Well thank you Def. Unfortunately, that is likely an ignorant statement coming from you because you have likely not read the article stating this position. For the rest of you at least, I will try to post something later on this. As for right now, since I took off all of yesterday to go to a biblical conference I have to work today. This will have to wait.
Oak, I understand what you're saying completely. That's why I hardly ever venture down here....well, that and the fact that I can't keep up. :o--> It seems to be straining gnats and swallowing camels sometimes, but other times I think, "wait! That's what TWI did and that's what they were trying to teach US to do, so why shouldn't we do that to their teachings?" BUT, on the other side, one has to REALLY know what they're talking about and we have quite a few scholars on here, so that's why I posted that paper.
When I wanted out and wanted my husband to see TWI for what it was, the doctrinal issues were the main issues that I would have had to use for him, practical stuff wasn't important to him, nor was what happened to other people. He was a master at justifying all the terrible mistreatment he received at the hands of TWI, so doctrinal issues were the only hope I had.
Raf, I, too, remember hearing vee pee go on and on about heteros and allos meaning "the same" and "different" during his whole spiel about the four crucified with Christ. All thieves are malefactors but not all malefactors are thieves.
Well thank you Def. Unfortunately, that is likely an ignorant statement coming from you because you have likely not read the article stating this position. For the rest of you at least, I will try to post something later on this. As for right now, since I took off all of yesterday to go to a biblical conference I have to work today. This will have to wait.
You know Mark, it takes a lot of guts calling someone ignorant when you yourself are ignorant of what I may or many not have read.
Just so you know, my remark was intended to be taken as sarcasm. You seem a little put off because no one seemed to accept your post as gospel just because you said so.
Where do you get off copping a holier-than-thou attitude with me or anyone else? Instead of looking for obscure and vague reference books, try looking at the mainstream for awhile and see where it gets you.
You know Def, I can see why you argued with Chuck on the Universalism thread. Now you seem to be trying to waste my time and draw me into a squabble with you. My time is to valuable to be spent on such a change with the likes of you. Instead when I have the time, I will post the entire article that I read and that I was referring to, explaining that Jesus was crucified on a tree with two others and not four. You probably would not be interested in such an article, but the rest of the people here may find this a very excellent read.
It may surprise you, seeing how you don't listen to me, that I actually read your post. I took it for what it was, your experience. No judgment.
My attempt at humor, was based on that post where you matter-of-factly said, "well I explained that." As if we have to accept it just because you say it.
You may be right, you may not be. but you didn't tell us where you learned this.
I really want to know. I don't take things on face value.
As for ck, he cannot tolerate disagreements with his beliefs and so resorts to insults and name calling and death threats to get his point across.
The chapter that I read was from a book by Ernest L. Martin, titled "the Secrets of Golgotha". Martin is a very respected biblical historian as well as an excellent teacher. I will try to locate the chapter that I read, but this will have to wait. There is no Internet copy that I know so I will have to scan the chapter and then convert it to a text file. This may take a little time.
I hate to be a "Johnny-come-lately" but I just found this thread and wanted to add my two cents worth. As to the criticism about the Deceptive Distinctions, I think the article is right on the money. If you do a thorough study of the Biblical usage of allos and heteros, VP's definitions are not supported. This is true not only of allos and heteros, but of VP's definitions of pros (in John 1:1), and his handling of the words yatsar, asah, and barah in Genesis (formed, made, created).
My conclusion when I worked through all of these while examining the PFAL class was much the same as that of the article. VP seemed to make these assertions based on a desire to support a certain doctrine without thoroughly studying the word to see if it was true throughout the Bible.
The four crucified doctrine is further undermined if you compare not just the number of people crucified, but the entire list of events in Matthew and Luke. Weirwille's logic holds that since the order of the events differs in Matthew and Luke, there must be different people involved. By that logic, the veil of the temple was torn twice.
According to Matthew 27:50 & 51, the veil of the temple was rent immediately after Jesus died.
quote:
50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
According to Luke 23:45 & 46, the veil of the Temple was torn just before Jesus gave up the ghost.
quote:
45 And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.
46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
The basis for most of VP's four crucified teaching is a similar chronological contradictin between Matthew and Luke. The simple truth is Luke's account of the crucifixion is not presented in chronological order.
Although I believe that most of what VP taught about death is Biblically sound, the section about Enoch is not. Genesis does indicate that Enoch was translated in such a manner that he did not die. VP said in PFAL that if you study the Old Testament you will find that Enoch had never seen anyone die. There is no such record of Enoch in the Old Testament. What you will find if you read about Enoch in the Old Testament--Genesis 5:5-24 specifically-- is that he is one of a long list of men whose lives are summarized. In each of the other eulogies, the last phrase is "and he died". This is said of Noah, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Jared. But of Enoch it says, "
quote:
22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
The was is absent in the original text. I think it should read, "...and he died not; for God took him."
Again, I have found that the vast majority of Bible verses support VP's belief that death is not an immediate transport to heaven. But he did have a bad habit of padding the evidence to eliminate ANY apparent contradition. And this is the heart of the matter.
On a such as broad as death, it is impossible, imho, to frame a doctrine that makes all of the Bible verses agree. There are some verses and passages that do seem to indidate that death is a one-way ticket to heavenly bliss or that human souls survive in heaven. These ideas contradict the Way's teaching, but they also contradict most of the Old Testament.
So although he twisted some Scriptures to strengthen his case, I think that in this case it's not VP, but the mainstream Church that has the "errant view of death."
The fourth category of Wierwille's pseudo-research is his practice of relating words and concepts that have no business being together, while he ignores other relationships that clearly should be established. As explained above, he unjustifiably relates the "light" of John 1:6 to the Father, and "foreknow" to "elect" and "chosen." He also equates God's image with man's spirit and makes man's spirit a prerequisite to communication with God. A classic example of his failure to parallel related passages is his refusal to interpret the word "faith" in Habakkuk 2:4 by Paul's quotations of this verse. Sanctified common sense, combined with a fuller knowledge of Scripture and some balanced teaching on valid principles of interpretaion7l would have prevented many of these peculiarities. It is also necessary to curtail logic's tendency to manufacture presumptuous relationships and presuppositions,
I would have to agree with this assessment. I alluded to this earlier in my reference to VP's teaching about formed, made, and created. He based that whole teaching from Genesis on an assumption that the words formed, made, and created in Isaiah 43:7 can't possibly be synonyms. Then he jumped to I Thessalonians 5:23 and made the same unsubstantiated assumption about body, soul, and spirit.
This double assumption leads to several biblically unsound conclusions including;
1)The false conclusion that the word "image" in Genesis 1:27 refers to the spirit of man which was created, rather than the soul, which was made. This is an amazing contradition of Genesis 1:26 which says God made (asah, not barah)man in his own IMAGE and likeness.
2)The erroneous definition that "create" means to bring into being form nothing and that only God can do it. It's a nice platitude, but doesn't explain Joshua 17:15 and 17:18, in which the word barah is translated "cut down" and refers to making a new path in the wilderness.
3)The conclusion that God put holy spirit on Adam and Eve. There is no biblical evidence to support this. That whole "Battle of the Senses vs Revelation Faith" mantra is built on false assumptions and leads to...
4)The false conclusion that God cannot communicate to anyone who doesn't have holy spirit in or upon them. This is contradicted by Genesis 4:9, 20:3, 31:24 among others.
5)The erroneous conclusion that there is no faith in the Old Testament. This teaching is an extension of the "Battle of the Senses" teaching and its resultant "chasm between the natural man and God" doctrine. Both arise from the double assumption in how VP related the words formed, made, created, and body, soul, and spirit. According to the PFAL book, natural men are limited to their five senses and therefore cannot have faith. Nonsense.
Anyway, this is a major problem with PFAL. These kinds of assumptions and invalid relationships between Biblical terms mushroom into interwoven doctrines that just aren't supported by the Scritpure. And it's not that hard to prove them wrong, which makes it that much more irritating that we believed it so fervently for so long.
Even if the teaching on Christ were the only doctrine Wierwille denied, we would have to reject him completely as a false teacher.
To accept Wierwille's teaching in some areas but not in others is not a via)le option.
Hogwash. This is just as invalid a conclusion as "there is no faith in the Old Testament". Why can't we sort out the good from the bad, accept the fact that VP didn't handle the Scriptures honestly, and weigh the evidence for ourselves, one doctrine at at time? It seems to me this is a plea for us to completely abandon everything VP taught that upset the mainstream Church without applying the principles of honest workmanship the author espouses.
quote:
First, his theological system does not allow it. His teachings are so interdependent that if one doctrine is rejected, others fall with it. More importantly, Scripture does not allow us to assent to a false teacher at all. Victor Paul Wierwille must be rejected as a false teacher.
Although PFAL can accurately be described as "error upon error", there are large, valuable truths hidden in there like diamonds in the rough. Speaking in tongues. The practical value of positive believing. Jesus Chrsit is Not God. The Dead are Not Alive. All of those, although cobbled together with some suspect definitions and contrived logic, are, in my humble opinion basically sound Biblical teachings. There is a lot of nonsense in VP's teaching, but there is a lot of truth in there too. To abandon all of it without a thorough sorting out would be just as foolish as accepting all of it at face value.
Raf, I no longer have my copy of the PFAL book but I know what was said in the class. The Juedes/Morton article cited was originally published in 1981. According to this later Juedes article, the definition was changed in the second printing (not edition) of PFAL.
quote:
VW's definitions of allos and heteros were radically different in the first two printings of PFAL (1971, pp. 167-168; he may have changed them because they contradicted his meaning for heterosin RTHST.). In the first printing, VW insisted that heteros meant "other of the same kind," but months later in the second printing he insisted heteros meant "other when only two may be involved." In the first printing he asserted that allos meant "other of varying kinds," but in the second printing he said it meant "other when more than two may be involved." In both printings he left the claim, "Which Greek word had to be used to have the true Word?... This is the sharp accuracy of God's Word." If it was so accurate, why did VW change the meanings so radically-- but not the conclusion about four crucified? If those meanings were the accuracy of the Word, how could they change so radically in only a few month's time?
Actually, I think both aspects of VP's definitions of allos and heteros are used in PFAL. He starts with the distinction between same kind and different kind when he's discussing the malefactors and robbers in Matthew and Luke, but adds the other of two vs other of two or more when referring to John 19:18. I'll have to check my PFAL book and syallabus, aka THE WORD OF GOD (Happy, Mikey?) but that's how I remember it.
That's not a bad yardstick Def. But not all of VP's fruit is rotten. Lots of people got delivered from drug addiction and worse to lead productive Christian lives because of VP's ministry.
There's a lot of bad fruit on his record, but a lot of good as well. So tossing the whole basket is, in my opinion, too extreme a judgment. I know I'm mangling this analogy, but I think we should pick through the Weirwille Fruit Basket one piece at a time. :-)
Yes, VPW's teaching of 4 crucified with Christ was essentially lifted from Bullinger. However, VPW may have also pretended to be an authority on Greek in the process. He was not. To my knowledge the only person in the Way denomination with a respected knowledge of biblical Greek was Walter Cummins. Perhaps I am not aware of others with a knowledge of biblical Greek, but they would have been unknown to the masses? On second thought, we do have an occasional poster here, the Research Geek. Maybe he knew some Koine Greek also. But as for VPW, to the best of my knowledge, he perhaps was not up to the level of a first year Greek student.
I get it. You don't believe anything taught by Dr. Wierwille. You aren't alone. A lot of people disagreed with him while he was alive and after he died. I, (a definite minority) however believe he was fundementally correct and consistant with his teachings and would have to say I was satisfied with his motives and conclusions.
"Truth on the lips of the towns biggest sinner is still truth" If you don't like the movie, change channels. I am of the position that copying something from someone who is quite dead (Bullinger)is a compliment.
When I teach the Bible to people I still implement many of the things taught to me in his class. Not because I don't know anything else, but because the majority of what I refer to fits.
In the first paragraph you wrote re: Disposing of Death you rattle on about the way he handled Psalms 116:15 and the entire subject of death..............Oddly enough, I Corinthians 15:26 does claim the last enemy to be destroyed is death. No matter how you wrongly divide the Word, death is an enemy.
I still hold fast to the sound doctrine I discovered while Dr. Wierwille was active in the ministry of the Way. Not because I worship him, but because of the obvious error and predisposed opinions of all the other ministries I stumble onto while listening to the radio. Compared to what VPW did...they (Dr. Straus and Chuck Swendall for instance)will most likely be the ones to hear, " I never knew thee!"
Personalentertainer, let me be the first to offer this mild correction. Belle is not the author of the articles we're discussing. She saw them online and posted them in order to get feedback from the Doctrinal geeks here at the Cafe. I think we've agreed that the author is Rev John Juedes (with an associate), a famous critic of all things Weirwillian.
And, although I agree with the basic doctrine taught in PFAL about death, I have found that, as Rev Juedes states, if you thoroughly examine Weirwille's teaching, it is quite full of holes. So I would say the class' truth to error ratio is at best 50/50.
I get it. You don't believe anything taught by Dr. Wierwille. You aren't alone. A lot of people disagreed with him while he was alive and after he died. I, (a definite minority) however believe he was fundementally correct and consistant with his teachings and would have to say I was satisfied with his motives and conclusions.
"Truth on the lips of the towns biggest sinner is still truth" If you don't like the movie, change channels. I am of the position that copying something from someone who is quite dead (Bullinger)is a compliment.
When I teach the Bible to people I still implement many of the things taught to me in his class. Not because I don't know anything else, but because the majority of what I refer to fits.
In the first paragraph you wrote re: Disposing of Death you rattle on about the way he handled Psalms 116:15 and the entire subject of death..............Oddly enough, I Corinthians 15:26 does claim the last enemy to be destroyed is death. No matter how you wrongly divide the Word, death is an enemy.
I still hold fast to the sound doctrine I discovered while Dr. Wierwille was active in the ministry of the Way. Not because I worship him, but because of the obvious error and predisposed opinions of all the other ministries I stumble onto while listening to the radio. Compared to what VPW did...they (Dr. Straus and Chuck Swendall for instance)will most likely be the ones to hear, " I never knew thee!"
I'll put Chuck Swindoll on his worst day against vpw on his best. Did you read the actual errors thread about pfal, it's an eye opener.
Although PFAL can accurately be described as "error upon error", there are large, valuable truths hidden in there like diamonds in the rough. Speaking in tongues. The practical value of positive believing. Jesus Chrsit is Not God. The Dead are Not Alive. All of those, although cobbled together with some suspect definitions and contrived logic, are, in my humble opinion basically sound Biblical teachings. There is a lot of nonsense in VP's teaching, but there is a lot of truth in there too. To abandon all of it without a thorough sorting out would be just as foolish as accepting all of it at face value.
And that's my two cents worth.
To begin, for those of you who may not already know, I worked in TWI's Way Publications Department basically, from 1979 until 1988.
I say this not to place myself as an "unlitmate" authority, but to just say, "Hey, I was 'there." personally involved, and have actual knowledge of many of the things discussed here in terms of what TWI did & didn't publish, and some of the "why's" what was & was not done.
Of course I don't know everything and didn't see everything and wasn't involved in everything. But I do know some stuff, maybe even "quite a bit."
In my post TWI days, though, I've adopted what I'll call, for the sake of communication, a "bottom line" approach to Christianity in general. One of the biggest personal changes in my post TWI years has been to look and listen to, and not just summarily dismiss, other Bible teachers. I've personally attended other churches, and even listen to Christian radio, read other authors, the whole gamut. I feel I've continued to grow and flourish in my reationship with God & our Lord JC. At least that's my intent.
That being said. I posted the above quote to help communicate my two cents worth in this discussion with thanks from JB. He said it first....
My first point is that, regardless of what or how anyone thinks of VPW, his discretions or qualities, or lack thereof; discussions like this thread are precisely what he wanted us to do. Speaking as one of the team of people who actually produced "his" published works; he told us to use his works as a starting point and go beyond him. That was his desire for ever class, every book, every teaching. That even accounts to some degree for his choices as to what topics he actually published on.
To point out and make effort to correct his errors, IMO, is more a tribute to him than a crucifiction. We did it in Way Pubs. I remember editors constantly lamenting on his grammar, misquoting scripture references, getting things backwards, etc. Whereas we respected him, wenever say his work as "perfect," God breathed, or anything else. To us VP was "one of our authors." The boss, obviously, but certainly not flawless. The editors won some and lost some editorials w/ him & his ghost writers & "main" editors through the years.
The "tribute thing" is obviously, dependant upon the position and attitude of the individual "pointer-outer."
Whereas I also highly respect Chuck Swindoll, my "bottom line approach" only allows me to place him in JB's quote above, substituting his name for VPW's and some of his "best" Biblical teachings and conclusions for those of VPW's.
Reason being that there are some things I've heard Chuck Swindoll say in interviews, teachings, books, etc. that I wouln't give the SAME plugged nickel that I wouldn't give for some things that I've heard, VP say, teach, write and even SAW him DO, as I have had the proximity to VP as mentioned above.
I'd do the same with Tony Evans, Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim Dobson, Florence Littauer, Tim LaHey, Sam & Geri Lang, Patrick Morley, Bill Perkins, Dr, Phil, Rick Warren & others, whose Names slip my mind right now. I've read at least one book by each of the above, and regularly take in teachings by others most Notably the senios past or the Church I'm a member of and and have attended for the past seven years.
Each of the above, I've taken pieces of their teachings and perspectives and woven them into my life as things I believe and live by. All of this is built upon and in addition to things I felt were valuable from PFAL & Vp's other works. Mostly because I was exposed to VP prior to some of the others. Some of what VP taught established for me things I'd previously heard from Billy Graham, for example.
I'm pretty sure Chuck Swindoll has read VP and done the same. Pretty much every "major" contempory Christian teacher of the day has read him or has had their staffers read him, just as VPW read others in his day & had his staff read others also. (How could he lift their works otherwise?) They have lifted VP also.
Bottom line ALL of them/US have lifted and plaguarize(sp) GOD, as HE is the SINGLE source of all wisdom & knowledge. Nobody has it all and EVERYBODY (myself included) is WRONG about SOMEthing.
Seeing as VP is now DEAD, why can we not let whatever evil intent he da DIE with him? NO, I'm not saying this because I luuuuuved VP. Actually I'm not sure I've ever even said I loved, him. I may have mentioned loving him in the same sense that I love ANYone who EVER had the grace in their heart to teach me ANYthing. But in the worshipful sense that I've seen & heard others say they loved him, Nope.
Didn't hate him either. I was hurt deeply by the "results" of his "ministry" also, more deeply and to a wider degree than most. Bottom line is that God still says a lot of things I should do concerning those who have wronged me that are more for MY benefit than anything else.
Sometimes I've read a book that I only got ONE thing out of, bottom line, I benefited THAT much from reading it.
Bottom line, I'm always more concerned for those of us who are alive today and what we do now and where we're going now that I am about who's dead, where we were and where we went.
I understand the point of Swindoll on his worst day against vpw on his best, in terms of how overall BAD VP's life vs. how good Swindoll's life & collective works may be in comparision.
BUT. I also agree with the earlier post that thread's like this may do more harm than good. I agree in the sense that taking a negative, anti approach to ANYTHING does more harm than good, always.
Persoanlly, I think the worst of the deceptive deceptions of TWI was how it isolated itself from the rest of the body of Christ, as if they were all LOST and 'we' were the ONLY ones found. I fought against that in all of my ten years as staff of TWI. I tried to bring a world class quality to my piece of what we did in terms of publications work, as did others. We, collectively, the writers & editors, artists & designers, research staff, etc. were, VPW the author, the SAME as it is with Swindoll, Graham, Dobson & others.
In my church, there is a research team who compiles the facts figures, and provides the scriptural references, etc. that our senior pastor presents four times per weekend.
One of the biggest things & took from my association was this: If you think Bill Clinton was the first US president to leave a sperm stain from doing an intern in the oval office... If you think there are no other pastors "doin' their congregants... no other "great teachers, MOG's lifting the works of others, no other Emron or Martha Stewart type C.E.O. getting over RIGHT now...or no other ministers using "God's Word" soley to build kingdoms and gain riches for themselves. RIGHT NOW, eave as you read this.
You're naieve. TWI was NO different than the garden variety corruption that exists RIGHT now, basically everywhere. My current "pastor" said one of THE most hurtful, least insightful, most devastating things to me anyone could have possibly said. It was at the ZENITH, the APEX of the WORST time in my recent marriage that fell apart. At the time when I MOST needed his BEST he showed me his WORST.
I couldn't bring myself to speak to him personally for the better part of a year and fight the same thoughts every time I've spoken to him since. I realize though that when I do that I'm doing so out of the HURT I felt at his hand. I'm also ignoring God's healing touch at the same time I allow those thoughts to take the forefront in my mind.
SOME, if not most of the venom-spewing towards Vp, etc. is the same, speaking out of hurt. I am well acquainted with pain & know it VERY well when I see it. Please do not allow your pain to rob you of God's abundant blessings. James 1:1 - 5:20
Another excellent post from HCW, I wonder if we ever met while I was an innie.
Hate has no place in the believer's heart and I try not to harbor any.
That said, when I left TWI, I knew I would have to chuck all their stuff eventually. About two years after I got married, I did throw everything out.
Over time, I learned about regular Christianity. I saw places where vpw and twi were wrong and changed my beliefs. I did let the word speak for itself and saw what it had to say.
Part of that growth was to accept the new Bibles and put away my KJV. I don't reject it, instead I look at the modern versions and see the word more clearly.
I have learned that Christianity is not a monolith and that twi never was either. Their plunge into legalism is sad, but predictable. It happens to every sect.
HCW, maybe at the root, discussions were encouraged, but on the field, we were told to stay in lock step with the MOGFAT. Studies that arrived at different results were rejected and people were told to do it again until you came into agreement with vpw.
That lack of true research made us a cult. We were under controls of life, thought and action. We were told to never question our leaders and if we had heard that people were editing or questioning vpw's writings, we would have been horrified.
As for the men who have read vpw, I would doubt it, but that's opinion only. In my experience, most people never heard of our ministry and often confuse it with the Living Bible of the 1970s. Despite all our protestations, we were barely a blip on Christendom, and made no impacts.
The splinter groups are hardly even noted in cult books or by Christian media. Their infintestimal followings (relatively speaking) are like specks of sand.
Working in the media, I would have known if they were making waves. The media loves the cults and sects.
Anyway, it is good to have you here and look forward to more insights.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
9
11
8
Popular Days
Mar 18
16
Mar 21
13
Mar 24
12
Mar 23
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 23 posts
def59 9 posts
Jbarrax 11 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 8 posts
Popular Days
Mar 18 2005
16 posts
Mar 21 2005
13 posts
Mar 24 2005
12 posts
Mar 23 2005
12 posts
Mark Sanguinetti
Def says,
Well thank you Def. Unfortunately, that is likely an ignorant statement coming from you because you have likely not read the article stating this position. For the rest of you at least, I will try to post something later on this. As for right now, since I took off all of yesterday to go to a biblical conference I have to work today. This will have to wait.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks for your input, y'all!
:D-->
Oak, I understand what you're saying completely. That's why I hardly ever venture down here....well, that and the fact that I can't keep up.
:o--> It seems to be straining gnats and swallowing camels sometimes, but other times I think, "wait! That's what TWI did and that's what they were trying to teach US to do, so why shouldn't we do that to their teachings?" BUT, on the other side, one has to REALLY know what they're talking about and we have quite a few scholars on here, so that's why I posted that paper.
When I wanted out and wanted my husband to see TWI for what it was, the doctrinal issues were the main issues that I would have had to use for him, practical stuff wasn't important to him, nor was what happened to other people. He was a master at justifying all the terrible mistreatment he received at the hands of TWI, so doctrinal issues were the only hope I had.
Raf, I, too, remember hearing vee pee go on and on about heteros and allos meaning "the same" and "different" during his whole spiel about the four crucified with Christ. All thieves are malefactors but not all malefactors are thieves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Just one last appeal, one that doesn't rely on memory...
Galen, can you check the tapes and let us know, for certain, whether Wierwille talks about that same kind/different kind stuff with allos and heteros?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
You know Mark, it takes a lot of guts calling someone ignorant when you yourself are ignorant of what I may or many not have read.
Just so you know, my remark was intended to be taken as sarcasm. You seem a little put off because no one seemed to accept your post as gospel just because you said so.
Where do you get off copping a holier-than-thou attitude with me or anyone else? Instead of looking for obscure and vague reference books, try looking at the mainstream for awhile and see where it gets you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
You know Def, I can see why you argued with Chuck on the Universalism thread. Now you seem to be trying to waste my time and draw me into a squabble with you. My time is to valuable to be spent on such a change with the likes of you. Instead when I have the time, I will post the entire article that I read and that I was referring to, explaining that Jesus was crucified on a tree with two others and not four. You probably would not be interested in such an article, but the rest of the people here may find this a very excellent read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mark
It may surprise you, seeing how you don't listen to me, that I actually read your post. I took it for what it was, your experience. No judgment.
My attempt at humor, was based on that post where you matter-of-factly said, "well I explained that." As if we have to accept it just because you say it.
You may be right, you may not be. but you didn't tell us where you learned this.
I really want to know. I don't take things on face value.
As for ck, he cannot tolerate disagreements with his beliefs and so resorts to insults and name calling and death threats to get his point across.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
The chapter that I read was from a book by Ernest L. Martin, titled "the Secrets of Golgotha". Martin is a very respected biblical historian as well as an excellent teacher. I will try to locate the chapter that I read, but this will have to wait. There is no Internet copy that I know so I will have to scan the chapter and then convert it to a text file. This may take a little time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I hate to be a "Johnny-come-lately" but I just found this thread and wanted to add my two cents worth. As to the criticism about the Deceptive Distinctions, I think the article is right on the money. If you do a thorough study of the Biblical usage of allos and heteros, VP's definitions are not supported. This is true not only of allos and heteros, but of VP's definitions of pros (in John 1:1), and his handling of the words yatsar, asah, and barah in Genesis (formed, made, created).
My conclusion when I worked through all of these while examining the PFAL class was much the same as that of the article. VP seemed to make these assertions based on a desire to support a certain doctrine without thoroughly studying the word to see if it was true throughout the Bible.
The four crucified doctrine is further undermined if you compare not just the number of people crucified, but the entire list of events in Matthew and Luke. Weirwille's logic holds that since the order of the events differs in Matthew and Luke, there must be different people involved. By that logic, the veil of the temple was torn twice.
According to Matthew 27:50 & 51, the veil of the temple was rent immediately after Jesus died.
According to Luke 23:45 & 46, the veil of the Temple was torn just before Jesus gave up the ghost.
The basis for most of VP's four crucified teaching is a similar chronological contradictin between Matthew and Luke. The simple truth is Luke's account of the crucifixion is not presented in chronological order.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Re: Disposing of Death
Although I believe that most of what VP taught about death is Biblically sound, the section about Enoch is not. Genesis does indicate that Enoch was translated in such a manner that he did not die. VP said in PFAL that if you study the Old Testament you will find that Enoch had never seen anyone die. There is no such record of Enoch in the Old Testament. What you will find if you read about Enoch in the Old Testament--Genesis 5:5-24 specifically-- is that he is one of a long list of men whose lives are summarized. In each of the other eulogies, the last phrase is "and he died". This is said of Noah, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Jared. But of Enoch it says, "
The was is absent in the original text. I think it should read, "...and he died not; for God took him."
Again, I have found that the vast majority of Bible verses support VP's belief that death is not an immediate transport to heaven. But he did have a bad habit of padding the evidence to eliminate ANY apparent contradition. And this is the heart of the matter.
On a such as broad as death, it is impossible, imho, to frame a doctrine that makes all of the Bible verses agree. There are some verses and passages that do seem to indidate that death is a one-way ticket to heavenly bliss or that human souls survive in heaven. These ideas contradict the Way's teaching, but they also contradict most of the Old Testament.
So although he twisted some Scriptures to strengthen his case, I think that in this case it's not VP, but the mainstream Church that has the "errant view of death."
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I would have to agree with this assessment. I alluded to this earlier in my reference to VP's teaching about formed, made, and created. He based that whole teaching from Genesis on an assumption that the words formed, made, and created in Isaiah 43:7 can't possibly be synonyms. Then he jumped to I Thessalonians 5:23 and made the same unsubstantiated assumption about body, soul, and spirit.
This double assumption leads to several biblically unsound conclusions including;
1)The false conclusion that the word "image" in Genesis 1:27 refers to the spirit of man which was created, rather than the soul, which was made. This is an amazing contradition of Genesis 1:26 which says God made (asah, not barah)man in his own IMAGE and likeness.
2)The erroneous definition that "create" means to bring into being form nothing and that only God can do it. It's a nice platitude, but doesn't explain Joshua 17:15 and 17:18, in which the word barah is translated "cut down" and refers to making a new path in the wilderness.
3)The conclusion that God put holy spirit on Adam and Eve. There is no biblical evidence to support this. That whole "Battle of the Senses vs Revelation Faith" mantra is built on false assumptions and leads to...
4)The false conclusion that God cannot communicate to anyone who doesn't have holy spirit in or upon them. This is contradicted by Genesis 4:9, 20:3, 31:24 among others.
5)The erroneous conclusion that there is no faith in the Old Testament. This teaching is an extension of the "Battle of the Senses" teaching and its resultant "chasm between the natural man and God" doctrine. Both arise from the double assumption in how VP related the words formed, made, created, and body, soul, and spirit. According to the PFAL book, natural men are limited to their five senses and therefore cannot have faith. Nonsense.
Anyway, this is a major problem with PFAL. These kinds of assumptions and invalid relationships between Biblical terms mushroom into interwoven doctrines that just aren't supported by the Scritpure. And it's not that hard to prove them wrong, which makes it that much more irritating that we believed it so fervently for so long.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hogwash. This is just as invalid a conclusion as "there is no faith in the Old Testament". Why can't we sort out the good from the bad, accept the fact that VP didn't handle the Scriptures honestly, and weigh the evidence for ourselves, one doctrine at at time? It seems to me this is a plea for us to completely abandon everything VP taught that upset the mainstream Church without applying the principles of honest workmanship the author espouses.
Although PFAL can accurately be described as "error upon error", there are large, valuable truths hidden in there like diamonds in the rough. Speaking in tongues. The practical value of positive believing. Jesus Chrsit is Not God. The Dead are Not Alive. All of those, although cobbled together with some suspect definitions and contrived logic, are, in my humble opinion basically sound Biblical teachings. There is a lot of nonsense in VP's teaching, but there is a lot of truth in there too. To abandon all of it without a thorough sorting out would be just as foolish as accepting all of it at face value.
And that's my two cents worth.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Actually, I think both aspects of VP's definitions of allos and heteros are used in PFAL. He starts with the distinction between same kind and different kind when he's discussing the malefactors and robbers in Matthew and Luke, but adds the other of two vs other of two or more when referring to John 19:18. I'll have to check my PFAL book and syallabus, aka THE WORD OF GOD (Happy, Mikey?) but that's how I remember it.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Okay, I'm all caught up now. Back to playing Freelancer :-)
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Jb
I reject vpw by his fruit. Look at what his ministry wrought and then judge if his doctrines are worth following.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
That's not a bad yardstick Def. But not all of VP's fruit is rotten. Lots of people got delivered from drug addiction and worse to lead productive Christian lives because of VP's ministry.
There's a lot of bad fruit on his record, but a lot of good as well. So tossing the whole basket is, in my opinion, too extreme a judgment. I know I'm mangling this analogy, but I think we should pick through the Weirwille Fruit Basket one piece at a time. :-)
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"Actually, I think both aspects of VP's definitions of allos and heteros are used in PFAL."
I thought that was another "definition" that he lifted from Bullingers "How to Enjoy the Bible".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Yes, VPW's teaching of 4 crucified with Christ was essentially lifted from Bullinger. However, VPW may have also pretended to be an authority on Greek in the process. He was not. To my knowledge the only person in the Way denomination with a respected knowledge of biblical Greek was Walter Cummins. Perhaps I am not aware of others with a knowledge of biblical Greek, but they would have been unknown to the masses? On second thought, we do have an occasional poster here, the Research Geek. Maybe he knew some Koine Greek also. But as for VPW, to the best of my knowledge, he perhaps was not up to the level of a first year Greek student.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
personalentertainr
Belle,
I get it. You don't believe anything taught by Dr. Wierwille. You aren't alone. A lot of people disagreed with him while he was alive and after he died. I, (a definite minority) however believe he was fundementally correct and consistant with his teachings and would have to say I was satisfied with his motives and conclusions.
"Truth on the lips of the towns biggest sinner is still truth" If you don't like the movie, change channels. I am of the position that copying something from someone who is quite dead (Bullinger)is a compliment.
When I teach the Bible to people I still implement many of the things taught to me in his class. Not because I don't know anything else, but because the majority of what I refer to fits.
In the first paragraph you wrote re: Disposing of Death you rattle on about the way he handled Psalms 116:15 and the entire subject of death..............Oddly enough, I Corinthians 15:26 does claim the last enemy to be destroyed is death. No matter how you wrongly divide the Word, death is an enemy.
I still hold fast to the sound doctrine I discovered while Dr. Wierwille was active in the ministry of the Way. Not because I worship him, but because of the obvious error and predisposed opinions of all the other ministries I stumble onto while listening to the radio. Compared to what VPW did...they (Dr. Straus and Chuck Swendall for instance)will most likely be the ones to hear, " I never knew thee!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Personalentertainer, let me be the first to offer this mild correction. Belle is not the author of the articles we're discussing. She saw them online and posted them in order to get feedback from the Doctrinal geeks here at the Cafe. I think we've agreed that the author is Rev John Juedes (with an associate), a famous critic of all things Weirwillian.
And, although I agree with the basic doctrine taught in PFAL about death, I have found that, as Rev Juedes states, if you thoroughly examine Weirwille's teaching, it is quite full of holes. So I would say the class' truth to error ratio is at best 50/50.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I'll put Chuck Swindoll on his worst day against vpw on his best. Did you read the actual errors thread about pfal, it's an eye opener.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
As will I, def.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
To begin, for those of you who may not already know, I worked in TWI's Way Publications Department basically, from 1979 until 1988.
I say this not to place myself as an "unlitmate" authority, but to just say, "Hey, I was 'there." personally involved, and have actual knowledge of many of the things discussed here in terms of what TWI did & didn't publish, and some of the "why's" what was & was not done.
Of course I don't know everything and didn't see everything and wasn't involved in everything. But I do know some stuff, maybe even "quite a bit."
In my post TWI days, though, I've adopted what I'll call, for the sake of communication, a "bottom line" approach to Christianity in general. One of the biggest personal changes in my post TWI years has been to look and listen to, and not just summarily dismiss, other Bible teachers. I've personally attended other churches, and even listen to Christian radio, read other authors, the whole gamut. I feel I've continued to grow and flourish in my reationship with God & our Lord JC. At least that's my intent.
That being said. I posted the above quote to help communicate my two cents worth in this discussion with thanks from JB. He said it first....
My first point is that, regardless of what or how anyone thinks of VPW, his discretions or qualities, or lack thereof; discussions like this thread are precisely what he wanted us to do. Speaking as one of the team of people who actually produced "his" published works; he told us to use his works as a starting point and go beyond him. That was his desire for ever class, every book, every teaching. That even accounts to some degree for his choices as to what topics he actually published on.
To point out and make effort to correct his errors, IMO, is more a tribute to him than a crucifiction. We did it in Way Pubs. I remember editors constantly lamenting on his grammar, misquoting scripture references, getting things backwards, etc. Whereas we respected him, wenever say his work as "perfect," God breathed, or anything else. To us VP was "one of our authors." The boss, obviously, but certainly not flawless. The editors won some and lost some editorials w/ him & his ghost writers & "main" editors through the years.
The "tribute thing" is obviously, dependant upon the position and attitude of the individual "pointer-outer."
Whereas I also highly respect Chuck Swindoll, my "bottom line approach" only allows me to place him in JB's quote above, substituting his name for VPW's and some of his "best" Biblical teachings and conclusions for those of VPW's.
Reason being that there are some things I've heard Chuck Swindoll say in interviews, teachings, books, etc. that I wouln't give the SAME plugged nickel that I wouldn't give for some things that I've heard, VP say, teach, write and even SAW him DO, as I have had the proximity to VP as mentioned above.
I'd do the same with Tony Evans, Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Jim Dobson, Florence Littauer, Tim LaHey, Sam & Geri Lang, Patrick Morley, Bill Perkins, Dr, Phil, Rick Warren & others, whose Names slip my mind right now. I've read at least one book by each of the above, and regularly take in teachings by others most Notably the senios past or the Church I'm a member of and and have attended for the past seven years.
Each of the above, I've taken pieces of their teachings and perspectives and woven them into my life as things I believe and live by. All of this is built upon and in addition to things I felt were valuable from PFAL & Vp's other works. Mostly because I was exposed to VP prior to some of the others. Some of what VP taught established for me things I'd previously heard from Billy Graham, for example.
I'm pretty sure Chuck Swindoll has read VP and done the same. Pretty much every "major" contempory Christian teacher of the day has read him or has had their staffers read him, just as VPW read others in his day & had his staff read others also. (How could he lift their works otherwise?) They have lifted VP also.
Bottom line ALL of them/US have lifted and plaguarize(sp) GOD, as HE is the SINGLE source of all wisdom & knowledge. Nobody has it all and EVERYBODY (myself included) is WRONG about SOMEthing.
Seeing as VP is now DEAD, why can we not let whatever evil intent he da DIE with him? NO, I'm not saying this because I luuuuuved VP. Actually I'm not sure I've ever even said I loved, him. I may have mentioned loving him in the same sense that I love ANYone who EVER had the grace in their heart to teach me ANYthing. But in the worshipful sense that I've seen & heard others say they loved him, Nope.
Didn't hate him either. I was hurt deeply by the "results" of his "ministry" also, more deeply and to a wider degree than most. Bottom line is that God still says a lot of things I should do concerning those who have wronged me that are more for MY benefit than anything else.
Sometimes I've read a book that I only got ONE thing out of, bottom line, I benefited THAT much from reading it.
Bottom line, I'm always more concerned for those of us who are alive today and what we do now and where we're going now that I am about who's dead, where we were and where we went.
I understand the point of Swindoll on his worst day against vpw on his best, in terms of how overall BAD VP's life vs. how good Swindoll's life & collective works may be in comparision.
BUT. I also agree with the earlier post that thread's like this may do more harm than good. I agree in the sense that taking a negative, anti approach to ANYTHING does more harm than good, always.
Persoanlly, I think the worst of the deceptive deceptions of TWI was how it isolated itself from the rest of the body of Christ, as if they were all LOST and 'we' were the ONLY ones found. I fought against that in all of my ten years as staff of TWI. I tried to bring a world class quality to my piece of what we did in terms of publications work, as did others. We, collectively, the writers & editors, artists & designers, research staff, etc. were, VPW the author, the SAME as it is with Swindoll, Graham, Dobson & others.
In my church, there is a research team who compiles the facts figures, and provides the scriptural references, etc. that our senior pastor presents four times per weekend.
One of the biggest things & took from my association was this: If you think Bill Clinton was the first US president to leave a sperm stain from doing an intern in the oval office... If you think there are no other pastors "doin' their congregants... no other "great teachers, MOG's lifting the works of others, no other Emron or Martha Stewart type C.E.O. getting over RIGHT now...or no other ministers using "God's Word" soley to build kingdoms and gain riches for themselves. RIGHT NOW, eave as you read this.
You're naieve. TWI was NO different than the garden variety corruption that exists RIGHT now, basically everywhere. My current "pastor" said one of THE most hurtful, least insightful, most devastating things to me anyone could have possibly said. It was at the ZENITH, the APEX of the WORST time in my recent marriage that fell apart. At the time when I MOST needed his BEST he showed me his WORST.
I couldn't bring myself to speak to him personally for the better part of a year and fight the same thoughts every time I've spoken to him since. I realize though that when I do that I'm doing so out of the HURT I felt at his hand. I'm also ignoring God's healing touch at the same time I allow those thoughts to take the forefront in my mind.
SOME, if not most of the venom-spewing towards Vp, etc. is the same, speaking out of hurt. I am well acquainted with pain & know it VERY well when I see it. Please do not allow your pain to rob you of God's abundant blessings. James 1:1 - 5:20
Edited by hcwalker58Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Another excellent post from HCW, I wonder if we ever met while I was an innie.
Hate has no place in the believer's heart and I try not to harbor any.
That said, when I left TWI, I knew I would have to chuck all their stuff eventually. About two years after I got married, I did throw everything out.
Over time, I learned about regular Christianity. I saw places where vpw and twi were wrong and changed my beliefs. I did let the word speak for itself and saw what it had to say.
Part of that growth was to accept the new Bibles and put away my KJV. I don't reject it, instead I look at the modern versions and see the word more clearly.
I have learned that Christianity is not a monolith and that twi never was either. Their plunge into legalism is sad, but predictable. It happens to every sect.
HCW, maybe at the root, discussions were encouraged, but on the field, we were told to stay in lock step with the MOGFAT. Studies that arrived at different results were rejected and people were told to do it again until you came into agreement with vpw.
That lack of true research made us a cult. We were under controls of life, thought and action. We were told to never question our leaders and if we had heard that people were editing or questioning vpw's writings, we would have been horrified.
As for the men who have read vpw, I would doubt it, but that's opinion only. In my experience, most people never heard of our ministry and often confuse it with the Living Bible of the 1970s. Despite all our protestations, we were barely a blip on Christendom, and made no impacts.
The splinter groups are hardly even noted in cult books or by Christian media. Their infintestimal followings (relatively speaking) are like specks of sand.
Working in the media, I would have known if they were making waves. The media loves the cults and sects.
Anyway, it is good to have you here and look forward to more insights.
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.