What a fool I was...

[Steve Lortz]

When I was involved with TWI, I didn't bother listening to what people from other persuasions had to say because I knew that they were "mistaken" in some categories, and that mistaken-ness corrupted everything else they had to offer. After I had left TWI and realized the error of some of the things I had been teaching, I thought, "Well, because I taught error in that one category, it didn't change the truth of what I was teaching in other categories..."

And then I realized the same thing was true about EVERYBODY else! There isn't anybody who is 100% correct, but likewise, there isn't anybody that I can't learn something from, even if what I learn is simply how NOT to read the Bible... That's when I started investigating how other people interpreted various passages, and that's when I really started to learn things about the Bible, FROM the Bible, other than what I heard in PFAL.

In some of our classes at the School of Theology, we write exegesis papers each semester. They are the big projects of the semester, and we present them in class to defend them under questioning. The passage of scripture may only be about a handful of verses long, but the exegesis papers are expected to be 10 to 12 pages long. We get to tell what we think the verses mean, and why we think that, but only after reviewing what the scholarly community has said about the passage since 1985. Most of the paper is describing how various scholars have argued over the meaning of the passage in the recent past, and then we get to make our contribution to the argument. That's how genuine scholarship is really done.

In 1988 or '89, John Lynn moved back to Indianapolis. He had banded together with John Schoenheit and Mark Graeser (though neither Schoenheit nor Graeser lived in Indianapolis) to form Christian Educational Services. The purpose of the organization was to throw out the bath water of PFAL without throwing out the baby. I lived within easy driving distance, so I became relatively heavily involved with CES. That involvement was certainly not as intense as my involvement with TWI had been.

John, John and Mark picked away at things they perceived to be errors in PFAL, but they were never willing to consider that Wierwille's teachings on "administrations" was also an error. They misidentified it as THE baby! Everything they've done since then, in the offshoot that was CES and in CES's own offshoots, has been to defend their definition of the mystery, or GOD'S SACRED SECRET, as they've come to call it.

In Ephesians 3:6 Paul stated the content of the mystery that had been revealed to him, "that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." Nothing about an age, nothing about grace, nothing directly about the Church, nothing directly about Jews, something only about Gentiles.

Darby's fundamental assumption, expressed by Scofield in his Reference Bible, was that the Church is a wholly new thing, completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. The truth is that the Church is composed of the believing remnant of Israel under the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31, with believing Gentiles grafted in on the same basis as believing Jews, by grace through faith in the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Wierwille was wrong in his definition of what the Christian Church IS. Lynn and Schoenheit have BOTH magnified Wierwille's original error, thinking that they are the only ones who are "saving the baby."

When I was involved with TWI, I was an ignorant fool. In many ways I am still an ignorant fool, but not in the same way. When I was involved with TWI, I was unconscious of my ignorance and my foolishness, but at some point, I was humble enough to admit it, and shed the arrogance I had learned from Wierwille. Neither Lynn nor Schoenheit have been humble enough to recognize the truth about their selves or their efforts. They are both still promoting ignorant foolishness, and it just makes me sad, because I like them both as people.

I have sampled parts of Schoenheit's REV. He probably picked the ASV to use as a frame because it has been in the public domain for a long time. He has used a very light hand in changing the text. It's hard for me to tell what's original and what Schoenheit changed without an unaltered copy of the ASV to compare. Where Schoenheit really loads it up with his own interpretation is in his "commentary." His commentary is very dense with references to the Greek, but it's Greek that has no bearing on his real problem, that the word oikonomia is NEVER used in the Bible to mean "a period of time." The Greek word aion DOES mean "a period of time," but if you track its use through Paul, it totally contradicts the scheme Wierwille taught about "administrations."

CES published a piece called "22 Principles of How the Bible Interprets Itself" Both TLTF and STFI still use the piece. I think TLTF changed the title, but I have no idea how they split the intellectual property. "22 Principles" constitutes a "systematic theology." A systematic theology starts out deriving a system for interpreting the Bible, and then forcing the texts to conform to the system. Systematic theology stands in distinction from "constructive theology" that allows the text to speak for itself.

Systematic theology says "the single difficult verse must be read in light of the many clear verses." Constructive theology says "the single difficult verse tells you that your conception of the 'many clear verses' may not be as clear as you think it is."

Love,

Steve

Edited September 26, 2015 by Steve Lortz

[Rocky]

Rocky, I never said someone "needs" to read the REV in order to form an opinion on JS/STF but since we are now in a post twi era would you not want to evaluate the product of JS/STF prior to submitting an opinion.

.

About the REV, yes. About JS/STF, not necessarily.

I certainly think that you do have a dog in the fight or a past grudge with JS - that's a topic for another of the vast expanse of forums.

Go ahead, read some of the REV and then post a discertation of opinion on the doctrinal site.

Thus far Rocky, you are just continuing to dis on JS/STF: you said about the REV, "translation (or whatever you'd want to call it) of the bible."

If JS is all that screwed up, I want proof because if he is, I will move on. I want current proof from the REV and not some ascertation of past twi involvement - hell, there are alot of us still seeking truth who were in twi or is it just if we were on the payroll.

If JS/STF "is" screwed up, I want to know, if that be the case, I will move on from reading the REV, etc.

I respect opinions from this site but I will not accept opinions of doctrinal translations from folks that are simpley anti to the person writing those research opinions.

Like I said, if you want to post an opinion to the REV, post it on the doctrinal forum

Yeah, well, I never opined on JS or STF... because I don't know him and don't care. Since I offered no opinion, how can I prove that? It seems more impossible than trying to disprove a negative.

I also didn't opine on the REV. Because I've never read it and have no interest in doing so.

I'm also not sure what it matters whether or not you will accept my lack of opinion on the two items. Cheers.:doh:/>

[Tzaia]

Well at least JS is "honest" about why he wrote the REV. He wanted a NT that most accurately reflected his doctrine.Obviously, none of the other versions does the job. It would be interesting if he were to submit his work for peer review.

[Steve Lortz]

It is always a joy to my heart to see you post, Tzaia!

I hope you remember the congregational meeting of the Living Word Fellowship where I stood up and publicly repented of the foolish promises I had made during the Momentus training. That was the first time I publicly admitted to what a fool I had been. It was important to me to do so because we ALL (who took Momentus) had been public fools, and those who did not repent of the promises they had made were still being fools, and to my knowledge many of the key people have not repented to this day.

That you were willing to support me in my admission of foolishness at that time will always make you a dear friend and companion in my estimation.

If we cannot admit to what fools we are, and have been, how can we learn wisdom? Some people do not seem to be willing to admit to their foolishness, and as a consequence, they become blind to their own foolishness... I think we can all name names... not necessarily the same people for each of us, but SOMEBODY in our experience of TWI.

Having been a fool should not carry a stigma. Continuing to be one should.

Love,

Steve

[Steve Lortz]

Love,
Steve

[Tzaia]

I didn't do Momentus. My hubby and I discussed it, but what killed it for both of us was the 4 page hold harmless agreement, followed by the putting our weekend (and to find out our lives) in the hands of the untrained. JAL tried to convince me that it was no big deal, but the change in the behavior of the people who had attended, coupled with the "revelations" that were rehearsed, made me very nervous about what the weekend was all about.

In my opinion, the real fool is the person who never gets it even when they are confronted with facts. The one thing I do know about you is that you are willing to consider you were wrong and you can disagree without becoming abusive. I respect that.

I have run into a few who treat the weekend like it was no big deal - and maybe it wasn't for them - but all of us knows at least one person who ended up in a stress center after their weekend. Thankfully it was not me.

[waysider]

In FellowLaborers we did something that fit the description of Momentus though I don't recall any name being given to it. People from outside the program came in on the weekend. They paraded us individually in front of the whole group and proceeded to humiliate us, one by one. I haven't a clue how that has anything at all to do with studying the Bible or becoming a more compassionate leader. One person in particular did not weather the storm so well. It's a rather heartbreaking thing to have to sit quietly and watch someone come unglued.