One of the Big Things I did NOT learn in PFAL was to really "look unto Jesus" as it says in Hebrews. To be fair, one memorable coffeehouse teaching at an early ROA, I heard Ger@ld Wr3n do quite a good job of it, but the preaching of the cross was not a popular theme, and it should be.
who endured the cross, despising the shame....
... became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross...
I neither want to defend nor diss the class. I only want to say that in my own personal journey, my appreciation for the Lord Jesus and his teaching has been revolutionary. The Gospels were written AFTER the Pauline corpus, and one commentator cleverly called them something like "passion narratives with extended introductions." The teachings of Christ that are contained in the Gospels are treasures beyond compare. How I now take to heart, as if he were speaking directly to me, "you call me Lord... why do you not do the things that I say?"
anotherDan.......I tend to think that a whole new thread entitled One of the Big Things I did NOT learn in pfal would initiate many posts like yours.
While pfal gives many biblical research keys to the novice student.....it also side-steps MAJOR TRUTHS that are foundational to Christianity. As you noted, pfal springboards off the accomplishments of Jesus Christ....but then never keeps the perspective that Jesus Christ is the head of the One Body.
Sure....."It's the Word, the Word and nothing but the Word".......but is THAT really God's intent? Or, is it a nice cliche that sets one up class after class after class to find the deep meaning of walking in God's power?
And, wierwille's other subsequent cliches......"We have no friends when it comes to God's Word" & "The Word is the ministry and the ministry is the Word".......seemed to keep distancing twi believers from ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONE body, ONE God and Father of all.
Thanks, skyrider. You're right, a new thread would probably generate some posts! But this one's serving the purpose. No one can browse these 70+ pages and find many "Big Things I Learned in PFAL."
It got me thinking about eternal things from God's perspective, but maybe I should have just gone to church. As a searching twenty-something, I couldn't see that church had much to offer. I know now that I was wrong, but somehow Dr. Wierwille did reach me with some powerful messages in his classes and teachings, and other ministers likewise did teach me "big things." I give glory to God for it all, just as I give God the glory for how amazing and wonderful my children turned out. Surely Liz and I did our best, but I know I failed them so many times. But God was their God, not just their parents' God. Likewise, He was my God throughout my tenure with the Way.
Some of my Big things:
The Bible is the revelation of God
The Bible makes known Christ; Christ makes known God
We must not come to the Bible with preconceived notions of what we already believe, but have the humility to let it speak for itself -- to respect it for what it claims to be, and is, the Word of God, which is living and powerful...
I agree that though we taught "no private interpretation" the class was full of it. But the concept (which is not really what that verse is talking about, ironically!) is godly and was a "big thing" for me. Still is. It's an attitude of respect for what the Scriptures say. I didn't have that before. Was it poorly carried out at times? Yes, I think that's been amply documented. Like so many others, I don't see the relevance of whether two or four were crucified with Jesus, but the point that was being made was that the Bible was a remarkable document, inspired by God himself. This was a result of Dr. Wierwille's appreciation of Bullinger's work. I think that the Lord's characterizaton of "straining at gnats" might be how he feels about all the press given this teaching, but the "big thing" of what Dr. Wierwille called "the absolute trustworthiness of the Word," I "still believe." Now, I may disagree with how that was handled in the class itself, but I appreciate "the baby."
My earlier post about Jesus was a serious one. Our determination to show he was "not God" really for me resulted in him being "not Lord." I had to go over his head, directly to God, but I do not feel that way at all, now. Oh, I said he was Lord, but in my heart, he was merely my brother. Bad. VeddieVeddieBad
The preaching of the cross was foolishness to some folks way back in Paul's day. The cross is the keystone of history. "We" dissed the preaching of the cross, ourselves, I think. It sounded good to emphasize the resurrection... surely that too must be preached... but nothing is as central as the cross.
Not at all cid...I am at a loss to understand your antipathy towards me....my accounts have been substantiated....you cannot point to a single thing I have said here that is untrue....
I have presented the information and contributed my thoughts....shrug that is what we do here.
Yes, it makes sense it light of the belief that God doesn't kill people, but does the word translated "precious" actual mean "costly"?
Yes the Hebrew word yaqar in in Ps.116:15 does mean costly.
From The Complete Word Study Dictionary Old Testament, Warren Baker, D.R.E., Eugene Carpenter, Ph.D.:
YaQaR (3368)
An adjective meaning valuable, rare, precious. It carries the sense of being rare in some contexts (I Sam. 3:1). It is used to describe precious and costly stones (2Sam. 12:30; I Kgs. 10:2,10,11); the valuable foundation stones of buildings (I Kgs. 5:17[31]' any expensive building stones or materials (I Kgs. 7:9-11). It is used of the Lord's lovingkindness (hesed) to His people (Ps. 36:7,8) Wisdom is asserted to be more valualbe than jewels (Prov. 3:15). It is used as an abstract collective term for that which is valuable, noble, moral, ethical or worthy compared to what is worthless (Jer. 15:19). In Job 32:26, it is used in a negative sense of the alluring attraction of the moon's splendor as an inviation to idolatry or astrology. The menacing figure in Daniel 11:38 casts his religious affection on the god of violence, honoring it. It may be used in Zech. 14:6 meaning luminaries or lights, but the reading is uncertain, for it could mean cold.
Seems that word was on of the first word studies we did in our fellowship years ago. We used to have "word study" nights at least once a month and often used a PFAL as the springboard. Always enjoyed them, they were my favorite fellowship format.
My point, as always with anything Wierwille taught, is check it out, and make sure you aren't interpreting what you check out in light of something else Wierwille taught. I think that the context of the whole psalm does more to indicate that "the death of his saints" isn't a good thing than the literal meaning of the word itself. Because the source you cited does not indicate that yaqar primarily means "costly" in the negative sense in that it's a drain on your resources, but "costly" as in you have something valuable at hand. A 10 million dollar diamond's costliness is different when you have it in your possession, and can enjoy its costliness, from not having it, but desiring it from the other side of the plate glass.
Back to context: the psalm talks about deliverance from death, and several other uses of yaqar in other psalms clearly indicate the negative use of "costly". So it's the context, not the unambiguous definition of the word translated "precious" that gets us to the "correct" answer.
Analyzing anything that Wierwille taught takes more than simply reading a verse in the bible and verifying that it said what he said it said (whew, typing that sentence made me dizzy) - because his plain reading of "what is written" is liberally sprinkled with unwarranted assumptions and supported by incorrect definitions of Greek and Hebrew words. In this case, I believe that he was correct, but IMHO a biblical scholar would be wise to question anything that was taught in PFAL, including the underlying assumptions, definitions, "orientalisms" and conclusions, even such things as the "keys" to research themselves.
...I agree that though we taught "no private interpretation" the class was full of it....
Yup – vpw has a field day with interpreting the Scriptures as he sees fit but forbids that of others. To me, that's intellectually dishonest – and hits me as nothing more than a ploy to make his viewpoint unassailable.
Since he ignored the context of II Peter 1 which deals with the ORIGIN of Scripture and not its interpretation – I have to ask where does it say in Scripture that there is only one interpretation possible? Is it possible there are several levels of interpretation of a particular passage? Literal, figurative, spiritual, allegorical, etc. Consider also Old Testament passages re-interpreted by Jesus or Paul in the New Testament.
And for that matter, there's plenty of passages – that have stymied the best of biblical scholars on exactly how something is to be taken - judging from the variety of commentaries I've read. And speaking honestly as a mere student of the Bible, the percentage of puzzling passages is even higher for me. Fortunately my salvation is not based on a thorough [or "throughly" ] accurate knowledge of the Bible but on a fear of the Lord and an experiential knowledge of the Holy One [i.e. Proverbs 9:10].
Since he ignored the context of II Peter 1 which deals with the ORIGIN of Scripture and not its interpretation – I have to ask where does it say in Scripture that there is only one interpretation possible? Is it possible there are several levels of interpretation of a particular passage? Literal, figurative, spiritual, allegorical, etc. Consider also Old Testament passages re-interpreted by Jesus or Paul in the New Testament.
Your observations and conclusions really click with me, T.
... I have to ask where does it say in Scripture that there is only one interpretation possible? Is it possible there are several levels of interpretation of a particular passage?
It does say the scripture is of no private interpretation. Therefore a problem with your view might be an interpretation that contradicts another, obviously. As I see it, there may be different levels of understanding which is ok but in order for it to be "the Word of God" it can't contradict itself.
A simple example would be "I and my Father are one" John 10:30.
I had a conversation with a good friend who's also a priest, who said he believed that means "one in the selfsame"; whereas I believe it means "one in unity, one in purpose."
PFAL did help me in this case since one of the keys to the words interpretation of itself, as taught in PFAL, is that the difficult verse should be understood in light of the clear verses. If one stick out like sore thumb, it must be understood in light of the many clear ones. Here, the clear verses over 60 of them are that Jesus is the son of God. There are others that show Jesus's sonship to and worship of God, whereas the opposite is not the case.
And so I think from this one verse alone one can logically surmise that the scripture can't rightfully contradict itself so much so that "son of God" means "God". i.e. several different levels of interpretation of this verse may lead to serious error.
It does say the scripture is of no private interpretation. Therefore a problem with your view might be an interpretation that contradicts another, obviously. As I see it, there may be different levels of understanding which is ok but in order for it to be "the Word of God" it can't contradict itself.
A simple example would be "I and my Father are one" John 10:30.
I had a conversation with a good friend who's also a priest, who said he believed that means "one in the selfsame"; whereas I believe it means "one in unity, one in purpose."
PFAL did help me in this case since one of the keys to the words interpretation of itself, as taught in PFAL, is that the difficult verse should be understood in light of the clear verses. If one stick out like sore thumb, it must be understood in light of the many clear ones. Here, the clear verses over 60 of them are that Jesus is the son of God. There are others that show Jesus's sonship to and worship of God, whereas the opposite is not the case.
And so I think from this one verse alone one can logically surmise that the scripture can't rightfully contradict itself so much so that "son of God" means "God". i.e. several different levels of interpretation of this verse may lead to serious error.
There's always the possibility of coming up with contradictory interpretations on any passage that may have multi-level meanings. And with that in mind I think it behooves any serious Bible student to be disciplined enough to exercise good hermeneutical skills – like observing the grammatical, contextual, historical, geographical, and cultural data pertinent to a particular passage.
One weakness that I find with PFAL'sdifficult verse understood in light of the clear verses that you mentioned is that the difficult verse is a matter of opinion. Another weakness I see with the difficult verse/clear verses thinking is the assumption that the clear verses are addressing the same issue as the difficult verse.
As a Trinitarian, I would like to point out concerning your reference to John 10:30 – that not all Trinitarians believe that Jesus, the Son of God and God the Father are one and the same person. That is however, the way vpw described Trinitarian doctrine in JCING. I have no difficulty with any verse that shows a disparity between Father and Son – because I don't see them as one and the same person. Matter of fact, it might be an interesting study for some folks to look at one of the Old Testament words for "one" – which I made reference to in my post # 173 [see below] on Son of Arthur's thread Honest Discussion of the Trinity:
I would like to put excerpts from a book on the discussion table – with the hope that we can raise the intellectual substance of this thread above some of the exercises in futility that have happened of late. Repeating my position mentioned before I am Trinitarian – and the author of this book is Trinitarian. My purpose in posting these excerpts is to provide some solid material that can be analyzed through discussion – rather than engaging in typical my-verse-counters-your-verse stuff. I'm not saying everything in this book is correct or even that my doctrinal position is correct and everyone else is wrong. I'm offering these excerpts as some evidence that does indeed favor the doctrine of the Trinity but hope that all will apply their best critical thinking skills to see if the author's points have merit.
The following excerpts are from The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey, 1996, Word Publishing Inc.:
Part II The Old Testament Evidence
Chapter Seven, A Multi-Personal God
Trinitarians believe that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet within this one God, there exists more than one person, ego, intellect or self. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus it does not make much sense to discuss how many Persons there are in the Godhead and how They relate to each other until you have first established the multi-personal nature of God.
What to Expect
If the authors of the Bible believed that God was multi-personal, then we would expect to find that they would write about God in such a way as to indicate this idea to their readers. Thus, we must ask, "What would we expect to find in the Bible, if its authors believed that God was multi-personal?"
On the other hand if the authors of the Bible believed that God was only one person, i.e. they were Unitarians, then they would write about God in such a way as to indicate that idea. Thus, we are also warranted to ask, "What would we expect to find in the Bible, if Unitarians wrote it?"…
The Oneness of God
The first question is how did the biblical authors, under inspiration of God, conceive of the oneness of God? There are nine different Hebrew words which at times are translated as the word "one."…[page 87]
…there is only one word which would indicate that God is one solitary person. If this word is applied to God in the Bible, this would be quite damaging to the Trinitarian position. The word is yachiyd [Strong's # 3173] and means an absolute or solitary oneness. It is even translated "solitary" in Psalm 68:6…and refers to someone who is absolutely alone…When we turn to the Bible, what do we find? The authors of Scripture never applied yachiyd to God…In the list of Hebrew words which speak of oneness, the word echad [Strong's # 259] refers to a compound oneness in which a number of things together are described as "one." The following sample passages illustrate this compound meaning of oneness:
Genesis 1:5 The first day is a combination of two things – the evening and the morning.
Genesis 2:24 Adam and Eve became one flesh…
Genesis 3:22 Adam and Eve became one with God. But they did not lose their personhood when they became "one" with God.
Genesis 11:6 The people were one. They were, thus, "one" and "many" at the same time.
Genesis 34:16,22 The Shechemites wanted to become one people with the Jews.
II Chronicles 30:12 God gave the people one heart. Obviously, the thousands of individual hearts were "one" in a compound or composite sense.
Ezra 2:64 The congregation of forty two thousand, three hundred and sixty persons was described as one.
Jeremiah 32:39 Under the New Covenant, God will give His people one heart…[pages 88, 89]
…if the writers of Scripture believed that God was multi-personal then we would expect to find that they would apply echad to God because this would mean that God is "one" in a composite or compound sense…This is so central to the Old Testament concept of God that it is found in Israel's Great Confession:
"Hear, O Israel, [Yahweh] our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!" [Deuteronomy 6:4]…
But how can this be the true understanding of echadwhen the Jews today reject the doctrine of the Trinity? The noted Hebrew scholar, David Cooper, explains:
"Prior to the days of Moses Maimonides, the unity of God was expressed by echad which, as has been proved beyond a doubt, has as its primary meaning that of a compound unity. Maimonides, who drafted the thirteen articles of faith, in the second one sets forth the unity of God, using the wordyachiyd which in the Tenach is never used to express God's unity. From these facts it is evident that a new idea was injected into this confession by substitutingyachiyd which in every passage carries the primary idea of oneness in the absolute sense for echad which primarily means a compound unity. Hence from the days of Maimonides on, an interpretation different from the ancient one was placed upon this most important passage." [from: David L. Cooper, The Eternal God Revealing Himself (Harrisburg: Evangelical Press, 1928), 59-60]…[pages 89, 90]
Singular and Plural Words
If the authors of Scripture believed there was only one God, how could they express this idea in the Hebrew language? The only way, in terms of Hebrew grammar, was to use singular nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs in reference to God. Thus, they would refer to God as "He," "Him," and "His" and describe God saying, "I," "Myself," and "Me."…But, if they also believed that God was multi-personal, the only way this idea could be indicated in the Hebrew was to use plural nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and verbs. They would also refer to God as "They," "Them," and "Theirs" and describe God as saying "We," "Us," and "Ours."
While both Trinitarians and Unitarians expect to find singular words applied to God, because they both believe there is only one God numerically speaking, only Trinitarians expect to find plural words used of God as well…[page 90]
End of Excerpt
In my next post I'll continue with excerpts from this chapter on the use of plural pronouns.
Trinitarians believe that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet within this one God, there exists more than one person, ego, intellect or self. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity
Its doublespeak. First you say there is only one God, then you define God as having 3 persons, egos, intellects or selves. i.e,, Three Gods.
Golly no wonder why folks get confused about the bible.
If you are talking about three persons, three egos, three intellects, or three selves; you are talking about three Gods, am I missing something?
In other words: If Peter, Paul and Mary are all God, three distinct persons of a God of unity and purpose, and somebody worships them equally because they believe they all form together one nice big fuzzy God of the same unity and purpose; then one still worships Three Gods, not one. The God Peter, the God Paul, and the God Mary. That's three, not one (except in unity and purpose).
This one is much simpler...”Holy mother, full of grace, saviour of the human race”! I guess you can be “brainwashed” on almost anything if you’re willing to believe it to be true? Then just keep reciting the religious mantra! When you become “older & wiser” does it really matter, beyond the debate? Death is just one day closer! <_<
Well it certainly mattered to twi and PFAL. The accuracy of the Word was one of the prime directives, their bread and butter and was taken very seriously.
I think one concept that both trinitarians and unitarians can agree on is that Jesus is LORD.
Well it certainly mattered to twi and PFAL. The accuracy of the Word was one of the prime directives, their bread and butter and was taken very seriously.
I think one concept that both trinitarians and unitarians can agree on is that Jesus is LORD.
That's great, but looking back, does it really mean a lot to your present reality? I think for everyone here, twi is just a "chopping block" of ideas based on "The Word". There is no so called consensus, just rebellion and discontent. After that, it's planning your next "vacation"?
Its doublespeak. First you say there is only one God, then you define God as having 3 persons, egos, intellects or selves. i.e,, Three Gods.
Golly no wonder why folks get confused about the bible.
Perhaps the confusion is over your definition of "one" and Deuteronomy 6:4's definition of "one." A weakness I see in the TWI-mindset is the tendency toward reductionism – where ideas, concepts, things about life, spiritual matters or even about God are reduced to formulas, rules, oversimplified statements, pat answers…The Ford couldn't explain Henry, but Henry could explain the Ford and vpw could explain God….vpw had an explanation for everything dontchaknow…
If you are talking about three persons, three egos, three intellects, or three selves; you are talking about three Gods, am I missing something?
In other words: If Peter, Paul and Mary are all God, three distinct persons of a God of unity and purpose, and somebody worships them equally because they believe they all form together one nice big fuzzy God of the same unity and purpose; then one still worships Three Gods, not one. The God Peter, the God Paul, and the God Mary. That's three, not one (except in unity and purpose).
Peter, Paul and Mary are one musical group. Personally, my favorite rock gods were Eric, Jack and Ginger, also known as one musical group, Cream.
Well it certainly mattered to twi and PFAL. The accuracy of the Word was one of the prime directives, their bread and butter and was taken very seriously.
I think one concept that both trinitarians and unitarians can agree on is that Jesus is LORD.
Oh yeah, it's obvious on this thread that "accuracy" is a relative term. TWI's accuracy is based on the "great intellectual standards" of a plagiarist, armed with a doctorate from a degree-granting mill, who made up his own definitions of biblical words when it suited him, claimed he took all the Greek classes Moody correspondence school offered [i've posted a letter on GSC from Moody that proves otherwise], referred to non-existent texts ["I wish you could see it in the original"], and said "you can't go beyond what you're taught."...Yes, yes - these traits testify to his great desire for "accuracy." Either TWI needs to re-calibrate their accuracy gauge or I need to de-sensitize my BS detector.
I do agree with you there on Jesus is Lord! And that brings us to considering the practical consequence of Trinitarian versus Unitarian doctrine on God. If we each serve Him as Lord – what's the diff? Where it gets nasty on either side is when they use the difference to polarize folks – draw a line in the sand and ask "which side are you on?" That was a major thrust of TWI'sJCING campaign. One more reason to think of them as the only group on earth rightly dividing the Word. That's why it mattered to TWI. It was their greatest tool for painting up every Trinitarian church as counterfeits! "Where else are you going to go? Who else serves the one true God?"
If one is going to criticize trinitarian thinking, then criticize what they actually believe, not misrepresentations of what they believe.
There are contradictions (or apparent contradictions if you prefer) among what different parts of the bible say (or seem to say) about Jesus and his nature. There are verses that say or strongly imply that Jesus was God or had attributes that were God's alone. There are verses that say that Jesus and The Father are distinct. Trinitarians harmonized them one way, Wierwille and other unitarians another. Both theologies are an attempt to make sense of contradictory information.
My opinion is that Jesus (and I do believe that there was an historical person upon which the Jesus of the gospels was based) was not God, nor did he claim to be. I also believe that legends and myths, especially those of God-men and sacrificial gods from paganism made their way into the initial reports of Jesus' life. Since I don't believe that the bible is the inerrant "Word of God", I have no trouble accepting conttradictions in it. But I do understand why someone who does see the bible as inerrant would be concerned about resolving inconsistancies (or apparent inconsistancies).
In my view Wierwille did a poor job of making his case, misrepresenting what trinitarians actually believed, placing a lot of emphasis on three-in-one gods from paganism (and getting in largely wrong - some of his examples were not three gods in one) but missing the obvious next step - that the whole sacrificial god, born-of-a-virgin redeemer thing came straight out of paganism too.
Oldiesman, here's another thought on the difficult/easy to understand verse method of interpretation - that the whole of the verses together give the interpretation. Much like a puzzle, the pieces fit the way they do and form the picture once assembled.There's no real hard/easy pieces, they just are what they are.
F'instance, your Peter/Paul/Mary example is a good one, I think. They're a group, that has an identity that can't exist without all three. But there are three people, each completely different.
If that's "the Trinity" and the way that God, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit exist we wouldn't end up with 3 "gods" though, to my mind. To have that "god" you need all three, one without the other isn't "god". Same way as the music group. Peter and Mary won't make the same result.
God "the Father"....is only The Father when there's offspring. Jesus Christ is His son, we are His children. Jesus Christ can only be the "son of God" if God is His Father. Holy Spirit can only come forth if there's a sender, a "giver", a source.
I don't believe Jesus Christ "is" God, in that He's not God the Father, He's the son of God. So - is he "God the Son"? I guess is the question.
Describing a Father/Son relationship implies a first/second order, IMO. A Father has a child. A Father builds a family, there's purpose, growth. Same as John 1:1 when it reads "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God". When it's said elsewhere that God "sent" His son. All these kinds of references give a composite picture of who and what Jesus Christ was and is. He came forth from God, but a child that's born isn't the parent, they're the fruit of the parent's love. We hope anyway.
I come up with this - Jesus Christ, the "son" of God was indeed always in God's mind and intent, and not solely as a Savior to a fallen mankind. More than God making things and saying "these things I made are mine", but an actual sharing of His own nature with man, His creation. I could say that Jesus Christ was always in God's heart as an idea, an intent, a desire.
In essence, God is fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ, as a father is when there's a child. And of course, there's a mother too, the family is all 3, or more.
It may be that the true face of God is a family photo.
This one is much simpler...”Holy mother, full of grace, saviour of the human race”! I guess you can be “brainwashed” on almost anything if you’re willing to believe it to be true?
Or to believe this saying existed before it was posted here, for that matter...
Go ahead, do an online search on that phrase. No occurrences. None.
There are verses that say or strongly imply that Jesus was God or had attributes that were God's alone. There are verses that say that Jesus and The Father are distinct. Trinitarians harmonized them one way, Wierwille and other unitarians another. Both theologies are an attempt to make sense of contradictory information.
That's the short form on why my solution to the Gordian Knot was not to blow off either side
(and I've seen both sides do that), but to acknowledge that both sides can make a case,
but not an UNASSAILABLE case,
so I concluded that BOTH are WRONG and the truth is something else.
Lord and Son of God, yes, but some of the specifics beyond that?
Or to believe this saying existed before it was posted here, for that matter...
Go ahead, do an online search on that phrase. No occurrences. None.
Unless this one starts coming up.
Das ist sehr gut, Herr WW! Now I can claim it as my own! I was worried about being accused of plagiarism! From now on, I will consider myself the originator of that one & maybe come up with a few new ones down the road!
Speaking of the “Trinity”, have you ever used that 3 in 1 oil? Me, I buy more of the WD 40. Works real well with the little straw accessory in car locks and other tight places! :)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
118
103
143
114
Popular Days
Aug 4
146
Jul 30
140
Jul 31
123
Aug 1
99
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 118 posts
oldiesman 103 posts
doojable 143 posts
Larry N Moore 114 posts
Popular Days
Aug 4 2007
146 posts
Jul 30 2007
140 posts
Jul 31 2007
123 posts
Aug 1 2007
99 posts
Popular Posts
Mark Clarke
I still believe those few things, with one qualification. We were taught we didn't go to heaven "right away" as you put it. But they were rather vague about what happens in the end. I believe we do
Catcup
Since leaving TWI, I have kind of devolved back almost to where my beliefs were just before getting into TWI. Although in my family we were raised Southern Baptist, we never believed Jesus was God.
GrouchoMarxJr
Unlike oldies, I believe that the majority of what was taught in pfal was wrong... However, as a Christian, I do believe in "eventual" eternal life and I believe that Jesus was the son of God and not
skyrider
anotherDan.......I tend to think that a whole new thread entitled One of the Big Things I did NOT learn in pfal would initiate many posts like yours.
While pfal gives many biblical research keys to the novice student.....it also side-steps MAJOR TRUTHS that are foundational to Christianity. As you noted, pfal springboards off the accomplishments of Jesus Christ....but then never keeps the perspective that Jesus Christ is the head of the One Body.
Sure....."It's the Word, the Word and nothing but the Word".......but is THAT really God's intent? Or, is it a nice cliche that sets one up class after class after class to find the deep meaning of walking in God's power?
And, wierwille's other subsequent cliches......"We have no friends when it comes to God's Word" & "The Word is the ministry and the ministry is the Word".......seemed to keep distancing twi believers from ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONE body, ONE God and Father of all.
Thanks for posting, anotherDan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Thanks, skyrider. You're right, a new thread would probably generate some posts! But this one's serving the purpose. No one can browse these 70+ pages and find many "Big Things I Learned in PFAL."
It got me thinking about eternal things from God's perspective, but maybe I should have just gone to church. As a searching twenty-something, I couldn't see that church had much to offer. I know now that I was wrong, but somehow Dr. Wierwille did reach me with some powerful messages in his classes and teachings, and other ministers likewise did teach me "big things." I give glory to God for it all, just as I give God the glory for how amazing and wonderful my children turned out. Surely Liz and I did our best, but I know I failed them so many times. But God was their God, not just their parents' God. Likewise, He was my God throughout my tenure with the Way.
Some of my Big things:
The Bible is the revelation of God
The Bible makes known Christ; Christ makes known God
We must not come to the Bible with preconceived notions of what we already believe, but have the humility to let it speak for itself -- to respect it for what it claims to be, and is, the Word of God, which is living and powerful...
I agree that though we taught "no private interpretation" the class was full of it. But the concept (which is not really what that verse is talking about, ironically!) is godly and was a "big thing" for me. Still is. It's an attitude of respect for what the Scriptures say. I didn't have that before. Was it poorly carried out at times? Yes, I think that's been amply documented. Like so many others, I don't see the relevance of whether two or four were crucified with Jesus, but the point that was being made was that the Bible was a remarkable document, inspired by God himself. This was a result of Dr. Wierwille's appreciation of Bullinger's work. I think that the Lord's characterizaton of "straining at gnats" might be how he feels about all the press given this teaching, but the "big thing" of what Dr. Wierwille called "the absolute trustworthiness of the Word," I "still believe." Now, I may disagree with how that was handled in the class itself, but I appreciate "the baby."
My earlier post about Jesus was a serious one. Our determination to show he was "not God" really for me resulted in him being "not Lord." I had to go over his head, directly to God, but I do not feel that way at all, now. Oh, I said he was Lord, but in my heart, he was merely my brother. Bad. VeddieVeddieBad
The preaching of the cross was foolishness to some folks way back in Paul's day. The cross is the keystone of history. "We" dissed the preaching of the cross, ourselves, I think. It sounded good to emphasize the resurrection... surely that too must be preached... but nothing is as central as the cross.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Not at all cid...I am at a loss to understand your antipathy towards me....my accounts have been substantiated....you cannot point to a single thing I have said here that is untrue....
I have presented the information and contributed my thoughts....shrug that is what we do here.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
Yes the Hebrew word yaqar in in Ps.116:15 does mean costly.
From The Complete Word Study Dictionary Old Testament, Warren Baker, D.R.E., Eugene Carpenter, Ph.D.:
YaQaR (3368)
An adjective meaning valuable, rare, precious. It carries the sense of being rare in some contexts (I Sam. 3:1). It is used to describe precious and costly stones (2Sam. 12:30; I Kgs. 10:2,10,11); the valuable foundation stones of buildings (I Kgs. 5:17[31]' any expensive building stones or materials (I Kgs. 7:9-11). It is used of the Lord's lovingkindness (hesed) to His people (Ps. 36:7,8) Wisdom is asserted to be more valualbe than jewels (Prov. 3:15). It is used as an abstract collective term for that which is valuable, noble, moral, ethical or worthy compared to what is worthless (Jer. 15:19). In Job 32:26, it is used in a negative sense of the alluring attraction of the moon's splendor as an inviation to idolatry or astrology. The menacing figure in Daniel 11:38 casts his religious affection on the god of violence, honoring it. It may be used in Zech. 14:6 meaning luminaries or lights, but the reading is uncertain, for it could mean cold.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Suda
Thanks wrdsandwrks.
Seems that word was on of the first word studies we did in our fellowship years ago. We used to have "word study" nights at least once a month and often used a PFAL as the springboard. Always enjoyed them, they were my favorite fellowship format.
Suda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
My point, as always with anything Wierwille taught, is check it out, and make sure you aren't interpreting what you check out in light of something else Wierwille taught. I think that the context of the whole psalm does more to indicate that "the death of his saints" isn't a good thing than the literal meaning of the word itself. Because the source you cited does not indicate that yaqar primarily means "costly" in the negative sense in that it's a drain on your resources, but "costly" as in you have something valuable at hand. A 10 million dollar diamond's costliness is different when you have it in your possession, and can enjoy its costliness, from not having it, but desiring it from the other side of the plate glass.
Back to context: the psalm talks about deliverance from death, and several other uses of yaqar in other psalms clearly indicate the negative use of "costly". So it's the context, not the unambiguous definition of the word translated "precious" that gets us to the "correct" answer.
Analyzing anything that Wierwille taught takes more than simply reading a verse in the bible and verifying that it said what he said it said (whew, typing that sentence made me dizzy) - because his plain reading of "what is written" is liberally sprinkled with unwarranted assumptions and supported by incorrect definitions of Greek and Hebrew words. In this case, I believe that he was correct, but IMHO a biblical scholar would be wise to question anything that was taught in PFAL, including the underlying assumptions, definitions, "orientalisms" and conclusions, even such things as the "keys" to research themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Oak, good points!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yup – vpw has a field day with interpreting the Scriptures as he sees fit but forbids that of others. To me, that's intellectually dishonest – and hits me as nothing more than a ploy to make his viewpoint unassailable.
Since he ignored the context of II Peter 1 which deals with the ORIGIN of Scripture and not its interpretation – I have to ask where does it say in Scripture that there is only one interpretation possible? Is it possible there are several levels of interpretation of a particular passage? Literal, figurative, spiritual, allegorical, etc. Consider also Old Testament passages re-interpreted by Jesus or Paul in the New Testament.
And for that matter, there's plenty of passages – that have stymied the best of biblical scholars on exactly how something is to be taken - judging from the variety of commentaries I've read. And speaking honestly as a mere student of the Bible, the percentage of puzzling passages is even higher for me. Fortunately my salvation is not based on a thorough [or "throughly"
] accurate knowledge of the Bible but on a fear of the Lord and an experiential knowledge of the Holy One [i.e. Proverbs 9:10].
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
TB:
Your observations and conclusions really click with me, T.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
It does say the scripture is of no private interpretation. Therefore a problem with your view might be an interpretation that contradicts another, obviously. As I see it, there may be different levels of understanding which is ok but in order for it to be "the Word of God" it can't contradict itself.
A simple example would be "I and my Father are one" John 10:30.
I had a conversation with a good friend who's also a priest, who said he believed that means "one in the selfsame"; whereas I believe it means "one in unity, one in purpose."
PFAL did help me in this case since one of the keys to the words interpretation of itself, as taught in PFAL, is that the difficult verse should be understood in light of the clear verses. If one stick out like sore thumb, it must be understood in light of the many clear ones. Here, the clear verses over 60 of them are that Jesus is the son of God. There are others that show Jesus's sonship to and worship of God, whereas the opposite is not the case.
And so I think from this one verse alone one can logically surmise that the scripture can't rightfully contradict itself so much so that "son of God" means "God". i.e. several different levels of interpretation of this verse may lead to serious error.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
And judging by your nice picture of USDA Choice, Another Dan - it's obvious the integrity of the Word is always at steak!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
There's always the possibility of coming up with contradictory interpretations on any passage that may have multi-level meanings. And with that in mind I think it behooves any serious Bible student to be disciplined enough to exercise good hermeneutical skills – like observing the grammatical, contextual, historical, geographical, and cultural data pertinent to a particular passage.
One weakness that I find with PFAL's difficult verse understood in light of the clear verses that you mentioned is that the difficult verse is a matter of opinion. Another weakness I see with the difficult verse/clear verses thinking is the assumption that the clear verses are addressing the same issue as the difficult verse.
As a Trinitarian, I would like to point out concerning your reference to John 10:30 – that not all Trinitarians believe that Jesus, the Son of God and God the Father are one and the same person. That is however, the way vpw described Trinitarian doctrine in JCING. I have no difficulty with any verse that shows a disparity between Father and Son – because I don't see them as one and the same person. Matter of fact, it might be an interesting study for some folks to look at one of the Old Testament words for "one" – which I made reference to in my post # 173 [see below] on Son of Arthur's thread Honest Discussion of the Trinity:
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Its doublespeak. First you say there is only one God, then you define God as having 3 persons, egos, intellects or selves. i.e,, Three Gods.
Golly no wonder why folks get confused about the bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
If you are talking about three persons, three egos, three intellects, or three selves; you are talking about three Gods, am I missing something?
In other words: If Peter, Paul and Mary are all God, three distinct persons of a God of unity and purpose, and somebody worships them equally because they believe they all form together one nice big fuzzy God of the same unity and purpose; then one still worships Three Gods, not one. The God Peter, the God Paul, and the God Mary. That's three, not one (except in unity and purpose).
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
hm
well...i think its at least triplespeak...perhaps even leaning into quadruple-speak
but even then, its no where near the chromatics of the holy bible itself..which is at least octagaspeak to decaspeak..or whatever you wanna call it
but i dunno...how in tune do some of us think these guys really were?
how many tongues do angels have, anyway?
:blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
This one is much simpler...”Holy mother, full of grace, saviour of the human race”! I guess you can be “brainwashed” on almost anything if you’re willing to believe it to be true? Then just keep reciting the religious mantra! When you become “older & wiser” does it really matter, beyond the debate? Death is just one day closer! <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Well it certainly mattered to twi and PFAL. The accuracy of the Word was one of the prime directives, their bread and butter and was taken very seriously.
I think one concept that both trinitarians and unitarians can agree on is that Jesus is LORD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
That's great, but looking back, does it really mean a lot to your present reality? I think for everyone here, twi is just a "chopping block" of ideas based on "The Word". There is no so called consensus, just rebellion and discontent. After that, it's planning your next "vacation"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Perhaps the confusion is over your definition of "one" and Deuteronomy 6:4's definition of "one." A weakness I see in the TWI-mindset is the tendency toward reductionism – where ideas, concepts, things about life, spiritual matters or even about God are reduced to formulas, rules, oversimplified statements, pat answers…The Ford couldn't explain Henry, but Henry could explain the Ford and vpw could explain God….vpw had an explanation for everything dontchaknow…
Peter, Paul and Mary are one musical group. Personally, my favorite rock gods were Eric, Jack and Ginger, also known as one musical group, Cream.
Oh yeah, it's obvious on this thread that "accuracy" is a relative term. TWI's accuracy is based on the "great intellectual standards" of a plagiarist, armed with a doctorate from a degree-granting mill, who made up his own definitions of biblical words when it suited him, claimed he took all the Greek classes Moody correspondence school offered [i've posted a letter on GSC from Moody that proves otherwise], referred to non-existent texts ["I wish you could see it in the original"], and said "you can't go beyond what you're taught."...Yes, yes - these traits testify to his great desire for "accuracy." Either TWI needs to re-calibrate their accuracy gauge or I need to de-sensitize my BS detector.
I do agree with you there on Jesus is Lord! And that brings us to considering the practical consequence of Trinitarian versus Unitarian doctrine on God. If we each serve Him as Lord – what's the diff? Where it gets nasty on either side is when they use the difference to polarize folks – draw a line in the sand and ask "which side are you on?" That was a major thrust of TWI's JCING campaign. One more reason to think of them as the only group on earth rightly dividing the Word. That's why it mattered to TWI. It was their greatest tool for painting up every Trinitarian church as counterfeits! "Where else are you going to go? Who else serves the one true God?"
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
If one is going to criticize trinitarian thinking, then criticize what they actually believe, not misrepresentations of what they believe.
There are contradictions (or apparent contradictions if you prefer) among what different parts of the bible say (or seem to say) about Jesus and his nature. There are verses that say or strongly imply that Jesus was God or had attributes that were God's alone. There are verses that say that Jesus and The Father are distinct. Trinitarians harmonized them one way, Wierwille and other unitarians another. Both theologies are an attempt to make sense of contradictory information.
My opinion is that Jesus (and I do believe that there was an historical person upon which the Jesus of the gospels was based) was not God, nor did he claim to be. I also believe that legends and myths, especially those of God-men and sacrificial gods from paganism made their way into the initial reports of Jesus' life. Since I don't believe that the bible is the inerrant "Word of God", I have no trouble accepting conttradictions in it. But I do understand why someone who does see the bible as inerrant would be concerned about resolving inconsistancies (or apparent inconsistancies).
In my view Wierwille did a poor job of making his case, misrepresenting what trinitarians actually believed, placing a lot of emphasis on three-in-one gods from paganism (and getting in largely wrong - some of his examples were not three gods in one) but missing the obvious next step - that the whole sacrificial god, born-of-a-virgin redeemer thing came straight out of paganism too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Oldiesman, here's another thought on the difficult/easy to understand verse method of interpretation - that the whole of the verses together give the interpretation. Much like a puzzle, the pieces fit the way they do and form the picture once assembled.There's no real hard/easy pieces, they just are what they are.
F'instance, your Peter/Paul/Mary example is a good one, I think. They're a group, that has an identity that can't exist without all three. But there are three people, each completely different.
If that's "the Trinity" and the way that God, Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit exist we wouldn't end up with 3 "gods" though, to my mind. To have that "god" you need all three, one without the other isn't "god". Same way as the music group. Peter and Mary won't make the same result.
God "the Father"....is only The Father when there's offspring. Jesus Christ is His son, we are His children. Jesus Christ can only be the "son of God" if God is His Father. Holy Spirit can only come forth if there's a sender, a "giver", a source.
I don't believe Jesus Christ "is" God, in that He's not God the Father, He's the son of God. So - is he "God the Son"? I guess is the question.
Describing a Father/Son relationship implies a first/second order, IMO. A Father has a child. A Father builds a family, there's purpose, growth. Same as John 1:1 when it reads "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God". When it's said elsewhere that God "sent" His son. All these kinds of references give a composite picture of who and what Jesus Christ was and is. He came forth from God, but a child that's born isn't the parent, they're the fruit of the parent's love. We hope anyway.
I come up with this - Jesus Christ, the "son" of God was indeed always in God's mind and intent, and not solely as a Savior to a fallen mankind. More than God making things and saying "these things I made are mine", but an actual sharing of His own nature with man, His creation. I could say that Jesus Christ was always in God's heart as an idea, an intent, a desire.
In essence, God is fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ, as a father is when there's a child. And of course, there's a mother too, the family is all 3, or more.
It may be that the true face of God is a family photo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Or to believe this saying existed before it was posted here, for that matter...
Go ahead, do an online search on that phrase. No occurrences. None.
Unless this one starts coming up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's the short form on why my solution to the Gordian Knot was not to blow off either side
(and I've seen both sides do that), but to acknowledge that both sides can make a case,
but not an UNASSAILABLE case,
so I concluded that BOTH are WRONG and the truth is something else.
Lord and Son of God, yes, but some of the specifics beyond that?
I honestly say "I don't know."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Das ist sehr gut, Herr WW! Now I can claim it as my own! I was worried about being accused of plagiarism!
From now on, I will consider myself the originator of that one & maybe come up with a few new ones down the road! 
Speaking of the “Trinity”, have you ever used that 3 in 1 oil? Me, I buy more of the WD 40. Works real well with the little straw accessory in car locks and other tight places! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.