The Way International Argues: Actual Words of the Bible are Not Doctrine

[Gen-2]

Actually I simply want to best respond to their briefs in court, and catching them saying one thing in court and another thing in their own publications is.. helpful :-)

So if you can email those scans I would appreciate it.

James Trimm

cleartruth@yahoo.com

Sent

[mstar1]

Given that The Way International has now officially pulled a total 180 in court that pretty much disregards all that they currently teach about the Word of God being doctrine.

But do they teach The Word of God is Doctrine?

When Iwas in it wasnt "the word" that was doctrine it was "rightly dividing"

the word that produced doctrine. Weirwille even used the example from Psalms about there being no God to illustrate wrong doctrine that comes from wrongly dividing the word

[frank123lol]

What about figures of speech,being more than literal?

"It is truer than true?The spin is only "they" can put it together for

people to get "right results".

So only "they" have the answers.

[doojable]

Actually, I think I met James Scott Trimm and his wife about 17 years ago. Both she and I were in the same La Maze-type class.

James was very interested in TWI's work in Aramaic and the Pedangta text. He gave me his version of the Gospel of Matthew in Aramaic.

I never read the version. By that time I was getting more and more disinterested with Biblical studies and the BS that comes with one person saying that his translation is more accurate and/or gets clothes whiter with less wrinkles.

[OldSkool]

But do they teach The Word of God is Doctrine?

When Iwas in it wasnt "the word" that was doctrine it was "rightly dividing"

the word that produced doctrine. Weirwille even used the example from Psalms about there being no God to illustrate wrong doctrine that comes from wrongly dividing the word

Yes. They define the word of God as the only true standard. They do say that versions of the bible are subject to being rightly divided. But to say that words are not doctrine would be the same as saying that the individual hairs on my head are not hair. My lord, how many times did we grab a concordance and look at the shades of meaning to get the "deeper" nuances of a word? The entire time I was in the way international the word of God was emphasized as doctrine. The word, the word, and nothing but the word. So, if it's really not doctrine then it stands to reason that the only doctrine to the way international is what they authorize by their own interpretation as true biblical principle. I would love to see the results of the way international teaching this at a service and subsequent fellowships. They would lose folks left and right. I am sure they count on the sheep remaining blissfully uninformed.

Notwithstanding, and pardon me for not citing references, what about all the verses in the bible that refer to it's contents as doctrine? I mean if we are really going to let the bible interpret itself we would have to acknowledge the many places where the bible (and by reason the words that comprise the bible) cites itself as doctrine.

Egads, don't even get me started on what they teach, that taken from E.W. Bullinger, on how the bible interprets itself. I mean they explicitly talk about the importance of words, their biblical definition and usage, their remote and immediate context, etc. So to follow their logic, words in the bible have no inherent value as doctrine until someone gives the interpretation via "principle." Good grief, I feel like I'm playing three card monte, this is a shell game to me.

Edited April 7, 2010 by OldSkool

[penworks]

I mean if we are really going to let the bible interpret itself we would have to acknowledge the many places where the bible (and by reason the words that comprise the bible) cites itself as doctrine.

Well, this is an interesting point and has been hashed out on other threads here. Maybe what I have to say doesn't fit in here, maybe it belongs in the Doctrinal forum, who knows?

Anyway, as you say, verses contained in the Bible, like VP's favorite II Timothy 3:16, mentions "doctrine," but I think it's important to remember that this is a verse within a particular book, II Timothy, and that book is within a larger book we've called The Bible.

II Timothy does not say anything about "The Bible" nor name any particular books of the Bible in that verse. So it doesn't tell us there what "doctrine" is referring to. The people that letter was written to probably had a good idea, though, and at the time I suspect it referred to what to believe about Jesus.

IMO, VP read into the text (applied his own interpretation) when he said that the word "doctrine" referred to the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. This is different than saying what the word "doctrine" means. Yes, it may mean "right belief" but it doesn't say what that belief is supposed to be.

This is the sort of thinking I call "lumpy thinking." He quoted one verse here another there, and applied whatever it said to the whole lump called The Bible. This violated one of his own principles of research, namely taking things out of context.

I think it is improbable that any of the writers of any of these books in the Bible could have said anything about the whole lump. The books were collected and put together in various combinations (canons) after they were written. For me it's been important to realize that Bibles are anthologies and we have various combinations of different books that came to be considered Scripture. I think it's common sense to point out that each book was written in its own location and time period, etc. and not linked to the other books until much later. In some cases, some writers of some of those documents didn't even know other books existed or would be written.

IMO, this is an area that shows how ignorant we were kept about the history of the text, etc. This is a major field to know about if we're going to talk about doctrine, IMO. For me, it required a radical shift in how I thought about the Bible.

Anyway, so we know that there are verses that contain the word "doctrine", for instance, but I haven't seen where "doctrine" is defined as "these 66 books of The Bible."

So we ask what is doctrine? Here's one definition: Definition of doctrine.

So, just some food for thought...perhaps it is of some use...if not, file it in file #13.

Cheers,

Pen

[OldSkool]

Great thoughts, thanks for posting them. You got me thinking and I think you are right on the money. We can take Romans 15:4 and talk about the Old Testament being for our learning and completely skip the fact that people in "Bible times" didn't have an Old Testament laying around the house. They learned from oral tradition and also from going to the Synagogue, Temple, etc. By the time Timothy was penned Paul was writing to a man who lived in the gentile world and was half Jewish and half Greek, so no doubt there was some form of doctrines passed along to Timothy and other. Doctrines that would likely have been Old Testament based, but not from the Old Testament that we have in hand. We see this in Acts where Paul (and others) preached Christ crucified, risen, and ascended. So just from my half a$$ history presentation , we can accurately say doctrines. Corinthians, even though in another context, admits that everyone has a doctrine. Do we take it for granted that it's likely that from Synagogue to Synagogue there would have been different Doctrines? (Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, who knows who else?)

So there are doctrines and from what I can surmise there were and are many doctrines. Which is where today's bible categorizes. Also, you can take many words in the Bible and have doctrine based on their definition alone. Many churches have named themselves based on these definitions and for all I know there are likely denominations based on the same.

Thanks for posting, you helped jar me out of my way brained, tunnel vision that looks at the bible from a corn field preacher's perspective which, in spite of claims to the contrary, viewed the bible through a narrow and jumbled criteria.

[Gen-2]

>?< Knowing this first, that all prophecy of the scripture is subject to our own interpretation >?< ~~~TWI~~~

[OldSkool]

>?< Knowing this first, that all prophecy of the scripture is subject to our own interpretation >?< ~~~TWI~~~

Yep. Looking back, I now cringe at all of the references where it was taught that in the Book of Acts Jerusalem was their Headquarters....AHHHHHH!!!!!

[waysider]

The individual notes on a page of sheet music are not a song.

[James Trimm]

The individual notes on a page of sheet music are not a song.

There are two differences:

1. The notes are not the incarnate "Word". Scripture tells us that Messiah is actually the Word of Elohim incarnate, that is why he is called the ALEF and the TAV (ALPHA and OMEGA in Greek). These are the first and last letters in Hebrew and Aramaic.

2. The Scripture is inspired by YHWH, it had meaning before any human being tried to read it, because YHWH gave it meaning and understood it when He inspired it. So it was already doctrine before we picked it up and tried to expound from it, not because we read, but because He inspired it.

In order for the actual words with which the Bible itself is written to be protected constitutionally as "doctrine" you don't have to believe that yourself, you just have to accept that those wh do believe it have a right to constitutional protection for their (our) beliefs.

[waysider]

1. The notes are not the incarnate "Word".

How do you know that?

What about Psalms?

[OldSkool]

The individual notes on a page of sheet music are not a song.

It really tends to take a quasi-chicken and egg turn. I suppose one could also say that the parts that comprise an automobile are not a car.

[Gen-2]

Pardon moi, while I have a Synergistic Dream...

Edited: adding...

Romans 8:28

Edited April 10, 2010 by Gen-2