They have a ... a Research Department now? Hmph. One can only ask what credentials, if any, the researchers have.
And also, what will come out of any such research. Will they gloss over what doesn't suit them, and twist whatever else there is to support their PoV?
Researching pistis. Hmph again. It might help if instead of playing with words, they actually developed some pistis, whether "faith" or "believing" or whatever they want to call it, and put that into action. I mean, genuine, committed compassion in action directed at improving community life, without any element of self-glorification or kudos to themselves.
They have a ... a Research Department now? Hmph. One can only ask what credentials, if any, the researchers have.
And also, what will come out of any such research. Will they gloss over what doesn't suit them, and twist whatever else there is to support their PoV?
I can't say for sure on how they operate...but I know this much...whatever wierwille said in writing is considered proven ministry research and is above question.
I can't say for sure on how they operate...but I know this much...whatever wierwille said in writing is considered proven ministry research and is above question.
then I feel sorry for them, wasting their time like that.
then I feel sorry for them, wasting their time like that.
They essentially acknowledge this by referencing that they are sticking with his definitions and such with their new publication. But I was there when Rosalie pushed that proven ministry research line, basically canonizing wierwilles writings.
Hey someone was shamed into calling the Way publications role that checks for consistency with past published works a research department.
If for nothing else it is to make all of the claims here invalid about not having one.
I would still say it is a re - search department. To search out the VPW in the Bible. To seek the source of the 1942 promise and re establish the keys to the flocks fleecing I mean the Bible’s interpretation.
Ok...now to deal with the material in the magazine article. According to the way international the Greek word pistis (most often translated faith) is really a swiss army word. For example, and Im quoting the magazine article:
"Dr. Wierwille desired to carry out a similar study of the Greek word pistis. This word is typically translated faith in the English versions of the Bible, but this isnt its only meaning. Pistis can refer to believing, the manifestation of believing, fruit of the spirit believing, the faith of Jesus Christ, the family faith or faithfulness. The words faith and believing are often used."
According to the article I quoted the way international has published a new book called Bible Kinds of Faith, which was compiled from Wierwille's "Pistis Seminars" in conjunction with the Research Dept at HQ and a team of researchers on the field.
From here I will quote Dr. John Juedes to refute Wierwille's word salad he employs to mash his erroneous theology concerningfaith/pistis which directly ties into the erroneous law of believing doctrines still taught to this day by the way international.
The Way's fallacies undercut even the doctrine of salvation and faith. Wierwille's teaching on faith bears little resemblance to evangelical Christian belief. Wierwille distinguishes radically between faith and believing. To him faith is a spiritual thing given to man only after Pentecost, while anyone before or after Pentecost can believe by way of his five senses. Faith is not in God, but of God; not in Christ, but of Jesus Christ, and of the same measure and amount to every person.40
Peculiar use of words and passages pervades his discussion. We must ask: what wholesale confusion would result if we would distinguish love from loving, repentance from repenting, and sin from sinning, just as he distinguishes faith, or belief, from believing? Each of these pairs has a common Greek root. Wierwille would have to assign contrasting meanings to each if he were consistent. He must even clarify Paul's "manifestation of faith" by adding a parenthesis after it, "(believing) 1141 lest his doctrine fall apart. Apparently Paul knew no such distinction.
If men all have the same amount of faith, as Wierwille says, we marvel at the number of times Scripture speaks of men being weak, strong, of full of faith (Rom. 4:19; 14: 1 ; 4:20; Acts 6:5, 8; 11: 24; Matt. 8: 10; 15:28; 1 Cor. 13:2), or of faith lacking, growing, or needing to be completed (I Thess. 3:10; 11 Thess. 1:3; Luke 17:5; Heb. 12:2; 13:7). Although Wierwille mentions that Romans 12:3 refers to "the measure of faith," he fails to note that it has no definite article ("the") in the Greek original.42 The context of Romans 12:3, as well as the reference to "proportion" of faith in verse 6, refutes his idea.
Wierwille also adapts Mark 11:22, "Have faith in God," to his theology. He writes, "The 'original' text read, '. . . Have the faith of God .1 1143 He is apparently noting that in Greek no preposition exists between "faith" (pistin) and "of God" (theou), which is here in the genitive case. However, a deeper knowledge of Koine Greek reveals that this phrase is a genitive of aim, also known as a genitive objective. As such, it does not need a preposition such as "in" (en) to be understood as "faith in God."44 Examples of other genitives of aim include Romans 3:22 and Hebrews 6:2. Similar passages where the preposition is supplied are Colossians 1:4 and Ephesians 1: 15. This misunderstanding of Greek is also part of the source of Wierwille's belief in the "faith of Jesus Christ."
Using Mark 11:22, Wierwille eventually asserts that anyone, Christian or non-Christian, can exercise this faith. However, verse 24 makes clear that only Christians have faith, by declaring, "What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." Prayer-requests to the one true God-is required, trusting that He will deliver. This is not a subjective confidence that one's desire will occur.
Wierwille's exposition on faith uses John 20:29 to support his thesis that "until the day of Pentecost, people saw and then believed."45 The end of this same verse refutes his idea. Jesus uses aorist tenses to say, 11, . , blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." The Old Testament person did not require seeing in order to believe.
Wierwille also makes the radical pronouncement that
"there is no faith in the Gospels or in the Old Testament. When we read the word "faith" before the book of Acts, we are simply reading an error in translation. How many times do you think the word "faith" appears in the Old Testament in the King James Version? It appears only twice, once in Habakkuk 2:4 and once in Deuteronomy 32:20. Reading "faith" in context, one will see that it means "faithfulness, steadfastness.""46
At least three times the Apostle Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4. Each time, contrary to Wierwille's thesis, be uses the word "faith" (pistis), not the word "faithful" (pistos) (Rom. 1:7; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). Wierwille's perspective indicts the inspired writer with gross misunderstanding. Wierwille also throws out some 42 instances of the word "faith" in the Gospels and Acts. His basis is not actual evidence but his surmisings that they were wrongly translated. One could rewrite the entire Bible on just as much evidence as he has here! There is no question that Wierwille has rewritten-the Bible's teaching on faith by distorting its words. Wierwille alters its entire character on the cardinal topic of faith." ---end quote.
Also for those wondering about the law of believing there is:
"A person cannot heal themselves by their thoughts – end of story. Prosperity doctrines are false as well. It’s simple. New Thought adherents made a logical step with their error. If you can heal yourself by your thoughts then you can become wealthy by your thoughts. Both doctrines are straight out lies and are not Biblically sound, but I will admit they are convincing counterfeits. At the heart of these doctrines is the idea that man can save himself, and they ignore the truth that we need a savior, that we need Jesus Christ as well as God’s grace and mercy. We should turn to God for healing. We should turn to God for our prosperity, not ourselves because it is not in man to save himself."
Interesting article . . it's interesting the article points out you can't heal yourself or get rich on your thoughts . . . kinda implies an individual has complete control over one's thoughts in first place?
"A person cannot heal themselves by their thoughts – end of story. Prosperity doctrines are false as well. It’s simple. New Thought adherents made a logical step with their error. If you can heal yourself by your thoughts then you can become wealthy by your thoughts. Both doctrines are straight out lies and are not Biblically sound, but I will admit they are convincing counterfeits. At the heart of these doctrines is the idea that man can save himself, and they ignore the truth that we need a savior, that we need Jesus Christ as well as God’s grace and mercy. We should turn to God for healing. We should turn to God for our prosperity, not ourselves because it is not in man to save himself."
Interesting article . . it's interesting the article points out you can't heal yourself or get rich on your thoughts . . . kinda implies an individual has complete control over one's thoughts in first place?
I'll have to renew my mind on this.
Well, I don't think anyone has complete control over what they think...personally, I deal with mental associations that bring out some rather unsavory thoughts and experiences that I have to either choose to ignore or deal with.
Well, I don't think anyone has complete control over what they think...personally, I deal with mental associations that bring out some rather unsavory thoughts and experiences that I have to either choose to ignore or deal with.
I agree we don't have complete control . . . if I understand correctly most thoughts are unconscious . . . meaning we are never conscious of them
When we "put on the new man" twi-style are we shoving matters to the unconscious? Just wondering.
When we "put on the new man" twi-style are we shoving matters to the unconscious? Just wondering.
Really good question and I don't have an answer. The renewed mind concept in the way international (twi) is so overplayed it became kind of a nebulous term. Need to quit smoking? Renew your mind...Need money? Renew your mind and visualize money. So their practices likely do cause harm at times because we were taught to ignore reality in light of our confession.
I agree we don't have complete control . . . if I understand correctly most thoughts are unconscious . . . meaning we are never conscious of them
When we "put on the new man" twi-style are we shoving matters to the unconscious? Just wondering.
The whole “as a man thinks in his heart he is” has some roots and similarities to Eastern religion concepts. Like for instance in Buddhism, it would not be shoving thoughts to the subconscious but meditating allowing the unsettled thoughts from the dust of emotions and the world fall off and be able to focus more clearly on imprinting a more virtuous path upon the inner self.
I thought the Lamsa Bible had similar interpretation of worries and fears as dusts.
I don’t know if any of the Eastern customs of the Bible come in there to the mental aspects but thought it was worth mentioning.
The whole “as a man thinks in his heart he is” has some roots and similarities to Eastern religion concepts. Like for instance in Buddhism, it would not be shoving thoughts to the subconscious but meditating allowing the unsettled thoughts from the dust of emotions and the world fall off and be able to focus more clearly on imprinting a more virtuous path upon the inner self.
I thought the Lamsa Bible had similar interpretation of worries and fears as dusts.
I don’t know if any of the Eastern customs of the Bible come in there to the mental aspects but thought it was worth mentioning.
That reminds me of mindfulness where you are supposed to sit and observe your thoughts without judgement. Just let them be. (JLTB)
"Renewing your mind" (RYM) is ubiquitous as Oldskool mentioned, I felt it shut down the emotion response to thoughts, which negates thoughts.
Maybe it was training to halt thinking? (MIWTTHT)
Need to research more . . . . *grabs string and thumb tacks* (GSATT)
Ok...now to deal with the material in the magazine article. According to the way international the Greek word pistis (most often translated faith) is really a swiss army word. For example, and Im quoting the magazine article:
"Dr. Wierwille desired to carry out a similar study of the Greek word pistis. This word is typically translated faith in the English versions of the Bible, but this isnt its only meaning. Pistis can refer to believing, the manifestation of believing, fruit of the spirit believing, the faith of Jesus Christ, the family faith or faithfulness. The words faith and believing are often used."
According to the article I quoted the way international has published a new book called Bible Kinds of Faith, which was compiled from Wierwille's "Pistis Seminars" in conjunction with the Research Dept at HQ and a team of researchers on the field.
From here I will quote Dr. John Juedes to refute Wierwille's word salad he employs to mash his erroneous theology concerningfaith/pistis which directly ties into the erroneous law of believing doctrines still taught to this day by the way international.
The Way's fallacies undercut even the doctrine of salvation and faith. Wierwille's teaching on faith bears little resemblance to evangelical Christian belief. Wierwille distinguishes radically between faith and believing. To him faith is a spiritual thing given to man only after Pentecost, while anyone before or after Pentecost can believe by way of his five senses. Faith is not in God, but of God; not in Christ, but of Jesus Christ, and of the same measure and amount to every person.40
Peculiar use of words and passages pervades his discussion. We must ask: what wholesale confusion would result if we would distinguish love from loving, repentance from repenting, and sin from sinning, just as he distinguishes faith, or belief, from believing? Each of these pairs has a common Greek root. Wierwille would have to assign contrasting meanings to each if he were consistent. He must even clarify Paul's "manifestation of faith" by adding a parenthesis after it, "(believing) 1141 lest his doctrine fall apart. Apparently Paul knew no such distinction.
If men all have the same amount of faith, as Wierwille says, we marvel at the number of times Scripture speaks of men being weak, strong, of full of faith (Rom. 4:19; 14: 1 ; 4:20; Acts 6:5, 8; 11: 24; Matt. 8: 10; 15:28; 1 Cor. 13:2), or of faith lacking, growing, or needing to be completed (I Thess. 3:10; 11 Thess. 1:3; Luke 17:5; Heb. 12:2; 13:7). Although Wierwille mentions that Romans 12:3 refers to "the measure of faith," he fails to note that it has no definite article ("the") in the Greek original.42 The context of Romans 12:3, as well as the reference to "proportion" of faith in verse 6, refutes his idea.
Wierwille also adapts Mark 11:22, "Have faith in God," to his theology. He writes, "The 'original' text read, '. . . Have the faith of God .1 1143 He is apparently noting that in Greek no preposition exists between "faith" (pistin) and "of God" (theou), which is here in the genitive case. However, a deeper knowledge of Koine Greek reveals that this phrase is a genitive of aim, also known as a genitive objective. As such, it does not need a preposition such as "in" (en) to be understood as "faith in God."44 Examples of other genitives of aim include Romans 3:22 and Hebrews 6:2. Similar passages where the preposition is supplied are Colossians 1:4 and Ephesians 1: 15. This misunderstanding of Greek is also part of the source of Wierwille's belief in the "faith of Jesus Christ."
Using Mark 11:22, Wierwille eventually asserts that anyone, Christian or non-Christian, can exercise this faith. However, verse 24 makes clear that only Christians have faith, by declaring, "What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." Prayer-requests to the one true God-is required, trusting that He will deliver. This is not a subjective confidence that one's desire will occur.
Wierwille's exposition on faith uses John 20:29 to support his thesis that "until the day of Pentecost, people saw and then believed."45 The end of this same verse refutes his idea. Jesus uses aorist tenses to say, 11, . , blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." The Old Testament person did not require seeing in order to believe.
Wierwille also makes the radical pronouncement that
"there is no faith in the Gospels or in the Old Testament. When we read the word "faith" before the book of Acts, we are simply reading an error in translation. How many times do you think the word "faith" appears in the Old Testament in the King James Version? It appears only twice, once in Habakkuk 2:4 and once in Deuteronomy 32:20. Reading "faith" in context, one will see that it means "faithfulness, steadfastness.""46
At least three times the Apostle Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4. Each time, contrary to Wierwille's thesis, be uses the word "faith" (pistis), not the word "faithful" (pistos) (Rom. 1:7; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). Wierwille's perspective indicts the inspired writer with gross misunderstanding. Wierwille also throws out some 42 instances of the word "faith" in the Gospels and Acts. His basis is not actual evidence but his surmisings that they were wrongly translated. One could rewrite the entire Bible on just as much evidence as he has here! There is no question that Wierwille has rewritten-the Bible's teaching on faith by distorting its words. Wierwille alters its entire character on the cardinal topic of faith." ---end quote.
Also for those wondering about the law of believing there is:
I was always suspicious of victor's concepts of pistis, faith, believing. My questions were usually met with exasperated sighs by my fellowship commander (FC). He, my FC, asserted the claim that "beleeeving" is something we do and "faith" is something we have - a/the measure of.
Juedes reveals victor's superficial grasp of Greek when he briefly explains the objective genitive. I brought up the genitive case dilemma of subjective vs. objective a couple months ago in Doctrinal. Couldn't find any traction there.
Juedes also brings up a common, persistent, childish error of victor's: "He (victor) writes, 'the original text read,' ..." A reminder: we don't have the autographs. It's devilishly misleading to assert an opinion as fact the way victor does. The "original text" is a mental invention of victor. To be fooled by his seductive concept requires only that one BELEEEVES.
I was always suspicious of victor's concepts of pistis, faith, believing. My questions were usually met with exasperated sighs by my fellowship commander (FC). He, my FC, asserted the claim that "beleeeving" is something we do and "faith" is something we have - a/the measure of.
Juedes reveals victor's superficial grasp of Greek when he briefly explains the objective genitive. I brought up the genitive case dilemma of subjective vs. objective a couple months ago in Doctrinal. Couldn't find any traction there.
Juedes also brings up a common, persistent, childish error of victor's: "He (victor) writes, 'the original text read,' ..." A reminder: we don't have the autographs. It's devilishly misleading to assert an opinion as fact the way victor does. The "original text" is a mental invention of victor. To be fooled by his seductive concept requires only that one BELEEEVES.
Im gonna get back to this in a couple hours....standby.
Im gonna get back to this in a couple hours....standby.
I listened to a whole pistis seminar in the early 1970s. Somehow my branch leader got a hold of some reel to reel versions of the seminar at HQ. I marked all my Bible's locations of pistis in my Cambridge Wide Margin from it. Ten years later I discover that a friend had done the same thing, marked all his pistis locations the same way I did. But it seemed like we heard different seminars, because we compared out Bibles and discovered we had different markings at a few difficult spots.
I could tell from the tape I heard that the seminar was still a frontier research project, done by committee. The tape was just the last meeting in the seminar, where the committees report their findings. I could tell that there were a few snags in the process, with VPW interrupting overruling several times. It seemed to be totally unfinished.
On seeing the changes from my pistis seminar notes between my friend's later pistis seminar notes, and nothing appearing in print anywhere afterwards, I concluded that the topic was still open and unfinished. But it was close to finished.
I think TWI-4 either found a more finished seminar tapes, or they worked out the unfinished business, and printed it all up just recently.
This always was a pretty difficult topic to master, and I wonder if it is even really needed.
My best understanding is most places where pistis appears in the text it means "believing" in modern English. But it is also apparent that in a few places, after Pentecost, where pistis means (from context) a "super version of believing." Another way of putting it is "REALLY believing."
If this sounds familiar it should. Two other instances of "really" are on the table for consideration. One is in the film class: "No man can REALLY say that Jesus is Lord but by holy spirit." and the other is my take on the Great Principle's inverse version: "God cannot REALLY speak to anything but what what He is, which is spirit."
I got the impression that VPW was trying to teach us that in some of these places where pistis is contextually special, that a whole new word should be used, and that is "faith." I could never figure out why he just didn't explain it that way, that most of the time pistis means ordinary believing, but when pistis means "really believing" then the special word "faith" should be used.
Summarizing my understand of this complicated topic:
Pistis means believing in most Bible verses.
When pistis contextually is special, then we use the word faith.
I listened to a whole pistis seminar in the early 1970s. Somehow my branch leader got a hold of some reel to reel versions of the seminar at HQ. I marked all my Bible's locations of pistis in my Cambridge Wide Margin from it. Ten years later I discover that a friend had done the same thing, marked all his pistis locations the same way I did. But it seemed like we heard different seminars, because we compared out Bibles and discovered we had different markings at a few difficult spots.
I could tell from the tape I heard that the seminar was still a frontier research project, done by committee. The tape was just the last meeting in the seminar, where the committees report their findings. I could tell that there were a few snags in the process, with VPW interrupting overruling several times. It seemed to be totally unfinished.
On seeing the changes from my pistis seminar notes between my friend's later pistis seminar notes, and nothing appearing in print anywhere afterwards, I concluded that the topic was still open and unfinished. But it was close to finished.
I think TWI-4 either found a more finished seminar tapes, or they worked out the unfinished business, and printed it all up just recently.
This always was a pretty difficult topic to master, and I wonder if it is even really needed.
My best understanding is most places where pistis appears in the text it means "believing" in modern English. But it is also apparent that in a few places, after Pentecost, where pistis means (from context) a "super version of believing." Another way of putting it is "REALLY believing."
If this sounds familiar it should. Two other instances of "really" are on the table for consideration. One is in the film class: "No man can REALLY say that Jesus is Lord but by holy spirit." and the other is my take on the Great Principle's inverse version: "God cannot REALLY speak to anything but what what He is, which is spirit."
I got the impression that VPW was trying to teach us that in some of these places where pistis is contextually special, that a whole new word should be used, and that is "faith." I could never figure out why he just didn't explain it that way, that most of the time pistis means ordinary believing, but when pistis means "really believing" then the special word "faith" should be used.
Summarizing my understand of this complicated topic:
Pistis means believing in most Bible verses.
When pistis contextually is special, then we use the word faith.
Who cares what Mistletoe Mike, the GSC parasite, declares regarding what any word means in the bible?
Who gives oxygen to this wannabe TWI leader who doesn't lead anywhere, let along in TWI?
And it might be well to assume and state openly that other people have the virtue you want them to develop. Give them a fine reputation to live up to, and they will make prodigious efforts rather than see you disillusioned.
Dale Carnegie. How To Win Friends & Influence People (p. 267). Delhi Open Books. Kindle Edition.
Mike's got the ideas. And he's got the contacts in twi, right? Well, Mike, get out THERE in twi and lead them to reach your vision of what the group can be.
Because you don't seem to be getting the job done by spending your time here.
Berean Literal Bible:
And Jesus answering, says to them, "Have faith from God.
Literal Standard Version:
And Jesus answering says to them, “Have faith from God;
32 versions listed, and of the 32 only 2 versions support what wierwille says, and thats just 32 that were listed there are other versions out there besides 32. However, it's clear that from just a cursory glance that of the 32 versions listed only 2 (6.25%) agree with wierwille's theology. Even according to wierwille's own methods of letting the scripture intrepret itself, contradictory or difficult verses must be intrepreted in light of the clear verses on the subject and i would say 30 Bible versions saying mostly the same thing is clear. Im not after a majority rules approach either, just pointing out that wierwille didnt stick with what he taught others...anyone surprised? Yet Jeudes gets deeper because he actually has a real doctorate and not a fake education intended to provide fake credibility....anywho...
Here's where it gets fun: From the following link:
2316 [e]θεοῦ. theou from God. -- So wierwille grabbed a cursory definition from Strongs and that's unsupported by most versions even and said:
"The 'original' text read, '. . . Have the faith of God ---- OBVIOSULY the man lied through his teeth about the original text...he found what he needed from a concordance, cherry picked it and ran with the ball into oblivion.
Of course Dr. Jeudes says:
"However, a deeper knowledge of Koine Greek reveals that this phrase is a genitive of aim, also known as a genitive objective. As such, it does not need a preposition such as "in" (en) to be understood as "faith in God."44 Examples of other genitives of aim include Romans 3:22 and Hebrews 6:2. Similar passages where the preposition is supplied are Colossians 1:4 and Ephesians 1: 15. This misunderstanding of Greek is also part of the source of Wierwille's belief in the "faith of Jesus Christ.""
I will post more later. Need to get out the door but just a basic cross check of wierwille/the way international's theological position of pistis shows SERIOUS error, and of course John Jeudes breaks it down further with nuances in Koine Greek that drop the ultimate hammer on this junk. So, when you consider wierwille's rabid support and propogation of the law of believing he needs pistis to mean what he says it means because without twisting pistis into believing wierwilles house of cards is in serious trouble of utter collapse.
Ok...now to deal with the material in the magazine article. According to the way international the Greek word pistis (most often translated faith) is really a swiss army word. For example, and Im quoting the magazine article:
"Dr. Wierwille desired to carry out a similar study of the Greek word pistis. This word is typically translated faith in the English versions of the Bible, but this isnt its only meaning. Pistis can refer to believing, the manifestation of believing, fruit of the spirit believing, the faith of Jesus Christ, the family faith or faithfulness. The words faith and believing are often used."
According to the article I quoted the way international has published a new book called Bible Kinds of Faith, which was compiled from Wierwille's "Pistis Seminars" in conjunction with the Research Dept at HQ and a team of researchers on the field.
From here I will quote Dr. John Juedes to refute Wierwille's word salad he employs to mash his erroneous theology concerningfaith/pistis which directly ties into the erroneous law of believing doctrines still taught to this day by the way international.
The Way's fallacies undercut even the doctrine of salvation and faith. Wierwille's teaching on faith bears little resemblance to evangelical Christian belief. Wierwille distinguishes radically between faith and believing. To him faith is a spiritual thing given to man only after Pentecost, while anyone before or after Pentecost can believe by way of his five senses. Faith is not in God, but of God; not in Christ, but of Jesus Christ, and of the same measure and amount to every person.40
Peculiar use of words and passages pervades his discussion. We must ask: what wholesale confusion would result if we would distinguish love from loving, repentance from repenting, and sin from sinning, just as he distinguishes faith, or belief, from believing? Each of these pairs has a common Greek root. Wierwille would have to assign contrasting meanings to each if he were consistent. He must even clarify Paul's "manifestation of faith" by adding a parenthesis after it, "(believing) 1141 lest his doctrine fall apart. Apparently Paul knew no such distinction.
If men all have the same amount of faith, as Wierwille says, we marvel at the number of times Scripture speaks of men being weak, strong, of full of faith (Rom. 4:19; 14: 1 ; 4:20; Acts 6:5, 8; 11: 24; Matt. 8: 10; 15:28; 1 Cor. 13:2), or of faith lacking, growing, or needing to be completed (I Thess. 3:10; 11 Thess. 1:3; Luke 17:5; Heb. 12:2; 13:7). Although Wierwille mentions that Romans 12:3 refers to "the measure of faith," he fails to note that it has no definite article ("the") in the Greek original.42 The context of Romans 12:3, as well as the reference to "proportion" of faith in verse 6, refutes his idea.
Wierwille also adapts Mark 11:22, "Have faith in God," to his theology. He writes, "The 'original' text read, '. . . Have the faith of God .1 1143 He is apparently noting that in Greek no preposition exists between "faith" (pistin) and "of God" (theou), which is here in the genitive case. However, a deeper knowledge of Koine Greek reveals that this phrase is a genitive of aim, also known as a genitive objective. As such, it does not need a preposition such as "in" (en) to be understood as "faith in God."44 Examples of other genitives of aim include Romans 3:22 and Hebrews 6:2. Similar passages where the preposition is supplied are Colossians 1:4 and Ephesians 1: 15. This misunderstanding of Greek is also part of the source of Wierwille's belief in the "faith of Jesus Christ."
Using Mark 11:22, Wierwille eventually asserts that anyone, Christian or non-Christian, can exercise this faith. However, verse 24 makes clear that only Christians have faith, by declaring, "What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." Prayer-requests to the one true God-is required, trusting that He will deliver. This is not a subjective confidence that one's desire will occur.
Wierwille's exposition on faith uses John 20:29 to support his thesis that "until the day of Pentecost, people saw and then believed."45 The end of this same verse refutes his idea. Jesus uses aorist tenses to say, 11, . , blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." The Old Testament person did not require seeing in order to believe.
Wierwille also makes the radical pronouncement that
"there is no faith in the Gospels or in the Old Testament. When we read the word "faith" before the book of Acts, we are simply reading an error in translation. How many times do you think the word "faith" appears in the Old Testament in the King James Version? It appears only twice, once in Habakkuk 2:4 and once in Deuteronomy 32:20. Reading "faith" in context, one will see that it means "faithfulness, steadfastness.""46
At least three times the Apostle Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4. Each time, contrary to Wierwille's thesis, be uses the word "faith" (pistis), not the word "faithful" (pistos) (Rom. 1:7; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). Wierwille's perspective indicts the inspired writer with gross misunderstanding. Wierwille also throws out some 42 instances of the word "faith" in the Gospels and Acts. His basis is not actual evidence but his surmisings that they were wrongly translated. One could rewrite the entire Bible on just as much evidence as he has here! There is no question that Wierwille has rewritten-the Bible's teaching on faith by distorting its words. Wierwille alters its entire character on the cardinal topic of faith." ---end quote.
Also for those wondering about the law of believing there is:
I like the article it is a good direction. The whole mental model of believing and the renewed mind needs a major overhaul.
The victim blaming stuff latent in the Albert Cliffe spiritualist law of believing is clear.
I have an idea on how some of the Eastern stuff fits in but a good friend of mine is Buddhist and I spend a lot of time kicking around concepts with him. If he comes to Christ it will totally be a group of 3 of us that helps him. One of his things is he sees evidence of Jesus traveling to the Orient area through how he prays. He currently sees Jesus as an enlightened teacher but doesn’t quite grasp the Messiah concept yet.
Anyway remove those thought and worry dusts and have believing focus on the things of God. That’s as far as that path has got me to date.
Berean Literal Bible:
And Jesus answering, says to them, "Have faith from God.
Literal Standard Version:
And Jesus answering says to them, “Have faith from God;
32 versions listed, and of the 32 only 2 versions support what wierwille says, and thats just 32 that were listed there are other versions out there besides 32. However, it's clear that from just a cursory glance that of the 32 versions listed only 2 (6.25%) agree with wierwille's theology. Even according to wierwille's own methods of letting the scripture intrepret itself, contradictory or difficult verses must be intrepreted in light of the clear verses on the subject and i would say 30 Bible versions saying mostly the same thing is clear. Im not after a majority rules approach either, just pointing out that wierwille didnt stick with what he taught others...anyone surprised? Yet Jeudes gets deeper because he actually has a real doctorate and not a fake education intended to provide fake credibility....anywho...
Here's where it gets fun: From the following link:
2316 [e]θεοῦ. theou from God. -- So wierwille grabbed a cursory definition from Strongs and that's unsupported by most versions even and said:
"The 'original' text read, '. . . Have the faith of God ---- OBVIOSULY the man lied through his teeth about the original text...he found what he needed from a concordance, cherry picked it and ran with the ball into oblivion.
Of course Dr. Jeudes says:
"However, a deeper knowledge of Koine Greek reveals that this phrase is a genitive of aim, also known as a genitive objective. As such, it does not need a preposition such as "in" (en) to be understood as "faith in God."44 Examples of other genitives of aim include Romans 3:22 and Hebrews 6:2. Similar passages where the preposition is supplied are Colossians 1:4 and Ephesians 1: 15. This misunderstanding of Greek is also part of the source of Wierwille's belief in the "faith of Jesus Christ.""
I will post more later. Need to get out the door but just a basic cross check of wierwille/the way international's theological position of pistis shows SERIOUS error, and of course John Jeudes breaks it down further with nuances in Koine Greek that drop the ultimate hammer on this junk. So, when you consider wierwille's rabid support and propogation of the law of believing he needs pistis to mean what he says it means because without twisting pistis into believing wierwilles house of cards is in serious trouble of utter collapse.
I don't know if I'm just mentally tired , but I can't wrap my head around the above at the moment. Comparing it, however, to the simplicity with which twi sneaks their erroneous doctrine into the article "Abraham and Sarah" (found on pg. 18 of their latest mag) is interesting. In a number of verses, they give the definition of "faith" (which is a noun) as meaning "believing" (which is a verb). Examples: regarding Abraham in Rom 4:19, the author writes, "And being not weak in faith [believing], he considered not..." In Hebrews 11:11, the articles says, "Through faith [manifestation of believing] also Sarah herself received strength..." (bold lettering is mine)
It's so subtle that I didn't even catch it until I got near to the end of the article where the author concludes, "Abraham and Sarah established a legacy of believing that continues to this day - both their names are recorded in Hebrew, chapter 11, which has been referred to 'The Believers' Hall of Fame.' You and I continue that legacy in our time as the children of Abraham by believing." (underlining is mine)
Faith (or trust), as a noun, is something we have and our faith is in God who is faithful (reliable). Believing, however, is an action that focuses on us and according to twi's law of believing, it is what we must do in order to receive the promises of God. So twi's doctrinal error about "pistis" continues to pollute people's minds as in the old days.
When I think about this topic the Great Principle (GP) and the explanation of it here as being a “help” tool to understand the “spirit” topic in scripture the more it just falls apart with the usage.
Looking at accounts like the I Cor section contrasting the “natural man” with the “spiritual man” with the GP we are left with a confusing mess of what is it SIX different usages of “spirit” as defined in RHST? That is enough to confuse the brain and make the whole section choppy and saying something completely opposite of a cursory reading.
As opposed to “natural” and “spiritual “ just having a very simple easy to understand context.
The GP is just another mental model to keep Bible students doing mental gymnastics while VP slips in cult doctrine ruining believers for the true body of Christ.
It would be vastly better for the new believer to never see these stupid charts. Then they won’t be fixated on confusion with the only relief being “ask the Teacher” or now that he’s dead “ask the Teachings”.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
19
16
23
Popular Days
Jan 23
53
Jan 21
26
Jan 3
21
Jan 22
19
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 21 posts
Bolshevik 19 posts
chockfull 16 posts
OldSkool 23 posts
Popular Days
Jan 23 2023
53 posts
Jan 21 2023
26 posts
Jan 3 2023
21 posts
Jan 22 2023
19 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
You're describing confabulation via confirmation bias. You literally decide anything you want, because of your narcissistic paranoia that your adversary is "out there", and decide that whatever you l
WordWolf
"Someday we’re going to find a manuscript that verifies this." "“We probably won’t find a manuscript in my lifetime that verifies this, but my spiritual awareness tells me what the original has t
Rocky
waysider
Reinventing the Hula Hoop.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
They have a ... a Research Department now? Hmph. One can only ask what credentials, if any, the researchers have.
And also, what will come out of any such research. Will they gloss over what doesn't suit them, and twist whatever else there is to support their PoV?
Researching pistis. Hmph again. It might help if instead of playing with words, they actually developed some pistis, whether "faith" or "believing" or whatever they want to call it, and put that into action. I mean, genuine, committed compassion in action directed at improving community life, without any element of self-glorification or kudos to themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I can't say for sure on how they operate...but I know this much...whatever wierwille said in writing is considered proven ministry research and is above question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Will it go round in circles
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
then I feel sorry for them, wasting their time like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
They essentially acknowledge this by referencing that they are sticking with his definitions and such with their new publication. But I was there when Rosalie pushed that proven ministry research line, basically canonizing wierwilles writings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hey someone was shamed into calling the Way publications role that checks for consistency with past published works a research department.
If for nothing else it is to make all of the claims here invalid about not having one.
I would still say it is a re - search department. To search out the VPW in the Bible. To seek the source of the 1942 promise and re establish the keys to the flocks fleecing I mean the Bible’s interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ok...now to deal with the material in the magazine article. According to the way international the Greek word pistis (most often translated faith) is really a swiss army word. For example, and Im quoting the magazine article:
"Dr. Wierwille desired to carry out a similar study of the Greek word pistis. This word is typically translated faith in the English versions of the Bible, but this isnt its only meaning. Pistis can refer to believing, the manifestation of believing, fruit of the spirit believing, the faith of Jesus Christ, the family faith or faithfulness. The words faith and believing are often used."
According to the article I quoted the way international has published a new book called Bible Kinds of Faith, which was compiled from Wierwille's "Pistis Seminars" in conjunction with the Research Dept at HQ and a team of researchers on the field.
From here I will quote Dr. John Juedes to refute Wierwille's word salad he employs to mash his erroneous theology concerningfaith/pistis which directly ties into the erroneous law of believing doctrines still taught to this day by the way international.
From: http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/rsr_wdsway2.htm
"The Fallacy of Faith versus Belief
The Way's fallacies undercut even the doctrine of salvation and faith. Wierwille's teaching on faith bears little resemblance to evangelical Christian belief. Wierwille distinguishes radically between faith and believing. To him faith is a spiritual thing given to man only after Pentecost, while anyone before or after Pentecost can believe by way of his five senses. Faith is not in God, but of God; not in Christ, but of Jesus Christ, and of the same measure and amount to every person.40
Peculiar use of words and passages pervades his discussion. We must ask: what wholesale confusion would result if we would distinguish love from loving, repentance from repenting, and sin from sinning, just as he distinguishes faith, or belief, from believing? Each of these pairs has a common Greek root. Wierwille would have to assign contrasting meanings to each if he were consistent. He must even clarify Paul's "manifestation of faith" by adding a parenthesis after it, "(believing) 1141 lest his doctrine fall apart. Apparently Paul knew no such distinction.
If men all have the same amount of faith, as Wierwille says, we marvel at the number of times Scripture speaks of men being weak, strong, of full of faith (Rom. 4:19; 14: 1 ; 4:20; Acts 6:5, 8; 11: 24; Matt. 8: 10; 15:28; 1 Cor. 13:2), or of faith lacking, growing, or needing to be completed (I Thess. 3:10; 11 Thess. 1:3; Luke 17:5; Heb. 12:2; 13:7). Although Wierwille mentions that Romans 12:3 refers to "the measure of faith," he fails to note that it has no definite article ("the") in the Greek original.42 The context of Romans 12:3, as well as the reference to "proportion" of faith in verse 6, refutes his idea.
Wierwille also adapts Mark 11:22, "Have faith in God," to his theology. He writes, "The 'original' text read, '. . . Have the faith of God .1 1143 He is apparently noting that in Greek no preposition exists between "faith" (pistin) and "of God" (theou), which is here in the genitive case. However, a deeper knowledge of Koine Greek reveals that this phrase is a genitive of aim, also known as a genitive objective. As such, it does not need a preposition such as "in" (en) to be understood as "faith in God."44 Examples of other genitives of aim include Romans 3:22 and Hebrews 6:2. Similar passages where the preposition is supplied are Colossians 1:4 and Ephesians 1: 15. This misunderstanding of Greek is also part of the source of Wierwille's belief in the "faith of Jesus Christ."
Using Mark 11:22, Wierwille eventually asserts that anyone, Christian or non-Christian, can exercise this faith. However, verse 24 makes clear that only Christians have faith, by declaring, "What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." Prayer-requests to the one true God-is required, trusting that He will deliver. This is not a subjective confidence that one's desire will occur.
Wierwille's exposition on faith uses John 20:29 to support his thesis that "until the day of Pentecost, people saw and then believed."45 The end of this same verse refutes his idea. Jesus uses aorist tenses to say, 11, . , blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." The Old Testament person did not require seeing in order to believe.
Wierwille also makes the radical pronouncement that
"there is no faith in the Gospels or in the Old Testament. When we read the word "faith" before the book of Acts, we are simply reading an error in translation. How many times do you think the word "faith" appears in the Old Testament in the King James Version? It appears only twice, once in Habakkuk 2:4 and once in Deuteronomy 32:20. Reading "faith" in context, one will see that it means "faithfulness, steadfastness.""46
At least three times the Apostle Paul quotes Habakkuk 2:4. Each time, contrary to Wierwille's thesis, be uses the word "faith" (pistis), not the word "faithful" (pistos) (Rom. 1:7; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38). Wierwille's perspective indicts the inspired writer with gross misunderstanding. Wierwille also throws out some 42 instances of the word "faith" in the Gospels and Acts. His basis is not actual evidence but his surmisings that they were wrongly translated. One could rewrite the entire Bible on just as much evidence as he has here! There is no question that Wierwille has rewritten-the Bible's teaching on faith by distorting its words. Wierwille alters its entire character on the cardinal topic of faith." ---end quote.
Also for those wondering about the law of believing there is:
https://eyesupandopen.org/
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/rsr_believing.htm (John Jeudes again...he actually has a real Doctorate unlike wierwille.)
Alright...lets see where this goes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"A person cannot heal themselves by their thoughts – end of story. Prosperity doctrines are false as well. It’s simple. New Thought adherents made a logical step with their error. If you can heal yourself by your thoughts then you can become wealthy by your thoughts. Both doctrines are straight out lies and are not Biblically sound, but I will admit they are convincing counterfeits. At the heart of these doctrines is the idea that man can save himself, and they ignore the truth that we need a savior, that we need Jesus Christ as well as God’s grace and mercy. We should turn to God for healing. We should turn to God for our prosperity, not ourselves because it is not in man to save himself."
Interesting article . . it's interesting the article points out you can't heal yourself or get rich on your thoughts . . . kinda implies an individual has complete control over one's thoughts in first place?
I'll have to renew my mind on this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Well, I don't think anyone has complete control over what they think...personally, I deal with mental associations that bring out some rather unsavory thoughts and experiences that I have to either choose to ignore or deal with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I agree we don't have complete control . . . if I understand correctly most thoughts are unconscious . . . meaning we are never conscious of them
When we "put on the new man" twi-style are we shoving matters to the unconscious? Just wondering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Really good question and I don't have an answer. The renewed mind concept in the way international (twi) is so overplayed it became kind of a nebulous term. Need to quit smoking? Renew your mind...Need money? Renew your mind and visualize money. So their practices likely do cause harm at times because we were taught to ignore reality in light of our confession.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The whole “as a man thinks in his heart he is” has some roots and similarities to Eastern religion concepts. Like for instance in Buddhism, it would not be shoving thoughts to the subconscious but meditating allowing the unsettled thoughts from the dust of emotions and the world fall off and be able to focus more clearly on imprinting a more virtuous path upon the inner self.
I thought the Lamsa Bible had similar interpretation of worries and fears as dusts.
I don’t know if any of the Eastern customs of the Bible come in there to the mental aspects but thought it was worth mentioning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That reminds me of mindfulness where you are supposed to sit and observe your thoughts without judgement. Just let them be. (JLTB)
"Renewing your mind" (RYM) is ubiquitous as Oldskool mentioned, I felt it shut down the emotion response to thoughts, which negates thoughts.
Maybe it was training to halt thinking? (MIWTTHT)
Need to research more . . . . *grabs string and thumb tacks* (GSATT)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I was always suspicious of victor's concepts of pistis, faith, believing. My questions were usually met with exasperated sighs by my fellowship commander (FC). He, my FC, asserted the claim that "beleeeving" is something we do and "faith" is something we have - a/the measure of.
Juedes reveals victor's superficial grasp of Greek when he briefly explains the objective genitive. I brought up the genitive case dilemma of subjective vs. objective a couple months ago in Doctrinal. Couldn't find any traction there.
Juedes also brings up a common, persistent, childish error of victor's: "He (victor) writes, 'the original text read,' ..." A reminder: we don't have the autographs. It's devilishly misleading to assert an opinion as fact the way victor does. The "original text" is a mental invention of victor. To be fooled by his seductive concept requires only that one BELEEEVES.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Im almost certain that verse was purposely taken out of context and then used to amalgamate Eastern/spirtualism/occultic content into Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Im gonna get back to this in a couple hours....standby.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I listened to a whole pistis seminar in the early 1970s. Somehow my branch leader got a hold of some reel to reel versions of the seminar at HQ. I marked all my Bible's locations of pistis in my Cambridge Wide Margin from it. Ten years later I discover that a friend had done the same thing, marked all his pistis locations the same way I did. But it seemed like we heard different seminars, because we compared out Bibles and discovered we had different markings at a few difficult spots.
I could tell from the tape I heard that the seminar was still a frontier research project, done by committee. The tape was just the last meeting in the seminar, where the committees report their findings. I could tell that there were a few snags in the process, with VPW interrupting overruling several times. It seemed to be totally unfinished.
On seeing the changes from my pistis seminar notes between my friend's later pistis seminar notes, and nothing appearing in print anywhere afterwards, I concluded that the topic was still open and unfinished. But it was close to finished.
I think TWI-4 either found a more finished seminar tapes, or they worked out the unfinished business, and printed it all up just recently.
This always was a pretty difficult topic to master, and I wonder if it is even really needed.
My best understanding is most places where pistis appears in the text it means "believing" in modern English. But it is also apparent that in a few places, after Pentecost, where pistis means (from context) a "super version of believing." Another way of putting it is "REALLY believing."
If this sounds familiar it should. Two other instances of "really" are on the table for consideration. One is in the film class: "No man can REALLY say that Jesus is Lord but by holy spirit." and the other is my take on the Great Principle's inverse version: "God cannot REALLY speak to anything but what what He is, which is spirit."
I got the impression that VPW was trying to teach us that in some of these places where pistis is contextually special, that a whole new word should be used, and that is "faith." I could never figure out why he just didn't explain it that way, that most of the time pistis means ordinary believing, but when pistis means "really believing" then the special word "faith" should be used.
Summarizing my understand of this complicated topic:
Pistis means believing in most Bible verses.
When pistis contextually is special, then we use the word faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Who cares what Mistletoe Mike, the GSC parasite, declares regarding what any word means in the bible?
Who gives oxygen to this wannabe TWI leader who doesn't lead anywhere, let along in TWI?
Remember what Dale Carnegie set forth in How to Win Friends and Influence People (a book about leadership) about giving someone a reputation to live up to?
Mike's got the ideas. And he's got the contacts in twi, right? Well, Mike, get out THERE in twi and lead them to reach your vision of what the group can be.
Because you don't seem to be getting the job done by spending your time here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mark 11:22
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
I think this is a great example at showing the utter failure of wierwille's research.
https://biblehub.com/mark/11-22.htm
Berean Literal Bible:
And Jesus answering, says to them, "Have faith from God.
Literal Standard Version:
And Jesus answering says to them, “Have faith from God;
32 versions listed, and of the 32 only 2 versions support what wierwille says, and thats just 32 that were listed there are other versions out there besides 32. However, it's clear that from just a cursory glance that of the 32 versions listed only 2 (6.25%) agree with wierwille's theology. Even according to wierwille's own methods of letting the scripture intrepret itself, contradictory or difficult verses must be intrepreted in light of the clear verses on the subject and i would say 30 Bible versions saying mostly the same thing is clear. Im not after a majority rules approach either, just pointing out that wierwille didnt stick with what he taught others...anyone surprised? Yet Jeudes gets deeper because he actually has a real doctorate and not a fake education intended to provide fake credibility....anywho...
https://biblehub.com/text/mark/11-22.htm
Here's where it gets fun: From the following link:
2316 [e]θεοῦ. theou from God. -- So wierwille grabbed a cursory definition from Strongs and that's unsupported by most versions even and said:
"The 'original' text read, '. . . Have the faith of God ---- OBVIOSULY the man lied through his teeth about the original text...he found what he needed from a concordance, cherry picked it and ran with the ball into oblivion.
Of course Dr. Jeudes says:
"However, a deeper knowledge of Koine Greek reveals that this phrase is a genitive of aim, also known as a genitive objective. As such, it does not need a preposition such as "in" (en) to be understood as "faith in God."44 Examples of other genitives of aim include Romans 3:22 and Hebrews 6:2. Similar passages where the preposition is supplied are Colossians 1:4 and Ephesians 1: 15. This misunderstanding of Greek is also part of the source of Wierwille's belief in the "faith of Jesus Christ.""
I will post more later. Need to get out the door but just a basic cross check of wierwille/the way international's theological position of pistis shows SERIOUS error, and of course John Jeudes breaks it down further with nuances in Koine Greek that drop the ultimate hammer on this junk. So, when you consider wierwille's rabid support and propogation of the law of believing he needs pistis to mean what he says it means because without twisting pistis into believing wierwilles house of cards is in serious trouble of utter collapse.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I like the article it is a good direction. The whole mental model of believing and the renewed mind needs a major overhaul.
The victim blaming stuff latent in the Albert Cliffe spiritualist law of believing is clear.
I have an idea on how some of the Eastern stuff fits in but a good friend of mine is Buddhist and I spend a lot of time kicking around concepts with him. If he comes to Christ it will totally be a group of 3 of us that helps him. One of his things is he sees evidence of Jesus traveling to the Orient area through how he prays. He currently sees Jesus as an enlightened teacher but doesn’t quite grasp the Messiah concept yet.
Anyway remove those thought and worry dusts and have believing focus on the things of God. That’s as far as that path has got me to date.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I don't know if I'm just mentally tired
, but I can't wrap my head around the above at the moment. Comparing it, however, to the simplicity with which twi sneaks their erroneous doctrine into the article "Abraham and Sarah" (found on pg. 18 of their latest mag) is interesting. In a number of verses, they give the definition of "faith" (which is a noun) as meaning "believing" (which is a verb). Examples: regarding Abraham in Rom 4:19, the author writes, "And being not weak in faith [believing], he considered not..." In Hebrews 11:11, the articles says, "Through faith [manifestation of believing] also Sarah herself received strength..." (bold lettering is mine)
It's so subtle that I didn't even catch it until I got near to the end of the article where the author concludes, "Abraham and Sarah established a legacy of believing that continues to this day - both their names are recorded in Hebrew, chapter 11, which has been referred to 'The Believers' Hall of Fame.' You and I continue that legacy in our time as the children of Abraham by believing." (underlining is mine)
Faith (or trust), as a noun, is something we have and our faith is in God who is faithful (reliable). Believing, however, is an action that focuses on us and according to twi's law of believing, it is what we must do in order to receive the promises of God. So twi's doctrinal error about "pistis" continues to pollute people's minds as in the old days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
When I think about this topic the Great Principle (GP) and the explanation of it here as being a “help” tool to understand the “spirit” topic in scripture the more it just falls apart with the usage.
Looking at accounts like the I Cor section contrasting the “natural man” with the “spiritual man” with the GP we are left with a confusing mess of what is it SIX different usages of “spirit” as defined in RHST? That is enough to confuse the brain and make the whole section choppy and saying something completely opposite of a cursory reading.
As opposed to “natural” and “spiritual “ just having a very simple easy to understand context.
The GP is just another mental model to keep Bible students doing mental gymnastics while VP slips in cult doctrine ruining believers for the true body of Christ.
It would be vastly better for the new believer to never see these stupid charts. Then they won’t be fixated on confusion with the only relief being “ask the Teacher” or now that he’s dead “ask the Teachings”.
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.