Are there Fragments of CES? I would imagine that if someone left them, it would be because they no longer trust what has been taught...so why continue leftover teachings from TWI and CES/STF?
... I prepared a paper to present on the errors of dispensationalism. A friend was preparing a paper on the topic of "the gift of holy spirit... one corporate spirit or many individual spirits?"
The seminar was postponed and then dropped when John, John and Mark realized they didn't have any substance with which to rebut arguments against the old TWI doctrines.
I wonder, what do the fragments (not splinters but FRAGMENTS) of CES teach about Holy Spirit? Is it still an individual seed planted in each believer, or is it a unitary spirit that operates like a nervous system in the body of Christ?
Do the other splinters of TWI hold to the old doctrine regarding holy spirit that Wierwille taught?
We are talking about the same John and John, right? The two guys who don't give a rats behind about what someone else thinks, but continues to spew their mantra?.. Yeah.. They both, STFI and TLTF still hold to the "seed" propaganda of TWI. And of course they still hold to the Super-Dispensation belief. I say super, because traditional Dispensationalism doesn't make the divide of the "born again" of the O.T./gospels vs the "born again" of the church epistles. Yet, it's not hyper dispens. either, since that's even further fragmentation of God's calling. Needless to say, TWI's view of h.s., and the seed, lead to a different dispensational view than tradition. And TLTF and STFI, John and John, still agree.
That's not to say I agree with the traditional view of Dispensationalism either, but at least they didn't go to the extent of acting like the church was so "special" to be given this seed that wasn't even known about. As if it was part of this "secret" itself. I do still think there are some merits to the traditional view, but I lean much more to the O.C., N.C. view, or as most sadly refer to it today, O.T. and N.T..
Take away all the TWI inspired materials and what is there really left to teach?....Sing "Yes, Jesus Loves Me", eat some stale cookies and say "Bless You" as you shake hands on the way out the door.
STFI is apparently publishing their own version of the New Testament:
"We have worked to keep the REV as a literal translation whenever appropriate, like the ASV or King James. It is not a 'dynamic equivalent translation,' such as the NIV, although there are times when, to make good sense in English, we had to depart from a strictly literal translation. Our goal is to eventually have an 'essentially literal' translation of the Bible that more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market, and also one that is written in today's English.
We think we can do that because we believe a person has to understand the meaning of the text correctly to be able to translate it correctly. Furthermore, one's theology always affects the way that person will translate the text. It is our assertion that there are theological issues that we understand more correctly than most translators, and thus our translation will reflect that theology."
Schoeheit says that it is not a "dynamic equivalent translation," but he doesn't say it's a literal translation either. He calls it an "essentially literal" translation "written in today's English." That, my friends, is what is called a "dynamic equivalent translation."
Schoenheit says that their translation "more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market." Is that accurate, or is it a result of buying into Wierwillean puffery? Can his claim be supported by dispassionate inquiry? Schoenheit is not qualified to say, because he refuses to discuss the issues with anyone who disagrees with him.
Schoenheit says "...we believe a person has to understand the meaning of the text correctly to be able to translate it correctly." This is a description of the process of eisegesis or "reading foreign meanings into the text." If you decide you know what it means before you've translated it, you're almost certain to be wrong, as I've found to my sorrow in taking exams in my Greek class.
I've always had a great deal of respect for Schoenheit, and I like him personally. It's a shame to see someone I would like to think of as a friend so twisted by Wierwille's arrogance.
STFI is apparently publishing their own version of the New Testament:
"...we believe a person has to understand the meaning of the text correctly to be able to translate it correctly."
I quoted this to my Greek professor this morning, and he laughed!
No wonder they isolate themselves from genuine scholarship. Their methods make them laughing stocks!
The meaning comes from the translation, not the other way around!
Yes, they really ignore advice that doesn't fit their preconceived notions.
I was unfortunate enough to be asked to help them with their "new translation" and version.. And sadly, I met with them a few times to help. But it didn't take long to realize they really hadn't a clue. No one had any real skills in the language, and all comments concerning verses that weren't "positive" about John's view were quickly quashed despite clear evidence..
Looking back, I'm glad I left quickly. Only at the time (early 2000), I still had the TWI lenses of "magnifying the Word", or put in today's term, idolizing scripture.
"...we believe a person has to understand the meaning of the text correctly to be able to translate it correctly."
I quoted this to my Greek professor this morning, and he laughed!
No wonder they isolate themselves from genuine scholarship. Their methods make them laughing stocks!
The meaning comes from the translation, not the other way around!
That also goes for Wierwille's work itself, and the work of all the other offshoots.
Love,
Steve
If you don't have the right definition you won't get the right meaning....
Common since here but here is a convo with someone I know in STFI
I was having with someone about Jesus being eternal and my issue isn't his belief about Jesus not being eternal its his use of words
John 17:5
5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed
It was over some video he posted that was giving the two previous verses or something like that to show that Jesus didn't pre-exist.
I was asking why did they leave this verse out and what do you think of this verse...
SO it got down to looking kinda like this...
Me: So... you don't take verse 5 literal then?
Him: Yes I do take it literal it is literal because this didn't really mean what it is saying. (He gave some explanation)
Me: That is not what literal is... That means you are taking it figuratively
Him: I mean literal as in (defines literal) and then misuses it again...
Me: (I am getting no where.... I just want to understand your logic)
A good guy but I just see this common type of error in groups like TWI interpreting scripture...
Not really trying to argue him to my side I was just trying to understand.
If we can't agree on the definitions of terms in scripture or the tools we use to interpret the meaning of the text it is all wash.
FYI: If anyone disagrees or wants to discuss Jesus pre-existance please message me privately I don't want to disrupt the thread. The point is the use of the word Logic.
Are there Fragments of CES? I would imagine that if someone left them, it would be because they no longer trust what has been taught...so why continue leftover teachings from TWI and CES/STF?
Are there splinters of twi? I would imagine that if someone left them, it would be because they no longer trust what has been taught...so why continue leftover teachings from twi?
====================
Obviously, since that isn't the case, those are not the right questions, which means they don't
give us the answers that get us somewhere.
People leave twi/ces/stfi for all sorts of reasons, including "you're kicked out" and
"...what do the fragments... of CES teach about Holy Spirit? Is it still an individual seed planted in each believer, or is it a unitary spirit that operates like a nervous system in the body of Christ?"
Regarding that question, with which I began this thread, I've learned some more, thanks to the links so many of you have kindly posted. I've been reading Schoenheit's commentary on the version of the New Testament STFI is publishing. What has been most instructive regarding this question has been Schoenheit's commentary on John 3:3, about the new birth.
Apparently STFI still teaches that "the gift of holy spirit" is an individual seed planted in each believer at the moment she or he believes [gender neutral language added by me - Steve]. According to Schoenheit, when the New Testament refers to "one Spirit," it is referring to the resurrected Christ rather than "God the Giver" or "the gift of holy spirit."
While this seems plausible within the dispensationalist scheme of things, it otherwise falls apart. According to Schoenheit, NO Old Testament prophecies can be applied to the spirit first poured out on the day of Pentecost, but Peter himself said it was the spirit prophesied in Joel.
As I read Schoenheit's commentary, I was impressed by his erudition. I think he has taken dispensational argument farther than Scofield did, and would be a widely recognized "scholar" if it weren't for the fact that he is anti-trinitarian. His work will never be more widely accepted in conventional Christian circles, and he doesn't have the charisma to attract a following like Wierwille did.
Translation does not come from meaning, meaning comes from translation. That is one of the simplest and most fundamental principles for dealing with ANY language. It is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. John could have been a GREAT scholar, a giant in the field, if he hadn't committed his life to Wierwille's error.
Christian Research and Fellowship(late John Hendricks group from FL and GA) has a similar new re-translation bible that off shoot is doing. Not sure about Christian Family Fellowship Ministries(Kevin and Sara Gigou's group from Tipp City).
The STFI homepage is still down since back in April. That is the page that identifies who they are etc. What remains is a note that says, "Current status: Working on the brand new STFonline.org! We hope you like it! Check back soon!" Then they have a few links to their subsequent usual links.
What kind of outreach is this in the 21st century? Not terribly professional in their IT knowledge. You never take down your intro page to improve it. You leave the original while making changes in another environment; then upload the new, have an announcement banner that remains for about a month on the new page.
Recommended Posts
Rejoice
Are there Fragments of CES? I would imagine that if someone left them, it would be because they no longer trust what has been taught...so why continue leftover teachings from TWI and CES/STF?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
We are talking about the same John and John, right? The two guys who don't give a rats behind about what someone else thinks, but continues to spew their mantra?.. Yeah.. They both, STFI and TLTF still hold to the "seed" propaganda of TWI. And of course they still hold to the Super-Dispensation belief. I say super, because traditional Dispensationalism doesn't make the divide of the "born again" of the O.T./gospels vs the "born again" of the church epistles. Yet, it's not hyper dispens. either, since that's even further fragmentation of God's calling. Needless to say, TWI's view of h.s., and the seed, lead to a different dispensational view than tradition. And TLTF and STFI, John and John, still agree.
That's not to say I agree with the traditional view of Dispensationalism either, but at least they didn't go to the extent of acting like the church was so "special" to be given this seed that wasn't even known about. As if it was part of this "secret" itself. I do still think there are some merits to the traditional view, but I lean much more to the O.C., N.C. view, or as most sadly refer to it today, O.T. and N.T..
Edited by TrustAndObeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Take away all the TWI inspired materials and what is there really left to teach?....Sing "Yes, Jesus Loves Me", eat some stale cookies and say "Bless You" as you shake hands on the way out the door.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rejoice
There website has been down for awhile now...for restyling
http://www.stfonline.org/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks for the heads-up, Rejoice!
STFI is apparently publishing their own version of the New Testament:
"We have worked to keep the REV as a literal translation whenever appropriate, like the ASV or King James. It is not a 'dynamic equivalent translation,' such as the NIV, although there are times when, to make good sense in English, we had to depart from a strictly literal translation. Our goal is to eventually have an 'essentially literal' translation of the Bible that more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market, and also one that is written in today's English.
We think we can do that because we believe a person has to understand the meaning of the text correctly to be able to translate it correctly. Furthermore, one's theology always affects the way that person will translate the text. It is our assertion that there are theological issues that we understand more correctly than most translators, and thus our translation will reflect that theology."
Schoeheit says that it is not a "dynamic equivalent translation," but he doesn't say it's a literal translation either. He calls it an "essentially literal" translation "written in today's English." That, my friends, is what is called a "dynamic equivalent translation."
Schoenheit says that their translation "more closely represents biblical truth than any other translation currently on the market." Is that accurate, or is it a result of buying into Wierwillean puffery? Can his claim be supported by dispassionate inquiry? Schoenheit is not qualified to say, because he refuses to discuss the issues with anyone who disagrees with him.
Schoenheit says "...we believe a person has to understand the meaning of the text correctly to be able to translate it correctly." This is a description of the process of eisegesis or "reading foreign meanings into the text." If you decide you know what it means before you've translated it, you're almost certain to be wrong, as I've found to my sorrow in taking exams in my Greek class.
I've always had a great deal of respect for Schoenheit, and I like him personally. It's a shame to see someone I would like to think of as a friend so twisted by Wierwille's arrogance.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
"...we believe a person has to understand the meaning of the text correctly to be able to translate it correctly."
I quoted this to my Greek professor this morning, and he laughed!
No wonder they isolate themselves from genuine scholarship. Their methods make them laughing stocks!
The meaning comes from the translation, not the other way around!
That also goes for Wierwille's work itself, and the work of all the other offshoots.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Yes, they really ignore advice that doesn't fit their preconceived notions.
I was unfortunate enough to be asked to help them with their "new translation" and version.. And sadly, I met with them a few times to help. But it didn't take long to realize they really hadn't a clue. No one had any real skills in the language, and all comments concerning verses that weren't "positive" about John's view were quickly quashed despite clear evidence..
Looking back, I'm glad I left quickly. Only at the time (early 2000), I still had the TWI lenses of "magnifying the Word", or put in today's term, idolizing scripture.
Thankfully we can grow out of that!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
If you don't have the right definition you won't get the right meaning....
Common since here but here is a convo with someone I know in STFI
I was having with someone about Jesus being eternal and my issue isn't his belief about Jesus not being eternal its his use of words
John 17:5
5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed
It was over some video he posted that was giving the two previous verses or something like that to show that Jesus didn't pre-exist.
I was asking why did they leave this verse out and what do you think of this verse...
SO it got down to looking kinda like this...
Me: So... you don't take verse 5 literal then?
Him: Yes I do take it literal it is literal because this didn't really mean what it is saying. (He gave some explanation)
Me: That is not what literal is... That means you are taking it figuratively
Him: I mean literal as in (defines literal) and then misuses it again...
Me: (I am getting no where.... I just want to understand your logic)
A good guy but I just see this common type of error in groups like TWI interpreting scripture...
Not really trying to argue him to my side I was just trying to understand.
If we can't agree on the definitions of terms in scripture or the tools we use to interpret the meaning of the text it is all wash.
FYI: If anyone disagrees or wants to discuss Jesus pre-existance please message me privately I don't want to disrupt the thread. The point is the use of the word Logic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rejoice
It is scary to think they believe they have ANY kind of biblical authority. They are accountable to no one for any checks and balances.
Edited by RejoiceLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Are there splinters of twi? I would imagine that if someone left them, it would be because they no longer trust what has been taught...so why continue leftover teachings from twi?
====================
Obviously, since that isn't the case, those are not the right questions, which means they don't
give us the answers that get us somewhere.
People leave twi/ces/stfi for all sorts of reasons, including "you're kicked out" and
"I want some of the money and adulation."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The MAIN PAGE has been down for one site.
The other pages may still be up.
http://www.christianeducational.org/ceswhat.htm
http://www.christianeducational.org/signupSOWER.htm
And their other sites are still up.
http://www.truthortradition.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
"...what do the fragments... of CES teach about Holy Spirit? Is it still an individual seed planted in each believer, or is it a unitary spirit that operates like a nervous system in the body of Christ?"
Regarding that question, with which I began this thread, I've learned some more, thanks to the links so many of you have kindly posted. I've been reading Schoenheit's commentary on the version of the New Testament STFI is publishing. What has been most instructive regarding this question has been Schoenheit's commentary on John 3:3, about the new birth.
Apparently STFI still teaches that "the gift of holy spirit" is an individual seed planted in each believer at the moment she or he believes [gender neutral language added by me - Steve]. According to Schoenheit, when the New Testament refers to "one Spirit," it is referring to the resurrected Christ rather than "God the Giver" or "the gift of holy spirit."
While this seems plausible within the dispensationalist scheme of things, it otherwise falls apart. According to Schoenheit, NO Old Testament prophecies can be applied to the spirit first poured out on the day of Pentecost, but Peter himself said it was the spirit prophesied in Joel.
All for now!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
As I read Schoenheit's commentary, I was impressed by his erudition. I think he has taken dispensational argument farther than Scofield did, and would be a widely recognized "scholar" if it weren't for the fact that he is anti-trinitarian. His work will never be more widely accepted in conventional Christian circles, and he doesn't have the charisma to attract a following like Wierwille did.
Translation does not come from meaning, meaning comes from translation. That is one of the simplest and most fundamental principles for dealing with ANY language. It is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. John could have been a GREAT scholar, a giant in the field, if he hadn't committed his life to Wierwille's error.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Christian Research and Fellowship(late John Hendricks group from FL and GA) has a similar new re-translation bible that off shoot is doing. Not sure about Christian Family Fellowship Ministries(Kevin and Sara Gigou's group from Tipp City).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rejoice
The STFI homepage is still down since back in April. That is the page that identifies who they are etc. What remains is a note that says, "Current status: Working on the brand new STFonline.org! We hope you like it! Check back soon!" Then they have a few links to their subsequent usual links.
What kind of outreach is this in the 21st century? Not terribly professional in their IT knowledge. You never take down your intro page to improve it. You leave the original while making changes in another environment; then upload the new, have an announcement banner that remains for about a month on the new page.
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.