Time to operate the faith of Jesus Christ: click!
There!" It's like something out of a comic book.
Faith is not "operated". Faith is the result of our humble
obedient walk with God and our reverence and love for God's Son and
God's people. This is what is meant by Galatians 5:23. Faith is one
of the fruit of the spirit. The context of that verse, btw, is not
manifesting holy spirit, but walking by the spirit, as opposed to
walking by the flesh. Walking by the spirit and walking by faith are
synonymous. They produce faith, joy, peace, love, gentleness,
goodness, meekness, and longsuffering and are the opposite of
walking by carnality and legalism.
Peace. Happy New Month, Year, Millenium!!!
Jerry |
Sunlight8
Likes juice squeezed not shaken
(1/1/01 8:50:00 am)
|
Part 1:
Dominion, or who's in charge?
I noticed Jerry has already posted some stuff on dominion, however
I’m going to reiterate a few things in order to preserve the thought
flow….
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make 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 the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon
the earth.
Verse 28
And God blessed them, and God said
unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the
earth.
The meaning of the word involves to possess something
or to rule over it, but not in spiritual authority
sense.
Another occurrence of the word is Numbers 24:19, used
with regard to possessing a geographical location.
Out of
Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him
that remaineth of the city.
Another use is Nehemiah 9:28a,
referring to a political rulership or possession.
But after
they had rest, they did evil again before thee: therefore leftest
thou them in the hand of their enemies, so that they had the
dominion over them:…
In all of the above uses, the ownership
was either given or acquired. God gave Adam and Eve the things
listed in verse 26 and He also gave the herbs and trees, the fruit
of them, and herbs for the animals.
A similar declaration to
Genesis 1:26 is in Genesis 9:1-3
And God blessed Noah and his
sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish
the earth.
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be
upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon
all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea;
into your hand are they delivered.
Every moving thing that
liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given
you all things.
If Adam lost the dominion, then Noah got it
back. Further, the Bible does not declare that what God gave in
terms of dominion was ever taken back.
The meaning of the
word dominion isn’t equal to the Greek word exousia. To say Jesus
Christ won back a dominion that wasn’t lost, and especially
considering what that constituted is absurd.
Luke
4:5-6
And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain,
shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world (oikoumene. The root
is oikos, making it inhabited world) in a moment of time.
And
the devil said unto him, All this power (exousia) will I give thee,
and the glory (doxa) of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to
whomsoever I will I give it.
These verses don’t indicate who
delivered the exousia or when it was done. Saying it was Adam is
jumping to conclusions.
The Greek word for delivered is
paradidomai. Literally it is to give beside. Many times it is
translated betrayed, when a giving over is a harmful act. This is
the word used for Jesus being betrayed. A more reasonable
translation for delivered in Luke 4:6 would be betrayed to, IF this
occurred at the time of the fall of man.
This phrase,
“kingdoms of the world”, what does it mean? I found it in two other
places.
Matt. 4:8
Again, the devil taketh hi up into
an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the
world (kosmos), and the glory of them;
Both Bullinger and VP
defined kosmos as order as it pertains to the world, however I am in
doubt about that. Nonetheless, the last occurrence of the phrase is
in Revelation 11:15.
And the seventh angel sounded; and there
were great voices in heaven, saying the kingdoms of this world
(kosmos) are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and
he shall reign for ever and ever.
This verse starts the
description of the third woe and begins it by saying the above. The
rest of the chapter unfolds some detail of what that will
involve.
Verse 18:
And the nations were angry, and thy
wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged,
and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets,
and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and
shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
The context
makes clear kingdoms of the world (kosmos) refers to people. Satan
was tempting Christ with the exousia and glory of kingdoms of world,
and clearly that pertains to people.
Now here is one of the
things that REALLY bothers me about Luke 4. Satan is called the
“prince of this world (kosmos)”. When did he get this position? And,
wouldn’t it logically follow that when he got it, he would also
obtain the exousia over it? Did he obtain the position once the
earth was inhabited the second time? After the fall? Or, did he get
it when he sinned?
Also, he had the access to tempt Eve. If
Adam had spiritual authority, then I don’t see how that is possible.
We know that Adam and Eve had what they had on a condition, that is,
their obedience. If they disobeyed, the consequences were spelled
out. That implies Satan already had the authority to act if the
conditions were met, and he is the author of death. Therefore, it
makes no sense to say Adam transferred spiritual authority. What
makes the most sense to me is to say that when Lucifer sinned, he
became the god or prince of this world with exousia. And when did
that happen?
Debbie Mason
Edited by: Sunlight8
at: 1/1/01 7:56:14 am
|
Sunlight8
Likes juice squeezed not shaken
(1/1/01 8:54:00 am)
|
Re: Part 2:
Dominion, or who's in charge?
Ezekiel 28:13
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every
precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the
diamond, the beryl, onyx, and the jasper….in the day that thou wast
created.
God continues to describe him until Verse
15:
Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast
created, till iniquity was found in thee.
He was in Eden,
the garden of God BEFORE he sinned as Lucifer. We know he did ascend
into heaven because he has access to the throne of
God.
Ezekiel 28:18a
Thou has defiled thy sanctuaries
by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy
traffick….
Biblically, sanctuaries are a dwelling place, and
used a few times figuratively as sphere of influence, but always it
refers to a place on earth. God had sanctuaries on earth.
If
Lucifer was in Eden, then the timing of his sin was AFTER the
creation of the second heaven and earth. And, if it was his
sanctuary, and he defiled it, then he received the exousia over it
before he sinned. And, if he ascended into the heavens, that rather
implies he wasn’t there to begin with. Therefore, I vote his
sanctuary was the earth as the god of this world who became evil,
and the exousia over people was betrayed to him. And that explains
“defiled thy sanctuaries.”
So how did the first heaven and
earth become without form and void? The Bible never says it was
Satan.
II Peter 3:5 –7
For this they willingly are
ignorant of, that by the WORD OF GOD the heavens were of old, and
the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby
the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished:
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by
the SAME WORD are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day
of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Now if you read
what is written and don’t automatically read into the middle verse a
meaning of action result of actions of Satan, what do you have? The
context is those who doubt there will be a gathering together,
scoffers walking after their own lusts. The verses are saying in an
emphatic way by using an emphatic illustration, that what God wills
to be done will be, therefore count on it, what God says will occur
absolutely will. Therefore, I don’t see how it’s possible to say the
first heaven and earth perished contrary to the will of God. To do
so is contradicting the point being made and waters it down. Even
saying He allowed it to happen accomplishes the same things. Now
structurally look at it. By the word of God, the first heavens and
earth were created then perished, then by the same word the second
heavens and earth were created and will perish. It doesn’t make
logical sense to assign the first perish as the result of Satan. The
subject is God’s will.
Also, I don’t believe Satan’s will or
actions ever over rides God’s. If Satan had the ability to destroy
the first heaven and earth (directly or indirectly contrary to the
will of God), there would be nothing stopping him from destroying
this one.
Isaiah 14:24-27
The Lord of hosts hath
sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass;
and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:
That I will break
the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot:
then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from
off their shoulder.
This is the purpose that is purposed upon
the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all
the nations.
For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall
disannul it ? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it
back?
These verses are either true or not.
VP’s
teaching exalted Satan, diminished God, and left us (me at least) in
doubt as to who is really in charge. It contradicts the verses
above. I mean think about it, if God does something, but its'
possible for an action of Satan to mess it up and disannull it in
any way, then can we really trust that what God says is true? Or are
we going to say, "well it happened once, but won't happen again?"
With regard to dominion, once again VP elevates man, giving
him more than he had as well.
God’s position, power, and
authority is absolute, no doubt about it. And He’s on OUR side.
Debbie Mason
Edited by: Sunlight8
at: 1/1/01 10:11:21 am
|
JBarrax
Polishes the silverware
(1/1/01 12:52:49 pm)
|
Old
Dominion
Hey Deb, great post. The closing point about God's authority being
diminished in VP's teachings is a good one and bears much thought.
It's one of those concepts that rewrites volumes and volumes of
doctrine, specifically relating to the Way's "idiom of permission"
by which hurtful or destructive acts that the Old Testament
attributes to God were understood to be acts of the Devil as the god
of this world, which God permitted. Wasn't the law of believing
intertwined in there somewhere too? To be sure, much Scripture
attests to the importance of believing God's Word and exhorts us not
to be fearful. But the idea that entire civilizations were destroyed
by the Devil as the Almighty stood helplessly by does magnify the
power of darkness and diminish that of God. This is something
I've struggled with as I go through the Old Testament, because there
are so many records that can't be explained away even by the idiom
of permission [like Moses ordering the execution of captured women
and children: Numbers 31:14-18]. Judgment is a large part of the
Scripture that TWI ignored. 'There's that nasty sin issue again,
let's just ignore that. Don't be so *negative*'
I think the
logical conclusion of Sunlight's post is that we accept the truth
that what not every human catastrophe is an act of Satan. Judgment
is sometimes harsh and painful. Regarding the flood of Noah, Genesis
6:17 says "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon
the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from
under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."
This verse emphatically states that it was God's doing, an
act of judgment, not an attempt by the Devil to annihilate mankind.
The reason this comes to mind is, if "...by the Word of God, the
heavens and earth which were of old,... being overflowed with water,
perished,...", then it stands to reason that the second such flood
that wiped out all but 8 people was also done by the Word of
God.
This of course means we have to rethink our
understanding of most of the Old Testament; the destruction of the
first earth, the flood of Noah, the destruction of Sodom and
Gommorrah, the destroyer in Egypt taking the firstborn, the genocide
in Canaan, the numerous plagues in Israel, etc, etc. Not to mention
the death of Onan, whom the Lord slew because he wouldn't impregnate
his sister-in-law [sorry, it came up in studying "seed" and got
stuck in my mind...]
Volumes of doctrine to rethink...Thanks
Deb
Peace
Jerry
|
Sunlight8
Likes juice squeezed not shaken
(1/1/01 1:07:26 pm)
|
Thanks
I’m going to shut up soon….
Yes, I know Satan did in fact
mar what God had done concerning mankind. But, God Himself set it up
on the condition of obedience, and He hasn’t left us out in the
cold.
How difficult it was in my TWI days to believe
anything. Everything was on a condition. I must be in fellowship,
renewing my mind, remembering how to receive, synchronized
confession, the stuff in Release From your Prisons, and on and on.
And if all that wasn’t bad enough, I could do everything right and
still get it “stolen.” And, if that appeared to take place, then
another complicated process. It’s like trying to juggle fifty balls
all at once.
Then they turn right around and say “believing
is simple.” Yeah, right.
So, you know, it’s nice to be able
to read a verse of scripture, believe it, and not have all kinds of
mental conditions placed on it. (This will happen if I…if the Devil
doesn’t….)
For me, the ultimate profit of this thread has
been to make things simple again, and identify contradictory
thinking (unrecognized confusion). And God is not the author of
confusion. They promised soundness and gave us unsoundness. This
reason alone is enough to motivate me to continue to work this
stuff. The result of removing confusion is increased peace.
Thank you Jerry, for all you’ve done, for all the effort
it’s taken, for all you’ve gone through to make it
happen.
Happy New Year to everyone.
You're welcome,
Jerry
Debbie Mason
|
Sunlight8
Stayed until Midnight yesterday
(1/2/01 3:31:32 pm)
|
Re: PFAL
REVIEW
Jerry and I have been discussing this issue of the supposed Hebrew
idiom of permission. My comment to him was what that does is put
Satan in the position of leading God around by the nose. Today, I
was thinking about this more, and I think it’s worse than that even.
What it really does is make God a helpless bystander who has to do
what He does according to the dictates of Satan, so that God is not
initiating or exerting His will, but acting in response to Satan.
Or, God does His will when and if He can. (Jerry, did you say this
to me already?) As far as I am concerned, that is sheer
blasphemy.
But it gets worse. We were taught Satan is the
author of death. I looked. The Bible doesn’t say that. From a logic
point of view, if we say he did, then when God carried out the
judicial sentence that Adam and Eve were not entitled to the tree of
life, He did so as an agent of Satan, bringing to pass what Satan
wanted. Meaning, Satan made the plan, and God carried it out. I
don’t think so. I flat refuse to believe that is true, unless I see
solid Biblical proof, and if I do, I think I’ll chuck the whole
thing myself.
This brings me to the point of wanting to know
what is up with death. What I know about it so far is that sometimes
it is literal and sometimes figurative, but the figurative meaning I
don’t understand yet. The only connection between Satan or the Devil
is Hebrews 2:14.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers
of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;
that through death he might destroy him that had the power (kratos)
of death, that is, the devil;
This verse does not use exousia
(exercised authority), it uses kratos. I’ve heard it defined as
power with an impact, which may or may not be true. What it means,
and what the verse means I don’t know right now, but I intend to
find out. In any case, the verse doesn’t say the Devil initiated
death, nor does it say he has any control over it. It says he has
kratos concerning it. What is this kratos that he has? Does he still
have it?
Revelation 1:18
I (Jesus) am he that liveth,
and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have
the keys of hell (hades) and death.
In answer to the
question; maybe, maybe not. I hope to know. More interesting
verses….
II Cor. 1:9-10
But we had the sentence of
death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in
God which raiseth the dead:
Who delivered us from so great a
death, and doth deliver: in whom we trust that he will yet deliver
us;
Notice the verb tenses of the second verse; they are
past, present, and future. “The sentence of death in our selves that
(purpose) we should not trust in ourselves.”
Holy cow!!!
This just hit me, which is the reason for the edit. God carried out
His judicial sentence. Then He said, believe me if you want eternal
life. Otherwise, you don't. If you decide not to trust me, then you
will experience the second death. Adam and Eve's decision to disobey
was an act of not trusting God, that what He said was the best for
them. Now we are in a position where we are allowed to live for
awhile, but not eternally unless we are willing to trust God.
Wow!!!
I don’t know where this is going to lead, but I
confess I am mighty intrigued. What actually got me wondering about
all this is Jerry’s point that it was God who withdrew the tree of
life, and the seriously confusing verses in Genesis.
Debbie
Mason
Ps. I strongly suspect this Satan as the author of
death doctrine came from John 10:10, however we already know the
verse doesn't refer to the adversary.
Edited by: Sunlight8
at: 1/2/01 3:23:37 pm
|
JBarrax
Polishes the silverware
(1/4/01 1:07:51 am)
|
The New Birth
Part 1: Partakers of Flesh and Blood
On page 284, Power For Abundant Living makes a quick transition
from the topic of "Faith Cometh By Hearing" to the New Birth. Before
laying out his teaching on salvation, Wierwille set forth a treatise
on the nature of redemption and Jesus Christ. Much of it is yet
another restating of the flawed thesis that God, who is spirit,
cannot reach man who is flesh. Since we've dealt with this at
length, I'll skip most of this material. There are however, a couple
of noteworthy and bewildering statements encountered in the buildup
to another classic example of Dr. Wierwille "squeezing" the
Scripture.
Of the divine conception of Christ, he wrote, "God created life
in Mary's reproductive organs. God once again had to create
-- He had to create life in order to bridge the gap between His
being spirit and Mary's being flesh.If there were a
gap between God and Mary, why would God have to create life
in Mary's body in order to bridge it? Doesn't the very fact that he
was able to create life in Mary's body indicate that no such gap
existed? Then there's Dr. Wierwille's explanation of why it was Mary
who conceived the Messiah. This has always struck me as
illogical.
The reason Mary was the one who brought forth the Messiah after
thousands of years is that she was the first woman who ever
literally and unreservedly believed what God said.
This is both a wildly illogical supposition and a bit
of an insult to all the female saints of the Old Testament. The
statement supposes that every other woman between Eve and Mary was
spiritually unfit. I think this is a ridiculous supposition that
hints of the msyogeny that grew into adultery and sexual abuse in
the Way Ministry. But it is even more absurd from a Biblical
perspective to assume that God spent 3,000 years waiting around for
just any woman to believe. This means that all of God's promises to
David that the Messiah would be born of his lineage were
conditional. What God really meant was that the Messiah would be
born of David's lineage unless some Ethiopian woman "literally and
unreservedly believed." first. Then, all those prophecies are out
the window. What an absurd teaching. This is yet another example of Wierwille
magnifying man and diminishing the power and wisdom of
God.
Galatians 4:4 says "But when the fulness of the time was come,
God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law," Jesus
Christ was conceived on God's timetable, not ours; "when the fulness
of time was come, not when some woman finally believed God's
Word..
Now let's take a look at Dr. Wierwille's interpretation of
Hebrews 2:14. Rev. Chris Geer presented this information about
eight years ago on a Gartmore tape, but at the time, I, being a
staunch Wierwillite, would have none of it. Of course Rev. Geer,
being the self-appointed protector of Dr. Wierwille's legacy, didn't
overtly say that what VP had taught was wrong. He merely taught the
passage correctly. But the conflicts between what he said and what
Dr. Wierwille had taught were too much for me, so I couldn't receive
it. With that suspenseful introduction, let's take a careful look at
what "The Teacher" set forth in Power For Abundant Living, page
287.
...Jesus Christ did not partake of the soul life of man, however; He
only took part, the flesh. He was born of Mary, but the seed in him
was created by God.
The word partake in Hebrews 2:14 is
koinoneo, which means "to share fully". Children share fully
in the flesh and blood of their mother and father. But where it
says, "he also himself likewise took part of the same", the words
"took part" in the Greek are the word metecho which means "to
take only a portion." The part that he took was the flesh; but the
soul life in His blood was of God.
There are three errors here, all of which Chris Geer
tried to correct in his teaching form Gartmore. The first problem
is, the verse is taken out of context and is interpreted contrary to
its context. The second is, its interpreted contrarily to the words
in the verse. The third is a definition of metecho that
ignores its previous usage. Sharp observers will note that all of
these are violations of VP's "keys to the Word's interpretation"
from session four. First, let's take a look at the context.
Hebrews 2:5-14
5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to
come, whereof we speak.
6 But one in a certain place
testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the
son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a
little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and
honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8
Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that
he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put
under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the
angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour;
that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom
are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the
captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of
one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the
midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And
again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the
children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the
children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise
took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that
had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Verse 5 asks "What is man, that thou are mindful of
him?" The context is about mankind as a whole and God's grace toward
the human race. Verse 7 says man was made "a little lower than the
angels", then verse nine says the exact same thing of Jesus and adds
that he should taste death "...for every man." Verse 10 refers to
mankind as "many sons" and to Jesus as the captain (meaning head or
chief) of our salvation. And verse 11 clearly says both he that
sanctifieth (Jesus) and they who are sanctified (us) are all of
one; for which cause he (Jesus) is not ashamed to call them
brethren. The entire context paints Jesus as one of us. Verse 14
continues that thought and depicts the oneness of the Saviour and
his brethren, all of whom are men of flesh and blood.
In addition to the context, the words in the verse also indicate
unity. The phrase "... he also himself likewise took part of
the same;" is a figure of speech called pleonasm or
redundancy, indicating in unmistakable language that he is as we
are; flesh and blood. The literal meaning of the verse could be
communicated by simply saying, ‘Forasmuch then as the children are
partakers of flesh and blood, he took part of the same.' The words
"also, himself, likewise" are added for emphasis. After all of that,
to define metecho as "to take only a portion" is illogical
and contradictory to the rest of the words in the verse as well as
the context. Furthermore, it's at odds with its previous
usage.
Metecho is only used a total of eight times in the New
Testament, but its usage indicates that it means more than taking
only a portion. It actually means the same thing as koinoneo,
a word with which it is used often in the same context and with the
same meaning.
I Corinthians 9:10-12
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no
doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope;
and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker
(metecho) of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you
spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal
things?
12 If others be partakers (metecho) of this
power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used
this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel
of Christ.
The context here is Paul and Barnabus' authority to
live off of the offerings of the Corinthian saints. Their right to
use what we ex-wayfers would call, the "abundant sharing". The word
koinoneo is not used here, but is used often in this context
because all of God's people are to benefit from the stewardship of
these resources.
I Corinthians 10:16-21
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion
(koinoneo) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break,
is it not the communion (koinoneo) of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are
all partakers (metecho) of that one bread.
18 Behold
Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices
partakers (koinonos) of the altar?
19 What say I
then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in
sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20 But I say, that the
things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and
not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship
(koinonos) with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of
the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers
(metecho) of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
It is clear in this passage that metecho and
koinoneo are synonyms, just like allos and
heteros. This is yet another instance of VP trying to build a
doctrine by assigning a specific definition to a word that
contradicts its Biblical usage. The erroneous definitions for
pros and apistia also come to mind.
So, if Hebrews 2:14 says that Jesus Christ also himself likewise
partook of flesh and blood, doesn't that mean he also himself
likewise was born dead in trespasses and sin? No it doesn't. To
interpret it that way would also be taking the verse out of its
context. For a larger picture of that, it is now time to finish
reading the chapter.
Hebrews 2:16-18
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he
took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things
it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a
merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to
make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in
that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour
them that are tempted.
It's not talking about Jesus credentials or purity,
it's talking about the fact that he was more like man than angels.
If he had taken on the nature of angels, he would not have been
susceptible to all the temptations of his constituents (Matthew
22:30). So this passage does not deny the divinity of Christ's soul
nor the purity of his blood, but affirms the humanity of his flesh.
So despite the fact that Dr. Wierwille mishandles many aspects of
this verse, the essential truth of what he presented is still valid,
imo. So why bring it up at all? Isn't that unfair, nitpicking? No,
if we don't recognize when and where the logic of PFAL breaks down,
we won't recognize when and where its conclusions are false; we
won't be able to separate truth from error.
Peace
Jerry
|
Sunlight8
Stayed until Midnight yesterday
(1/4/01 8:11:18 pm)
|
Re: PFAL REVIEW,
death, justice, and redemption
If we believe that God is righteous and just in His judgments, then
it follows that when He withdrew the tree of life from Adam and Eve
that it was a just act by a righteous God. The serpent instigated
the sin, but part of God’s judgment was they would be
mortal.
Genesis 6:1-3
And it came to pass, when men
began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born
unto them,
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that
they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they
chose.
And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive
with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an
hundred and twenty years.
Verse 5:
And God saw that
the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually.
Here, God shortens the life span of man as an
act of judgment. A few verses down, He again determines judgment
with regard to the flood, sparing Noah and his family.
The
general pattern of the Old Testament is when people’s hearts were
evil and didn’t respond to Him, he carried out justice, and
sometimes that is by capital punishment. The law of Moses contained
commandments concerning capital punishment. Again, if God is a just
and righteous God, then these commandments were just and righteous.
These capital crimes were such that they indicated significant evil
in the hearts of those who committed them. God’s response to evil is
judgment when He deems it time and appropriate to act.
Exodus
12:12
For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night,
and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and
beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I
am the Lord.
The giving of the law defined the difference
between good and evil in concrete terms. It provided man with the
responsibility to know what this is, and to carry out judgment among
themselves.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17
And I charged your
judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren,
and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the
stranger that is with him.
Ye shall not respect persons in
judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall
not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the
cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear
it.
Deuteronomy 30:17-18
But if thine heart turn away,
so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship
other gods, and serve them;
I denounce unto you this day,
that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days
upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
Through out the Old Testament man always had the option to
respond to God, and when he didn’t judgment followed, often after
extensive acts of grace and mercy on the part of God. TWI doctrinal
teachings simply don’t line up when compared to what the Bible says,
unless you twist it and read into it. The law of believing as the
governing factor makes no sense and neither does Satan as the author
of death. In order to believe that, then you have to believe that
death is evil, then it’s not possible to accept God’s justice as
just. Furthermore, assigning the thief John 10:10 to the adversary
makes it even more impossible. Hence, the doctrine of permissive
will. That doctrine effectively eliminates, or rather ignores God’s
authority to carry out justice and gives the action to the
adversary. Biblically, death is an enemy, but nowhere does it state
it is evil in and of itself. It is the judicial sentence in response
to sin.
Which takes me to the new birth. I don’t remember if
it was taught in PFAL, but I certainly remember hearing it taught
plenty that redemption was a buying back of our lives from the
adversary. Yet, the Bible doesn’t state that we were ever owned by
him. As the god of this world he does blind the minds of those that
don’t believe, and he does have exercised authority, but he doesn’t
have ownership. If he did, God couldn’t have claimed Israel to be
His people. He would have had to have done the new birth first.
Redemption and the new birth in general is God doing for man
what he couldn’t do for himself. It is restoration via expiation. It
is the next step in God’s plan towards the final
step.
Revelation 21:3-4
And I heard a great voice out
of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he
will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself
shall be with them, and be their God.
And God shall wipe away
all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither
sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the
former things are passed away.
While God is just and carries
out justice, His heart is one of love, mercy and grace. He has
exercised His power and authority toward this end, and will
absolutely bring to pass His will concerning man. Man could not save
himself. It had to be an act of God.
Debbie Mason
Edited by: Sunlight8
at: 1/4/01 7:26:12 pm
|
StrongCoffee
Grease Spot Cafe Discoverer
(1/4/01 11:25:30 pm)
|
Does Satan have
dominion?
First off, I want to thank Jerry and Sunlight for all the work
they've put into these threads. I've learned a lot. And I've
unlearned a lot, too.
A few messages back, Sunlight was
discussing how Satan obtained the authority over the world that he
claimed to have in Luke 4:5-6 (Then the devil, taking Him up on a
high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment
of time. And the devil said to Him, "All this authority I will give
you, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give
it to whomever I wish").
How did Satan get the kingdoms and
the glory, which he offered to give to Jesus if Jesus would worship
him?
My honest answer is that I don't know. But I can
speculate, and here are two possibilities that have occurred to
me.
1. The people holding
positions of worldly authority are worshipping Satan rather than the
real God, and are thus transferring the temporal authority they
exercise to Satan.
This seems
kind of weak. Oh, it's not that much of a stretch, but I would have
trouble substantiating it from the Bible.
2. Satan does not have that power.
Since we're having so much
trouble figuring out how Satan got this authority, maybe we should
consider the possibility that he doesn't have it. Maybe he
lied.
So why didn't Jesus expose the lie? Well, I can't tell
that he accepted the statement as true. He just told Satan to, in
effect, go to h-ll, and didn't indicate that whether what he said
was correct.
StrongCoffee
(once known as EarlyOut)
|
Sunlight8
Stayed until Midnight yesterday
(1/5/01 12:37:48 pm)
|
Re: Does Satan
have dominion?
WOW!!!, Strong coffee, that is a possibility I never considered, and
perfectly logical. The thing that had me going bananas was I
couldn't document when it was transferred. You have no idea how much
scripture I read trying to figure it out! And if the Bible doesn't
say, then why make the assumption he had it? Particularly since
those were the adversary's words, not God's. So what we have is a
doctrine based on the adversary's. My gosh... Thanks so much for
posting!! Very intelligent thinking coffee.
And another false
doctrine bites the dust...
So do you like your coffee strong?
I like mine black, no sugar, but not overly strong...
Thanks
again,
Debbie
|
|
