Given your description of exegesis, a good example could actually be Monty Python's Life of Brian. These guys spent an entire summer going over the gospels, and they do not claim Christianity as their faith. They read out meanings from the gospels.
I am not making light of your post, it is very well stated. There are points that are curious to me concerning VP's relationship to the truth and what you might still adhere to as truth. . . . but, I appreciate the distinction you are trying to draw. I make a different distinction.
Jesus, when speaking to the Pharisee's said in Luke 11 52"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."
(Matthew 23:3) Jesus said, "So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
In Luke 10 when Jesus is being questioned by the expert in the law . . . it is understood that this man knew the law. . . it is not in question . . . yet, Jesus asked him "How do you read it?" The man read it correctly and Jesus told him so, but the man's follow up question revealed a great deal about the depth of his understanding. Jesus did enlighten him.
The Pharisees had a legitimate position, with authority, Caiphas actually prophesied correctly about the Messiah. That was his role as High Priest, and God worked within that structure for something important. . . . . although they did twist it. . . . . However, when it comes to someone like VP, he did not have the authority or legitimacy of even the Pharisees.
He came out from the church. . . . he left the church in disgrace and defiance. 1 John 2:19 speaks to this "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."
VP was out there on his own. . . . who do we think conferred authority on VP to teach, be a minister, or preacher? He left his position as Minister. He left his ministry. God works within the structure he, himself set up. . . .Jesus said His church would be built. . . . if the scriptures are to be believed. . . . there is an order to things.
When VP left his ministry, he drew people away with him. " Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20.
When it comes to people like VP. . . . the scriptures are explicit in warning. It runs deeper than merely a difference in exegesis, eisegesis, and practice IMO. . . . the scriptures tell us these men, like VP. . . . actually . . . . exchange the truth of God for a lie.
Wierwille had a belief that the inherent word of God was perfect. He taught us to "let the word interpret itself". Yet he fumbled when it came to some of his own interpretations. When we look into the word we find what we seek. If we seek hell and damnation we will find it to justify our own need for imposing justice on others or ourselves. If we seek love then we will find justification for our own brand of love. The truth is that nothing is black and white. Words like truth and honor are ambiguous. Reason and rationalization demonstrate that there is not necessarily one clear way. Two testaments, two gods, two sides of the brain ruling one body. Somewhere betwixt the two, wisdom will prevail and the light will shine and bring deliverance to our understanding.
Thanks for your responses, geisha and cman. Monty Python's Life of Brian is one of my all time favorite movies. Quality humor plays a lot of the same word games as quality theologizing. When I first went to see Life of Brian (I think I had gone to a twig meeting or two, but I hadn't yet signed up for the class), I didn't find it offensive at all. To me, it didn't seem to be making fun of Jesus or anything holy, but rather of the bizarre "religious" ideas and practices people come up with on their own. I'm sure if I watched the whole thing through again, I'd find plenty of my old "way-brain" in it, too. It was and still is very funny.
When I wrote "Wierwille preached a great many things that I consider to be true about God and the Bible...", I did it with the intention of recognizing that not everyone believes the same things I do, and that's okay by me, de gustibus non disputandum est, "to each his own", etc., etc. I don't see this thread as an argument for or against the truth of the Bible, I see it as a re-appraisal of whether or not the things Wierwille taught line up with what is actually written in the Bible from which he taught.
Sorting out what the Bible actually says from the fallacies and superstitions Wierwille read into it has been a useful tool in helping me flush my mind of the errors I so used to take for granted.
Edited to add, "flush my mind of the errors I so used to take for granted, and the arrogance they bred."
I’m sure that he (as well as every other evangelical preacher at some time or other…maybe as much (or more in some cases) as VP…) has practiced eisegesis. Hey, the Jews accuse Christians of practicing eisegesis in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures (thinking, as we do, that it has information about Jesus, OMG)! But the example of the Romans record is not really eisegesis on VP’s part; it’s bad reading and bad hermeneutics and then bad preaching. Its not even how dispensationalists (Bullinger included) read the passages. Confusion, whether it be TWI or any other group, ensues when we don’t read what’s written, as you so deftly point out, Steve.
“Authorial intent” is really what we are dealing with in the eisegesis area and interestingly enough, the research fellowship at TWI (and Walter Cummins), DID get it as regards “what it meant to them” and “what it means to us”. We did, however, have to bash our heads against the icon of PFAL to no avail in many cases.
The whole of it is really just hermeneutics (even though the word means “interpretation” it is in the main: exegesis) and homeletics (even though this is technically “preaching” it is in the main: eisgesis). They try to teach this in Seminaries, but it often gets lost in the sauce of “how to run a church” or “how to fund a church activity”. They are sisters in the most important one-two combo for the Church’s continued success. If we miss these we will LIVE wrongly.
As to VP having “left his ministry” (I assume you mean his pastorate in the Dutch Reformed church) “in disgrace and definance”, I’d like to know what is meant. That “church”, an earthly creation as any other denomination or parachurch group, could not give VP any more (or less) legitimacy or authority outside it’s own purview. If someone was led to follow VP to TWI, that was their perogative (or their being deceived, if you feel so strongly). But this happens everywhere, all the time.
Similarly, the Pharisees were only legitimate within the purview of the Jewish system at the time. They and the Sadducean party were essentially political opponents within the Sanhedrin (which itself was an invention of that same Jewish system) and within society in general. You won’t read about them in the Hebrew Scriptures, but their roots were in the Pre-Herodian civil war and the social debate out of which the factions arose to prominence.
Josephus mentions the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Essenes already in existence during the reign of Jonathan (160-143 BC), but the meteoric rise of the first two (2) parties really came to the fore in the period between 76-40 BC. After that, of course, we find them clashing with Jesus (and themselves) in the Gospel period and with the Church in Acts. Thought it might be of interest to know some of this. Didn’t cost any extra…
But this history (hopefully) speaks to the “legitimacy” issue and how VP “drew people away” from something (whatever one might perceive as an “official” or praiseworthy endeavor such as a “church” or “denomination”); they are all fabricated things within society. I agree, Geisha, that there is a true Church, but no one can point to it and says there it is (though of course TWI tried that and failed, eh?).
Rather, I’d say that (with James), “Everyone is put to the test by being attracted and seduced by that person's own lusts (over-desires). Then the desire conceives and gives birth to sin, and when sin reaches full growth, it gives birth to death.” Love that “gives birth to death”! None of us were/are immune from deception (even today, BTW); and other men (and women!) than VP will arise and distort the truth to find more disciples, get more money, become the “mighty one in the earth”. Started with Nimrod and won’t stop until the lake of fire. These “men of the name” will be amongst us and we need to have the tools to find them out. Correct exegesis and accurate eisegesis are a couple of good ones, IMHO.
Thanks for your responses, geisha and cman. Monty Python's Life of Brian is one of my all time favorite movies. Quality humor plays a lot of the same word games as quality theologizing. When I first went to see Life of Brian (I think I had gone to a twig meeting or two, but I hadn't yet signed up for the class), I didn't find it offensive at all. To me, it didn't seem to be making fun of Jesus or anything holy, but rather of the bizarre "religious" ideas and practices people come up with on their own. I'm sure if I watched the whole thing through again, I'd find plenty of my old "way-brain" in it, too. It was and still is very funny.
When I wrote "Wierwille preached a great many things that I consider to be true about God and the Bible...", I did it with the intention of recognizing that not everyone believes the same things I do, and that's okay by me, de gustibus non disputandum est, "to each his own", etc., etc. I don't see this thread as an argument for or against the truth of the Bible, I see it as a re-appraisal of whether or not the things Wierwille taught line up with what is actually written in the Bible from which he taught.
Sorting out what the Bible actually says from the fallacies and superstitions Wierwille read into it has been a useful tool in helping me flush my mind of the errors I so used to take for granted.
Edited to add, "flush my mind of the errors I so used to take for granted, and the arrogance they bred."
Love,
Steve
I think for me Steve, I only need make the one distinction anymore. The one between the Christian church and a heretical cult. The one between a false teacher and a true minister. . . . I believe scripture gives us ample warning.
Ironic, there is one thing VP said that is fairly true. . . . "You tell me what you believe about Jesus Christ. . . "
However, I do understand your perspective. I can empathize with it. For me, if the mans lips were moving and he was talking about a holy God . . . he didn't have a clue.
And to add. . . . when we are standing on the outside of something. . . seeking to redefine it. . . . it makes perfect sense that we would not be able to point to it.
Reading "out from" the scriptures and reading "into" the scriptures seem innevitable to me.
When someone like Wierwille preaches "God means what He Says and says what He means" it mostly served to cause us to falsly estimate our doctrines as solid and genuine IMO.
I believe demoninational Christianity is and has been subject to the same delusion at times and that any casual reading of current or ancient church history will give ample opportunities to see this. And most people will pick out the errors they see based on the current color of their theological glasses and be partly correct too.
But in modern times Sociopathic bastards like Wierwille seem to me to present the most damaging of all threats. Maybe because to me the raw influence they excersize over their victims seem to be the MOST DAMAGING long term effects.
But demoninational Christianity has it's share of active preachers and teachers who partake in all kinds of sick and perverse activities with their subordinates too. But in general they do not allow people to fall down at their feet like The Way Ministry did I guess, and the influence they have on their organizations don't seem to be as all encompassing.
But getting back to the point, it seems like understanding the basics of "exegesis" and "eisegesis" may and should have been able to help some see that Wierwille wasn't all he was cracked up to be. But IMO it is a pretty small tool when compared to all the control techniques that The Way International used to control it's victims.
But demoninational Christianity has it's share of active preachers and teachers who partake in all kinds of sick and perverse activities with their subordinates too. But in general they do not allow people to fall down at their feet like The Way Ministry did I guess, and the influence they have on their organizations don't seem to be as all encompassing.
But, some churches do not tolerate this. . . . they say it is unacceptable behavior. . . .you either repent and change . . . . or leave. . . but, you can always set out on your own to redefine the parameters so it IS actually acceptable behavior. It is called Biblical Research.
Many churches believe in accountability. . . . and actually have safeguards in place. Sometimes they fail. . . . but, no accountability with unchecked self-appointed authority can lead to what we were involved in.
But, some churches do not tolerate this. . . . they say it is unacceptable behavior. . . .you either repent and change . . . . or leave. . . but, you can always set out on your own to redefine the parameters so it IS actually acceptable behavior. It is called Biblical Research.
Many churches believe in accountability. . . . and actually have safeguards in place. Sometimes they fail. . . . but, no accountability with unchecked self-appointed authority can lead to what we were involved in.
So no matter what is going on in any biblocentric organization biblical research is a potential tool that may reach any given individual, but organizational setup and safeguards are more effective in eliminating abuse?
IMO The Way Inernationals particular brand of insanity had the abusive insanity with no checks and balances destroyed the effectiveness of the biblical studies. (Schoenheidt's work on adultery being IMO an obvious example) And "exegesis" and "eisegesis" are the two things being discussed here.
Heck, Wierwille's insanity had leadership excusing nasty, nasty behavior and scouring the bible to actually justify their sick, twisted behavior. Some were deluded into thinking he was MINISTERING to those young ladies. Others just turned a blind eye even while their consciences were screaming at them. Either way all organizational biblical integrity was destroyed a long, long time ago because it didn't really seem to exist in Wierwille's heart IMO. But we are still individuals who may or may not have biblical integrity.
I have no idea how to get this thread back on track now...sorry. :blush:
As to VP having "left his ministry" (I assume you mean his pastorate in the Dutch Reformed church) "in disgrace and definance", I'd like to know what is meant. That "church", an earthly creation as any other denomination or parachurch group, could not give VP any more (or less) legitimacy or authority outside it's own purview. If someone was led to follow VP to TWI, that was their perogative (or their being deceived, if you feel so strongly). But this happens everywhere, all the time.
Similarly, the Pharisees were only legitimate within the purview of the Jewish system at the time. They and the Sadducean party were essentially political opponents within the Sanhedrin (which itself was an invention of that same Jewish system) and within society in general. You won't read about them in the Hebrew Scriptures, but their roots were in the Pre-Herodian civil war and the social debate out of which the factions arose to prominence.
Josephus mentions the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Essenes already in existence during the reign of Jonathan (160-143 BC), but the meteoric rise of the first two (2) parties really came to the fore in the period between 76-40 BC. After that, of course, we find them clashing with Jesus (and themselves) in the Gospel period and with the Church in Acts. Thought it might be of interest to know some of this. Didn't cost any extra…
But this history (hopefully) speaks to the "legitimacy" issue and how VP "drew people away" from something (whatever one might perceive as an "official" or praiseworthy endeavor such as a "church" or "denomination"); they are all fabricated things within society. I agree, Geisha, that there is a true Church, but no one can point to it and says there it is (though of course TWI tried that and failed, eh?).
Rather, I'd say that (with James), "Everyone is put to the test by being attracted and seduced by that person's own lusts (over-desires). Then the desire conceives and gives birth to sin, and when sin reaches full growth, it gives birth to death." Love that "gives birth to death"! None of us were/are immune from deception (even today, BTW); and other men (and women!) than VP will arise and distort the truth to find more disciples, get more money, become the "mighty one in the earth". Started with Nimrod and won't stop until the lake of fire. These "men of the name" will be amongst us and we need to have the tools to find them out. Correct exegesis and accurate eisegesis are a couple of good ones, IMHO.
RE
The church is an earthly creation?
When Jesus said "Do what they say. . . " that was not giving legitimacy to the Pharisee's role?
When Paul laid out the parameters of a true minister in Timothy and juxtaposed it with characteristics of a false teacher .. . . .while instructing one on how to conduct themselves in the house of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. . . What? That means nothing? That is not laying out the foundation for legitimate ministry?
Ok, so when I was in River Road Fellowship I was likened to Nabal and Ahab. I was called a false prophet. I was referrred to as anti-christ, both before I left and referring to what I'd do after they kicked me out.
That would be examples of Barnard's thugs "exegesis" or "eisegesis", or something else?
Either way, when it was in my face a little but behind my back a lot, it was very hurtful.
Once, a Kansas farmer sent his son Jack to check on the growth of the corn in the field. Now Jack was not a tall lad, so he decided to take a ladder with him. When he found a nice big stalk of corn, he leaned the ladder against it and climbed up until he could reach the first joint. From there, he proceeded to the top of the cornstalk, and looked out over the field. There was enough corn there for a rich harvest.
Excited by his discovery, Jack started back down the corn stalk. He realized suddenly that it had kept growing while he was at the top. He stepped from joint to joint, but it grew so fast he never reached the ground.
Meanwhile, Jack's father wondered what was taking the boy so long. He knew there was no use in hunting for him in the forest of corn, so he climbed to the top of the windmill. He saw Jack's predicament soon enough, and gathered the neighborhood men. They tried to chop down the cornstalk, but the cornstalk was growing so fast there were eighteen inches separating every chop. Finally, they gave up, and Jack was forced to stay on the corn stalk until a drought came and it finally stopped growing.
and mysteries told my some people
is a lie truth is truth a lie or are they the same
Black Aggie
retold by
S. E. Schlosser
When Felix Agnus put up the life-sized shrouded bronze statue of a grieving angel, seated on a pedestal, in the Agnus family plot in the Druid Ridge Cemetery, he had no idea what he had started. The statue was a rather eerie figure by day, frozen in a moment of grief and terrible pain. At night, the figure was almost unbelievably creepy; the shroud over its head obscuring the face until you were up close to it. There was a living air about the grieving angel, as if its arms could really reach out and grab you if you weren't careful.
It didn't take long for rumors to sweep through the town and surrounding countryside. They said that the statue - nicknamed Black Aggie - was haunted by the spirit of a mistreated wife who lay beneath her feet. The statue's eyes would glow red at the stroke of midnight, and any living person who returned the statues gaze would instantly be struck blind. Any pregnant woman who passed through her shadow would miscarry. If you sat on her lap at night, the statue would come to life and crush you to death in her dark embrace. If you spoke Black Aggie's name three times at midnight in front of a dark mirror, the evil angel would appear and pull you down to hell. They also said that spirits of the dead would rise from their graves on dark nights to gather around the statue at night.
People began visiting the cemetery just to see the statue, and it was then that the local fraternity decided to make the statue of Grief part of their initiation rites. "Black Aggie" sitting, where candidates for membership had to spend the night crouched beneath the statue with their backs to the grave of General Agnus, became popular.
One dark night, two fraternity members accompanied new hopeful to the cemetery and watched while he took his place underneath the creepy statue. The clouds had obscured the moon that night, and the whole area surrounding the dark statue was filled with a sense of anger and malice. It felt as if a storm were brewing in that part of the cemetery, and to their chagrin, the two fraternity members noticed that gray shadows seemed to be clustering around the body of the frightened fraternity candidate crouching in front of the statue.
What had been a funny initiation rite suddenly took on an air of danger. One of the fraternity brothers stepped forward in alarm to call out to the initiate. As he did, the statue above the boy stirred ominously. The two fraternity brothers froze in shock as the shrouded head turned toward the new candidate. They saw the gleam of glowing red eyes beneath the concealing hood as the statue's arms reached out toward the cowering boy.
With shouts of alarm, the fraternity brothers leapt forward to rescue the new initiate. But it was too late. The initiate gave one horrified yell, and then his body disappeared into the embrace of the dark angel. The fraternity brothers skidded to a halt as the statue thoughtfully rested its glowing eyes upon them. With gasps of terror, the boys fled from the cemetery before the statue could grab them too.
Hearing the screams, a night watchman hurried to the Agnus plot. To his chagrin, he discovered the body of a young man lying at the foot of the statue. The young man had apparently died of fright.
The disruption caused by the statue grew so acute that the Agnus family finally donated it to the Smithsonian museum in Washington D.C.. The grieving angel sat for many years in storage there, never again to plague the citizens visiting the Druid Hill Park Cemetery.
You can read more Maryland folktales and ghost stories in Spooky Maryland by S.E. Schlosser.
we talk about VPW as he some great understanding of truth
but he just had a basic understanding we all only have basic understanding of truth
One of the biggest errors in biblical approach is to first assume the bible fits with itself. Then every step after that you find yourself performing mental calisthenics to warp every verse of the word into a complete and whole picture.
What if it is fallible, we don't need to "chuck the whole thing" so one person gets a different thing from it than another... this is what makes public debate and human interaction so dynamically open to change. Somewhere between our polarity we meet and amicably agree to disagree. :)
I have no idea how to get this thread back on track now...sorry. :blush:
Not to worry. One of the things I've learned to value since leaving TWI and CES is Socratic discourse instead of lecture. The discussion will go where it needs to go, and will wander back to the relative merits of exegesis and eisegesis from time to time.
I also thank all you other posters! It's going to take me more time to consider all this stuff than I have at the moment.
When Jesus said "Do what they say. . . " that was not giving legitimacy to the Pharisee's role?
When Paul laid out the parameters of a true minister in Timothy and juxtaposed it with characteristics of a false teacher .. . . .while instructing one on how to conduct themselves in the house of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. . . What? That means nothing? That is not laying out the foundation for legitimate ministry?
Not buying it for a moment.
Geisha,
The denominational church to which I refered is certainly an earthly creation. I'm sorry if I was not clear, but I thought I was. So, were you referring to VP's denomination when you said he "left" in "disgrace and defiance"? It was the only question I asked...
As for the Pharisee's legitimacy, let me say that I'll stand by what I wrote. Not that they were not part of social fabric of the religious Palestinian Jew (hey I even think Jesus was one (by training)...but that's another story). Pharisees were as legitimate as their own tracking to the Hebrew Scriptures.
Why are you getting hostile? I'm not starting a fight here. I'm just discussing a very important issue. Have I offended you in some way?
In what way did I say Paul's prescription for an "overseer" or a "deacon" was somehow wrong?
The denominational church to which I refered is certainly an earthly creation. I'm sorry if I was not clear, but I thought I was. So, were you referring to VP's denomination when you said he "left" in "disgrace and defiance"? It was the only question I asked...
As for the Pharisee's legitimacy, let me say that I'll stand by what I wrote. Not that they were not part of social fabric of the religious Palestinian Jew (hey I even think Jesus was one (by training)...but that's another story). Pharisees were as legitimate as their own tracking to the Hebrew Scriptures.
Why are you getting hostile? I'm not starting a fight here. I'm just discussing a very important issue. Have I offended you in some way?
In what way did I say Paul's prescription for an "overseer" or a "deacon" was somehow wrong?
Wow!
RE
RE
Well Robert, I don't mean to be hostile, but I spent many years from outside the church and I am defensive. . . . but, only when someone makes a statement which puts me on the defensive.
Denominations are often splits due to reform, correction, or matters of focus. That doesn't make them all man made. The institution, like marriage, was designed by God. There are as many perfect churches as there are perfect marriages. This does not negate God's design or intent for church . . . neither do denominations.
Look at the 1st century church in Jerusalem. . . . compared to the church at Corinth.. . . different focus all together, different needs for different areas. . . . then take a look at the churches individual judgments in Revelation. Different churches, different personalities, different shortfalls. . . . one head, one judge.
Like precious faith. I should be able to go into any basic bible believing church and fellowship and fully participate in worship. I may be more comfortable one place over another . . . but, I am a unique personality. . ..as are we all. But, Christian churches all share the same basic doctrine.
What was Paul's reproof to the Corinthians, which was a really gifted church . . . you are God's building, you are God's husbandry. . . . God gives the increase.
Paul laid out the basic outline and structure for a church. God gives us pastors, teachers, evangelists and people who all bring their individual gifts to bear for the church.
Denominations negate nothing IMO. What does is a cult . . . . an aberrant faith . . . and I cannot understand standing from without. . . . not sharing common faith . . . and making pronouncements.
I believe one of the most grievous sins VP committed was his disdain for the church and yes I do believe you can point to the church. . . . he taught us to have the same disdain. . . . to have nothing to do with it . . . . to reason and explain it away.
So, yes, I do get very defensive. . . . I belong to a church . . . I belong to a worldwide church. One that has a heart for the lost, and one which sees to the persecuted saints. . . to the poor. . . . to the widows. . . . to the orphans. . . . not each individual group has the same focus. . . . but yes, there is a church and we worship the same God.
That is where there is some accountability, that is where there is like precious faith in the head, and that is where one is vested with authority, role with responsibility and most importantly has accountability . . . . at least in the way I read Timothy.
VP left his church and from what I have read and believe it was over sexual sin. He left accountability . . . . he left his ministry.
As for the Pharisees. . . . I believe Jesus, in His dealing with them, confirmed the authority of their role and duty. . . He certainly held them accountable for it, He judged them by it. Jesus was the express image of God . . . . doesn't get much plainer than that. . . . . it doesn't mean they were right . . . . but they were legit.
VP wasn't. . . . and he certainly wasn't held accountable once he left the church . . . but, he is accountable to God.
As you and others have ongoing problems with VP you will probably get to introduce him to your ideas of his judgement at some time in the not too distant future. Personally, I don’t like spending time trying to figure out his sins. I have enough of my own. If we want to discuss his ecclesiology that's another story entirely.
Your anger at me, however, is a bit misplaced. Your notions of accountability to a structure and (if I read you correctly??) someone “standing without (outside?)” of said structure and not “sharing common faith” and “making pronouncements”…where is all this coming from?
Are you directing such accusations at moi? Am I not approaching my dictated ecclesiatical responsibilities with enough devotion? What?
Can we not just discuss things civily on a thread without impugning someone’s character (even if may not be mine…)?
Why are you trying to legitimize the Pharisees’ “role and duty” as if it represents some kind of model under which the Christian church should act? In the main they were "blind leaders (of the blind)". I'm trying to stay out of the ditches.
I’d much rather hear you talk about how we today might fulfill our individual ministries in the body of Christ than that. Inspecting (so intently) one’s liberty (“in Christ”) is hardly what I’d expect from someone who seems, quite obviously, to have been delivered from the wrath to come.
What’s all this about Jesus being the “express image of God”, as if I’m not aware of his pedigree? Maybe you were trying to introduce me to him? I can’t claim a perfect understanding of him (yet), but pretty soon (I am seeing through that darkened glass ya know…).
This is how I figure it: you know I don’t hold your notion of Jesus being part of some triune Godhead. I don’t hold your high opinion of the denominationally structured “church”. I don’t like the western structure of the large congregation with the focus at the front, but that doesn’t mean I’ll demean those who choose to attend and subserve themselves to said ecclesiatisical structures. Hell, I bought the t-shirt some time ago; I've just sold it to others.
I wouldn’t intend to compel someone else to live before God as I live.
Isn’t that how people got in trouble; playing “follow the leader”?
As you and others have ongoing problems with VP you will probably get to introduce him to your ideas of his judgement at some time in the not too distant future. Personally, I don't like spending time trying to figure out his sins. I have enough of my own. If we want to discuss his ecclesiology that's another story entirely.
Your anger at me, however, is a bit misplaced. Your notions of accountability to a structure and (if I read you correctly??) someone "standing without (outside?)" of said structure and not "sharing common faith" and "making pronouncements"…where is all this coming from?
Are you directing such accusations at moi? Am I not approaching my dictated ecclesiatical responsibilities with enough devotion? What?
Can we not just discuss things civily on a thread without impugning someone's character (even if may not be mine…)?
Why are you trying to legitimize the Pharisees' "role and duty" as if it represents some kind of model under which the Christian church should act? In the main they were "blind leaders (of the blind)". I'm trying to stay out of the ditches.
I'd much rather hear you talk about how we today might fulfill our individual ministries in the body of Christ than that. Inspecting (so intently) one's liberty ("in Christ") is hardly what I'd expect from someone who seems, quite obviously, to have been delivered from the wrath to come.
What's all this about Jesus being the "express image of God", as if I'm not aware of his pedigree? Maybe you were trying to introduce me to him? I can't claim a perfect understanding of him (yet), but pretty soon (I am seeing through that darkened glass ya know…).
This is how I figure it: you know I don't hold your notion of Jesus being part of some triune Godhead. I don't hold your high opinion of the denominationally structured "church". I don't like the western structure of the large congregation with the focus at the front, but that doesn't mean I'll demean those who choose to attend and subserve themselves to said ecclesiatisical structures. Hell, I bought the t-shirt some time ago; I've just sold it to others.
I wouldn't intend to compel someone else to live before God as I live.
Isn't that how people got in trouble; playing "follow the leader"?
Who's our leader?
That was rhetorical…
RE
Robert,
I am not angry with you . . . I simply don't agree with you.
It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see the effects of VP's sins even now. . . . . all these years later. I could go for it . . . but, for some here, it is a rather personal discussion. Do you realize the amount of aborted pregnancies, coerced sex, and spousal abuse that resulted from that man's doctrine? From his teaching? The life long burdens people carry?
Some people carry them because they have never had a personal relationship with their savior or an intimate knowledge of the cross. . . . of forgiveness. The cross, symbol or real was an enemy . . . . what it represents. . . . twisted. . . . we actually tore one down from the chapel at Emporia!
The cross was mocked. Pretty stunning feats for a so-called Christian organization. Not knowing the Savior and mocking the cross.
VP's character is truly relevant and sadly, it often takes an up close and personal view of an idol . . . to begin to be delivered from the lies and destructive heresy that man introduced. Sometimes that is all it takes.
People died in TWI. People took their own lives.
But, this this what offends you? Vp's sins are being mentioned? His sins are so far reaching, some people will go to their graves never again seeking a relationship with the God of scripture. . . . or so confused they will never again trust a minister.
That offends me.
This website is to tell the other side of the story. There is a very ugly side to the story.
BTW, I simply posted to Steve my opinion. Complete with comic relief so as to soften any question or disagreement? You sought to enlighten on the history of the Pharisees and their legitimacy . I simply defended my point.
I made my initial point that at least the Pharises had some legitimacy. . . . VP didn't. He left something legitimate and empowered himself with authority . . . unless one still believes the snow job.
My point was in response to Steve's initial post about VP preaching one thing and practicing another. It reminded me of Matthew 23:3. . . I then started running through all the similarities between a false teacher described in the epistles and the Pharisees . . . . my mind then jumped to the legitimacy issue. . . . so, I posted it.
I never held the Pharisees up as a model for the church. My point was that VP wasn't even a Pharisee. . . . not exactly a compliment. Following that, I simply defended what l wrote.
Again for the cheap seats. . . .
I believe VP came out from among the church. . . was never one of them . . . . preyed on people . . . often weak people and people who were not being pastored properly or at all.. . . and drew them away. Drew them away from what? The Christian church. . . . He left the confines of accountability and exchanged the truth he knew about God . . . for a lie. And we both know what I am talking about.
He left his church. . . (and denomination is not a dirty word). . . . he struck out on his own. . . and built a little kingdom where he could justify indulging the sexual sins he was held accountable for in a church. . . . a place with overseers and elders.
You took my post so personally. You seem to take a discussion of VP's character personally. I think it is very relevant to his doctrine. . . . to his credibility as a minister, and teacher of the scriptures. . . . now, where do you think that comes from?
As for his judgment? Nothing, absolutely nothing I could say is more terrifying than what the scriptures say about false teachers. . . their acts, lies, and end.
I simply believe it. I also think it is worth a nod when one is considering his exegesis.
The church has structure, yes, absolutely, thank God. . . . He designed it that way. . . . but, it is made up of people. People who love the Lord, and serve Him. There is accountability. People are entrusted by God to pastors who protect them, teachers who teach them, and ministers who minister to them. Why belittle it with generalizations and sweeping judgment? You bought the tee-shirt? What does that even mean? You bought the cult tee-shirt too. . . . doesn't mean they are one size fits all.
Why would I make a statement about standing on the outside, not sharing a common faith, and making pronouncements? I was in TWI. . . we sang songs mocking them. We separated from them and maligned their faith. Where else do you think that comes from? We tore down crosses, we called steeples phallic symbols. . . . were arrogant toward churches and we spit in the face of God's people. We didn't come to that alone. . . . we were lead there.
I truly believe WE were the ones lead astray. . . . not the other way around. Our exegesis, esegesis, and practice, didn't save us from being ensnared.
My opinion. . . . I am sticking with it. I didn't come by it easily.
And to add. . . and just so I am clear. . . I believe the little Baptist church on the corner, the one which maybe runs a soup kitchen . . . . is part of the church Jesus Christ said He would build. . . . . . same goes for the Methodist church which might be a bit larger and maybe supports missionaries. . . . the little Assemblies of God congregation that runs a Christian radio station out of their basement. . . . part of the world wide church. . . . the Anglican church that someone like NT Wright is a Bishop in.. . . . part of the church. . . . . the Pentecostal church down the street that is hopping on Sunday morning belongs too. . . . the Lutheran Church which has spillover parking at a Dennys whether it be Missouri Synod or not . . in the church . . . . . I have knelt comfortably in Catholic churches and prayed. . . . . and on it goes.
Christian churches.
Their focus might be different, their worship may be conducted in a different manner. . . . they may disagree about sprinkling vs dunking . . . . or even larger doctrinal issues. . . but, if they are born-again Christians . . when they kneel to pray . . . they are praying to God. Not with a perfect knowledge. . . . but as Christians. . . . in relationship to Jesus Christ. . . . the same God.
That is the church. I don't believe people simply go to church for Calvin or Luther. . . . but they go to church to fellowship, be fed and worship together . . . to congregate as a body of believers. . . . sharing the same core doctrines and beliefs about Jesus Christ.
I do believe Jesus is involved. I do believe that is His church. Perfect. . . no . . . changing and correcting at times. . . yes. . . . messy at times . . . yes(Hey, look at Corinth, God's beloved) . . . . . . made up of Christians . . . yes.
The churches with all their imperfections are still held to accountability before God . . . . . at least warned so in Revelation.
To ADD ADD. . . . ministries like VOM Voice of the Martyrs . . . . exist to serve the persecuted church. . . . its founder, Pastor Richard Wurmbrand, himself was imprisoned 14 years in Romania for his faith in Christ. His suffering was the catalyst for that faithful ministry. They serve Christians of all denominations . . . .
Ravi Zacharias Ministries and his Apologetics center at Oxford serve to train people in defense of the Christian faith . . . . he came to his faith from the brink of suicide and has spent his time since. . . . serving the church in an area of his personal strength. . . a defense of the gospel.
NT Wright . . . . considered the world's leading bible scholar. .. or one of . . . .an Anglican Bishop . . . goes around speaking and teaching. . . . sharing his years of study.
Someone like William Lane Craig does the same . . . . debates on behalf of the church and for the furthering of the gospel.
DL Moody. . . . uneducated and poor. . . . started a charity school based on faith. . . .a great evangelist. . . . who reached thousands
Billy Graham . . . . same thing. . . .
The Bible League has people who put their lives in danger delivering bibles to persecuted Christians. . . . in very dangerous places.
Not to mention all the martyrs who still are tortured and die for their faith.
I CAN point to leaders in the church . . . . they are always the greatest servants. The list is VERY long. I don't follow them anywhere, but try to follow their example and support their good works in prayer!
Okay Steve, I am done . . . . sorry for the derail. . . . back to VP and his exegesis, eisegesis, and what he practiced. :)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
39
90
45
29
Popular Days
Mar 24
34
Mar 25
28
Apr 10
24
Mar 23
21
Top Posters In This Topic
year2027 39 posts
Steve Lortz 90 posts
geisha779 45 posts
roberterasmus 29 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2010
34 posts
Mar 25 2010
28 posts
Apr 10 2010
24 posts
Mar 23 2010
21 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
Hebrews 4:12 .. . . to whom is it written? It was written to the Jews who had intellectually agreed to the gospel, the facts about Jesus, the authority and power of the 1st century church, but were no
geisha779
Hey Gen-2 I am curious what people think strong meat really is? :) Perhaps it is. . . to the measure of the stature of the fullness in Christ. . . . and not some super-duper special x-ray ability,
cman
Excuse me there Bob, but your post has a narrow view. I will not use the word you used to describe a perspective. Other words come to mind. But, you are, as all, entitled to your own works.
geisha779
Given your description of exegesis, a good example could actually be Monty Python's Life of Brian. These guys spent an entire summer going over the gospels, and they do not claim Christianity as their faith. They read out meanings from the gospels.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="
I am not making light of your post, it is very well stated. There are points that are curious to me concerning VP's relationship to the truth and what you might still adhere to as truth. . . . but, I appreciate the distinction you are trying to draw. I make a different distinction.
Jesus, when speaking to the Pharisee's said in Luke 11 52"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."
(Matthew 23:3) Jesus said, "So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
In Luke 10 when Jesus is being questioned by the expert in the law . . . it is understood that this man knew the law. . . it is not in question . . . yet, Jesus asked him "How do you read it?" The man read it correctly and Jesus told him so, but the man's follow up question revealed a great deal about the depth of his understanding. Jesus did enlighten him.
The Pharisees had a legitimate position, with authority, Caiphas actually prophesied correctly about the Messiah. That was his role as High Priest, and God worked within that structure for something important. . . . . although they did twist it. . . . . However, when it comes to someone like VP, he did not have the authority or legitimacy of even the Pharisees.
He came out from the church. . . . he left the church in disgrace and defiance. 1 John 2:19 speaks to this "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."
VP was out there on his own. . . . who do we think conferred authority on VP to teach, be a minister, or preacher? He left his position as Minister. He left his ministry. God works within the structure he, himself set up. . . .Jesus said His church would be built. . . . if the scriptures are to be believed. . . . there is an order to things.
When VP left his ministry, he drew people away with him. " Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20.
When it comes to people like VP. . . . the scriptures are explicit in warning. It runs deeper than merely a difference in exegesis, eisegesis, and practice IMO. . . . the scriptures tell us these men, like VP. . . . actually . . . . exchange the truth of God for a lie.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
good points on how words form ideas
purpose and intent and motivation and desire and love and hate
all play a part in hearing i think
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Wierwille had a belief that the inherent word of God was perfect. He taught us to "let the word interpret itself". Yet he fumbled when it came to some of his own interpretations. When we look into the word we find what we seek. If we seek hell and damnation we will find it to justify our own need for imposing justice on others or ourselves. If we seek love then we will find justification for our own brand of love. The truth is that nothing is black and white. Words like truth and honor are ambiguous. Reason and rationalization demonstrate that there is not necessarily one clear way. Two testaments, two gods, two sides of the brain ruling one body. Somewhere betwixt the two, wisdom will prevail and the light will shine and bring deliverance to our understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks for your responses, geisha and cman. Monty Python's Life of Brian is one of my all time favorite movies. Quality humor plays a lot of the same word games as quality theologizing. When I first went to see Life of Brian (I think I had gone to a twig meeting or two, but I hadn't yet signed up for the class), I didn't find it offensive at all. To me, it didn't seem to be making fun of Jesus or anything holy, but rather of the bizarre "religious" ideas and practices people come up with on their own. I'm sure if I watched the whole thing through again, I'd find plenty of my old "way-brain" in it, too. It was and still is very funny.
When I wrote "Wierwille preached a great many things that I consider to be true about God and the Bible...", I did it with the intention of recognizing that not everyone believes the same things I do, and that's okay by me, de gustibus non disputandum est, "to each his own", etc., etc. I don't see this thread as an argument for or against the truth of the Bible, I see it as a re-appraisal of whether or not the things Wierwille taught line up with what is actually written in the Bible from which he taught.
Sorting out what the Bible actually says from the fallacies and superstitions Wierwille read into it has been a useful tool in helping me flush my mind of the errors I so used to take for granted.
Edited to add, "flush my mind of the errors I so used to take for granted, and the arrogance they bred."
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Interesting take on VP, ya’ll
I’m sure that he (as well as every other evangelical preacher at some time or other…maybe as much (or more in some cases) as VP…) has practiced eisegesis. Hey, the Jews accuse Christians of practicing eisegesis in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures (thinking, as we do, that it has information about Jesus, OMG)! But the example of the Romans record is not really eisegesis on VP’s part; it’s bad reading and bad hermeneutics and then bad preaching. Its not even how dispensationalists (Bullinger included) read the passages. Confusion, whether it be TWI or any other group, ensues when we don’t read what’s written, as you so deftly point out, Steve.
“Authorial intent” is really what we are dealing with in the eisegesis area and interestingly enough, the research fellowship at TWI (and Walter Cummins), DID get it as regards “what it meant to them” and “what it means to us”. We did, however, have to bash our heads against the icon of PFAL to no avail in many cases.
The whole of it is really just hermeneutics (even though the word means “interpretation” it is in the main: exegesis) and homeletics (even though this is technically “preaching” it is in the main: eisgesis). They try to teach this in Seminaries, but it often gets lost in the sauce of “how to run a church” or “how to fund a church activity”. They are sisters in the most important one-two combo for the Church’s continued success. If we miss these we will LIVE wrongly.
As to VP having “left his ministry” (I assume you mean his pastorate in the Dutch Reformed church) “in disgrace and definance”, I’d like to know what is meant. That “church”, an earthly creation as any other denomination or parachurch group, could not give VP any more (or less) legitimacy or authority outside it’s own purview. If someone was led to follow VP to TWI, that was their perogative (or their being deceived, if you feel so strongly). But this happens everywhere, all the time.
Similarly, the Pharisees were only legitimate within the purview of the Jewish system at the time. They and the Sadducean party were essentially political opponents within the Sanhedrin (which itself was an invention of that same Jewish system) and within society in general. You won’t read about them in the Hebrew Scriptures, but their roots were in the Pre-Herodian civil war and the social debate out of which the factions arose to prominence.
Josephus mentions the Pharisees, Sadducees and the Essenes already in existence during the reign of Jonathan (160-143 BC), but the meteoric rise of the first two (2) parties really came to the fore in the period between 76-40 BC. After that, of course, we find them clashing with Jesus (and themselves) in the Gospel period and with the Church in Acts. Thought it might be of interest to know some of this. Didn’t cost any extra…
But this history (hopefully) speaks to the “legitimacy” issue and how VP “drew people away” from something (whatever one might perceive as an “official” or praiseworthy endeavor such as a “church” or “denomination”); they are all fabricated things within society. I agree, Geisha, that there is a true Church, but no one can point to it and says there it is (though of course TWI tried that and failed, eh?).
Rather, I’d say that (with James), “Everyone is put to the test by being attracted and seduced by that person's own lusts (over-desires). Then the desire conceives and gives birth to sin, and when sin reaches full growth, it gives birth to death.” Love that “gives birth to death”! None of us were/are immune from deception (even today, BTW); and other men (and women!) than VP will arise and distort the truth to find more disciples, get more money, become the “mighty one in the earth”. Started with Nimrod and won’t stop until the lake of fire. These “men of the name” will be amongst us and we need to have the tools to find them out. Correct exegesis and accurate eisegesis are a couple of good ones, IMHO.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I think for me Steve, I only need make the one distinction anymore. The one between the Christian church and a heretical cult. The one between a false teacher and a true minister. . . . I believe scripture gives us ample warning.
Ironic, there is one thing VP said that is fairly true. . . . "You tell me what you believe about Jesus Christ. . . "
However, I do understand your perspective. I can empathize with it. For me, if the mans lips were moving and he was talking about a holy God . . . he didn't have a clue.
And to add. . . . when we are standing on the outside of something. . . seeking to redefine it. . . . it makes perfect sense that we would not be able to point to it.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Reading "out from" the scriptures and reading "into" the scriptures seem innevitable to me.
When someone like Wierwille preaches "God means what He Says and says what He means" it mostly served to cause us to falsly estimate our doctrines as solid and genuine IMO.
I believe demoninational Christianity is and has been subject to the same delusion at times and that any casual reading of current or ancient church history will give ample opportunities to see this. And most people will pick out the errors they see based on the current color of their theological glasses and be partly correct too.
But in modern times Sociopathic bastards like Wierwille seem to me to present the most damaging of all threats. Maybe because to me the raw influence they excersize over their victims seem to be the MOST DAMAGING long term effects.
But demoninational Christianity has it's share of active preachers and teachers who partake in all kinds of sick and perverse activities with their subordinates too. But in general they do not allow people to fall down at their feet like The Way Ministry did I guess, and the influence they have on their organizations don't seem to be as all encompassing.
But getting back to the point, it seems like understanding the basics of "exegesis" and "eisegesis" may and should have been able to help some see that Wierwille wasn't all he was cracked up to be. But IMO it is a pretty small tool when compared to all the control techniques that The Way International used to control it's victims.
And maybe hindsight is 20-20 too.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
But, some churches do not tolerate this. . . . they say it is unacceptable behavior. . . .you either repent and change . . . . or leave. . . but, you can always set out on your own to redefine the parameters so it IS actually acceptable behavior. It is called Biblical Research.
Many churches believe in accountability. . . . and actually have safeguards in place. Sometimes they fail. . . . but, no accountability with unchecked self-appointed authority can lead to what we were involved in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
So no matter what is going on in any biblocentric organization biblical research is a potential tool that may reach any given individual, but organizational setup and safeguards are more effective in eliminating abuse?
IMO The Way Inernationals particular brand of insanity had the abusive insanity with no checks and balances destroyed the effectiveness of the biblical studies. (Schoenheidt's work on adultery being IMO an obvious example) And "exegesis" and "eisegesis" are the two things being discussed here.
Heck, Wierwille's insanity had leadership excusing nasty, nasty behavior and scouring the bible to actually justify their sick, twisted behavior. Some were deluded into thinking he was MINISTERING to those young ladies. Others just turned a blind eye even while their consciences were screaming at them. Either way all organizational biblical integrity was destroyed a long, long time ago because it didn't really seem to exist in Wierwille's heart IMO. But we are still individuals who may or may not have biblical integrity.
I have no idea how to get this thread back on track now...sorry. :blush:
(The 3rd paragraph I added in editng.)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
The church is an earthly creation?
When Jesus said "Do what they say. . . " that was not giving legitimacy to the Pharisee's role?
When Paul laid out the parameters of a true minister in Timothy and juxtaposed it with characteristics of a false teacher .. . . .while instructing one on how to conduct themselves in the house of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. . . What? That means nothing? That is not laying out the foundation for legitimate ministry?
Not buying it for a moment.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Ok, so when I was in River Road Fellowship I was likened to Nabal and Ahab. I was called a false prophet. I was referrred to as anti-christ, both before I left and referring to what I'd do after they kicked me out.
That would be examples of Barnard's thugs "exegesis" or "eisegesis", or something else?
Either way, when it was in my face a little but behind my back a lot, it was very hurtful.
I'll have to check on this later.......
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
This is not the bible or is it
old stories are about life and death
and mysteries told my some people
is a lie truth is truth a lie or are they the same
we talk about VPW as he some great understanding of truth
but he just had a basic understanding we all only have basic understanding of truth
we must see every possible meaning to things
but we can not because we are only human
maybe one day we will see things more complete
but until that day we can only do our best
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
One of the biggest errors in biblical approach is to first assume the bible fits with itself. Then every step after that you find yourself performing mental calisthenics to warp every verse of the word into a complete and whole picture.
What if it is fallible, we don't need to "chuck the whole thing" so one person gets a different thing from it than another... this is what makes public debate and human interaction so dynamically open to change. Somewhere between our polarity we meet and amicably agree to disagree. :)
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Not to worry. One of the things I've learned to value since leaving TWI and CES is Socratic discourse instead of lecture. The discussion will go where it needs to go, and will wander back to the relative merits of exegesis and eisegesis from time to time.
I also thank all you other posters! It's going to take me more time to consider all this stuff than I have at the moment.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Uuuuhhh.......yeah.....me too :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Geisha,
The denominational church to which I refered is certainly an earthly creation. I'm sorry if I was not clear, but I thought I was. So, were you referring to VP's denomination when you said he "left" in "disgrace and defiance"? It was the only question I asked...
As for the Pharisee's legitimacy, let me say that I'll stand by what I wrote. Not that they were not part of social fabric of the religious Palestinian Jew (hey I even think Jesus was one (by training)...but that's another story). Pharisees were as legitimate as their own tracking to the Hebrew Scriptures.
Why are you getting hostile? I'm not starting a fight here. I'm just discussing a very important issue. Have I offended you in some way?
In what way did I say Paul's prescription for an "overseer" or a "deacon" was somehow wrong?
Wow!
RE
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well Robert, I don't mean to be hostile, but I spent many years from outside the church and I am defensive. . . . but, only when someone makes a statement which puts me on the defensive.
Denominations are often splits due to reform, correction, or matters of focus. That doesn't make them all man made. The institution, like marriage, was designed by God. There are as many perfect churches as there are perfect marriages. This does not negate God's design or intent for church . . . neither do denominations.
Look at the 1st century church in Jerusalem. . . . compared to the church at Corinth.. . . different focus all together, different needs for different areas. . . . then take a look at the churches individual judgments in Revelation. Different churches, different personalities, different shortfalls. . . . one head, one judge.
Like precious faith. I should be able to go into any basic bible believing church and fellowship and fully participate in worship. I may be more comfortable one place over another . . . but, I am a unique personality. . ..as are we all. But, Christian churches all share the same basic doctrine.
What was Paul's reproof to the Corinthians, which was a really gifted church . . . you are God's building, you are God's husbandry. . . . God gives the increase.
Paul laid out the basic outline and structure for a church. God gives us pastors, teachers, evangelists and people who all bring their individual gifts to bear for the church.
Denominations negate nothing IMO. What does is a cult . . . . an aberrant faith . . . and I cannot understand standing from without. . . . not sharing common faith . . . and making pronouncements.
I believe one of the most grievous sins VP committed was his disdain for the church and yes I do believe you can point to the church. . . . he taught us to have the same disdain. . . . to have nothing to do with it . . . . to reason and explain it away.
So, yes, I do get very defensive. . . . I belong to a church . . . I belong to a worldwide church. One that has a heart for the lost, and one which sees to the persecuted saints. . . to the poor. . . . to the widows. . . . to the orphans. . . . not each individual group has the same focus. . . . but yes, there is a church and we worship the same God.
That is where there is some accountability, that is where there is like precious faith in the head, and that is where one is vested with authority, role with responsibility and most importantly has accountability . . . . at least in the way I read Timothy.
VP left his church and from what I have read and believe it was over sexual sin. He left accountability . . . . he left his ministry.
As for the Pharisees. . . . I believe Jesus, in His dealing with them, confirmed the authority of their role and duty. . . He certainly held them accountable for it, He judged them by it. Jesus was the express image of God . . . . doesn't get much plainer than that. . . . . it doesn't mean they were right . . . . but they were legit.
VP wasn't. . . . and he certainly wasn't held accountable once he left the church . . . but, he is accountable to God.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Geisha
How can there be perfect church?
there are all human churches no church is perfect it not possible
and know some better than others
a church is a group of people
it not the leader
it the group together
the Way Ministry is not about the leader its the group
we learn in part because no person has all the answers
leaders miss the mark but there are human with weakness
VPW had real noticeable shortcoming but who is perfect
not me
we all humans with different weakness
what cause one to fall may not even rock you
VPW might of even believed his was ok
but all are sins
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Throughly perfected?
The only certainty is uncertainty... :)
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
OK Geisha,
As you and others have ongoing problems with VP you will probably get to introduce him to your ideas of his judgement at some time in the not too distant future. Personally, I don’t like spending time trying to figure out his sins. I have enough of my own. If we want to discuss his ecclesiology that's another story entirely.
Your anger at me, however, is a bit misplaced. Your notions of accountability to a structure and (if I read you correctly??) someone “standing without (outside?)” of said structure and not “sharing common faith” and “making pronouncements”…where is all this coming from?
Are you directing such accusations at moi? Am I not approaching my dictated ecclesiatical responsibilities with enough devotion? What?
Can we not just discuss things civily on a thread without impugning someone’s character (even if may not be mine…)?
Why are you trying to legitimize the Pharisees’ “role and duty” as if it represents some kind of model under which the Christian church should act? In the main they were "blind leaders (of the blind)". I'm trying to stay out of the ditches.
I’d much rather hear you talk about how we today might fulfill our individual ministries in the body of Christ than that. Inspecting (so intently) one’s liberty (“in Christ”) is hardly what I’d expect from someone who seems, quite obviously, to have been delivered from the wrath to come.
What’s all this about Jesus being the “express image of God”, as if I’m not aware of his pedigree? Maybe you were trying to introduce me to him? I can’t claim a perfect understanding of him (yet), but pretty soon (I am seeing through that darkened glass ya know…).
This is how I figure it: you know I don’t hold your notion of Jesus being part of some triune Godhead. I don’t hold your high opinion of the denominationally structured “church”. I don’t like the western structure of the large congregation with the focus at the front, but that doesn’t mean I’ll demean those who choose to attend and subserve themselves to said ecclesiatisical structures. Hell, I bought the t-shirt some time ago; I've just sold it to others.
I wouldn’t intend to compel someone else to live before God as I live.
Isn’t that how people got in trouble; playing “follow the leader”?
Who’s our leader?
That was rhetorical…
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Robert,
I am not angry with you . . . I simply don't agree with you.
It doesn't take much reading between the lines to see the effects of VP's sins even now. . . . . all these years later. I could go for it . . . but, for some here, it is a rather personal discussion. Do you realize the amount of aborted pregnancies, coerced sex, and spousal abuse that resulted from that man's doctrine? From his teaching? The life long burdens people carry?
Some people carry them because they have never had a personal relationship with their savior or an intimate knowledge of the cross. . . . of forgiveness. The cross, symbol or real was an enemy . . . . what it represents. . . . twisted. . . . we actually tore one down from the chapel at Emporia!
The cross was mocked. Pretty stunning feats for a so-called Christian organization. Not knowing the Savior and mocking the cross.
VP's character is truly relevant and sadly, it often takes an up close and personal view of an idol . . . to begin to be delivered from the lies and destructive heresy that man introduced. Sometimes that is all it takes.
People died in TWI. People took their own lives.
But, this this what offends you? Vp's sins are being mentioned? His sins are so far reaching, some people will go to their graves never again seeking a relationship with the God of scripture. . . . or so confused they will never again trust a minister.
That offends me.
This website is to tell the other side of the story. There is a very ugly side to the story.
BTW, I simply posted to Steve my opinion. Complete with comic relief so as to soften any question or disagreement? You sought to enlighten on the history of the Pharisees and their legitimacy . I simply defended my point.
I made my initial point that at least the Pharises had some legitimacy. . . . VP didn't. He left something legitimate and empowered himself with authority . . . unless one still believes the snow job.
My point was in response to Steve's initial post about VP preaching one thing and practicing another. It reminded me of Matthew 23:3. . . I then started running through all the similarities between a false teacher described in the epistles and the Pharisees . . . . my mind then jumped to the legitimacy issue. . . . so, I posted it.
I never held the Pharisees up as a model for the church. My point was that VP wasn't even a Pharisee. . . . not exactly a compliment. Following that, I simply defended what l wrote.
Again for the cheap seats. . . .
I believe VP came out from among the church. . . was never one of them . . . . preyed on people . . . often weak people and people who were not being pastored properly or at all.. . . and drew them away. Drew them away from what? The Christian church. . . . He left the confines of accountability and exchanged the truth he knew about God . . . for a lie. And we both know what I am talking about.
He left his church. . . (and denomination is not a dirty word). . . . he struck out on his own. . . and built a little kingdom where he could justify indulging the sexual sins he was held accountable for in a church. . . . a place with overseers and elders.
You took my post so personally. You seem to take a discussion of VP's character personally. I think it is very relevant to his doctrine. . . . to his credibility as a minister, and teacher of the scriptures. . . . now, where do you think that comes from?
As for his judgment? Nothing, absolutely nothing I could say is more terrifying than what the scriptures say about false teachers. . . their acts, lies, and end.
I simply believe it. I also think it is worth a nod when one is considering his exegesis.
The church has structure, yes, absolutely, thank God. . . . He designed it that way. . . . but, it is made up of people. People who love the Lord, and serve Him. There is accountability. People are entrusted by God to pastors who protect them, teachers who teach them, and ministers who minister to them. Why belittle it with generalizations and sweeping judgment? You bought the tee-shirt? What does that even mean? You bought the cult tee-shirt too. . . . doesn't mean they are one size fits all.
Why would I make a statement about standing on the outside, not sharing a common faith, and making pronouncements? I was in TWI. . . we sang songs mocking them. We separated from them and maligned their faith. Where else do you think that comes from? We tore down crosses, we called steeples phallic symbols. . . . were arrogant toward churches and we spit in the face of God's people. We didn't come to that alone. . . . we were lead there.
I truly believe WE were the ones lead astray. . . . not the other way around. Our exegesis, esegesis, and practice, didn't save us from being ensnared.
My opinion. . . . I am sticking with it. I didn't come by it easily.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
And to add. . . and just so I am clear. . . I believe the little Baptist church on the corner, the one which maybe runs a soup kitchen . . . . is part of the church Jesus Christ said He would build. . . . . . same goes for the Methodist church which might be a bit larger and maybe supports missionaries. . . . the little Assemblies of God congregation that runs a Christian radio station out of their basement. . . . part of the world wide church. . . . the Anglican church that someone like NT Wright is a Bishop in.. . . . part of the church. . . . . the Pentecostal church down the street that is hopping on Sunday morning belongs too. . . . the Lutheran Church which has spillover parking at a Dennys whether it be Missouri Synod or not . . in the church . . . . . I have knelt comfortably in Catholic churches and prayed. . . . . and on it goes.
Christian churches.
Their focus might be different, their worship may be conducted in a different manner. . . . they may disagree about sprinkling vs dunking . . . . or even larger doctrinal issues. . . but, if they are born-again Christians . . when they kneel to pray . . . they are praying to God. Not with a perfect knowledge. . . . but as Christians. . . . in relationship to Jesus Christ. . . . the same God.
That is the church. I don't believe people simply go to church for Calvin or Luther. . . . but they go to church to fellowship, be fed and worship together . . . to congregate as a body of believers. . . . sharing the same core doctrines and beliefs about Jesus Christ.
I do believe Jesus is involved. I do believe that is His church. Perfect. . . no . . . changing and correcting at times. . . yes. . . . messy at times . . . yes(Hey, look at Corinth, God's beloved) . . . . . . made up of Christians . . . yes.
The churches with all their imperfections are still held to accountability before God . . . . . at least warned so in Revelation.
Just my opinion.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
To ADD ADD. . . . ministries like VOM Voice of the Martyrs . . . . exist to serve the persecuted church. . . . its founder, Pastor Richard Wurmbrand, himself was imprisoned 14 years in Romania for his faith in Christ. His suffering was the catalyst for that faithful ministry. They serve Christians of all denominations . . . .
Ravi Zacharias Ministries and his Apologetics center at Oxford serve to train people in defense of the Christian faith . . . . he came to his faith from the brink of suicide and has spent his time since. . . . serving the church in an area of his personal strength. . . a defense of the gospel.
NT Wright . . . . considered the world's leading bible scholar. .. or one of . . . .an Anglican Bishop . . . goes around speaking and teaching. . . . sharing his years of study.
Someone like William Lane Craig does the same . . . . debates on behalf of the church and for the furthering of the gospel.
DL Moody. . . . uneducated and poor. . . . started a charity school based on faith. . . .a great evangelist. . . . who reached thousands
Billy Graham . . . . same thing. . . .
The Bible League has people who put their lives in danger delivering bibles to persecuted Christians. . . . in very dangerous places.
Not to mention all the martyrs who still are tortured and die for their faith.
I CAN point to leaders in the church . . . . they are always the greatest servants. The list is VERY long. I don't follow them anywhere, but try to follow their example and support their good works in prayer!
Okay Steve, I am done . . . . sorry for the derail. . . . back to VP and his exegesis, eisegesis, and what he practiced. :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
...Socratic discourse...
I think that means having a conversation. LOL
Edited by soul searcherLink 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.