What is "eternal life per se"? If eternal life could be received, whether by the law or by faith, it's still eternal life. Jesus told his apostles they would receive not only eternal life but special rewards. This was before his crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and the day of Pentecost. Please read Matthew 19:27-29.
quote:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
So again it seems to me that, to paraphrase VP, if it's available, it's available. Wierwille wrote in PFAL chapter nineteen that the new birth wasn't available and therefore, all those who lived before Penetecost didn't have eternal life, thereby equating eternal life with being born again. This is an erroneous teaching because eternal life was available before the "new birth", before the day of Pentecost.
And before you write it off based on the conditions by which it was received, you should note that not every reference in the Gospels says it was "conditional" or received only by the law. Most of the reference to eternal life in the gospel of John say the opposite.
quote:John 3:14-16
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 4:10-14
10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
11 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water?
12 Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?
13 Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
John 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
John 6:27
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
John 6:38-40
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:47-54
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 10:27 & 28
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
You get the point. The majority of the verses in the Gospels that mention eternal or everlasting life (aionios zoe) are in John. And most of these indicate that it was something Jesus gave to those who believed on him. The conflict between this and the works based standard set in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is a matter for another discussion perhaps, but what is abundantly clear to me is the fact that Jesus spoke of everlasting life as a present reality during his ministry, not something available only in the future. Therefore, Dr. Wierwille's statement is a contradiction of the Scriptures.
Read the Gospels with the understanding that they are historical documents. They record what Jesus Christ spoke to Israel. Read what he told them and put yourself in the shoes of those to whom he spoke. He didn't say, "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood might one day have eternal life" (Of course since Jesus spoke Aramaic, he didn't actually say "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath have eternal life". But you get the point)
Jesus Christ told those people eternal life was something they could receive, not hope for. Whether they received it by works, as Matthew, Mark, and Luke record, or by faith, as John wrote, they could still receive it in their lifetime. Jesus preached that those who followed him could have eternal life right then. He told the robber just before he died on the cross that he would be with him in Paradise. How could that man inherit something that wouldn't be available until after Pentecost when he didn't live to see it?
quote:Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Wierwille wrote,
quote:"No one, absolutely no one, was born again before the day of Pentecost. Everyone until that time was just body and soul, without eternal life."
You see, if we accept VP's statement in PFAL as true, we have to assume that the man on the cross did not and will not receive eternal life despite the fact that Jesus told him in no uncertain terms that he would be with him in paradise. The only way to accept both Dr. Wierwille's statement and Jesus' promise as true is to say that someone can be with Jesus in paradise yet not have eternal life. Personally, I think that's a very shaky position to take.
Jerry: I tend to believe Wierwille had it right with that misplaced comma in Luke 23. As for the rest, I don't think "shall have" is the same as "have now". I still think this is a matter of interpretation, not an indisputable actual error.
Zix, even if you agree with VP on the punctuation, you have to deal with the fact that that man died with a promise from Jesus that he would be with him in Paradise. The man died knowing that he would be with Christ in the new heaven and new earth.
Just as thousands of born-again Christians have died with the same hope. So how do you figure that what he received is not eternal life?
JerryB
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on March 18, 2003 at 18:19.]
Maybe where we're not connecting is on our understanding of the term "eternal life". I am equating Jesus' many public statements about how to receive eternal life with his emphatic promise to the robber that he would surely be with him in Paradise. In my mind, that means the man received the promise of eternal life. The fact that he hasn't received the fulfilment yet doesn't make him any different from any post-Pentecost believer who has died and is awaiting the Return. Those believers will get the fulfilment of the promise earlier, but in the end, both them and the repentant robber will be in the same place with the same Lord.
So, to use your analogy, neither the repentant robber nor Ananias and Sapphira have been paid yet. So what's the difference?
You've made repeated references to an error in which Wierwille states "isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture..." or something close to it after he goes over the whole Bathsheba affair. You've cited this as an error because Wierwille doesn't actually cite a single scripture in the preceding paragraphs.
I think I've resolved this error, however, and would like to ask you to reconsider your position: When Wierwille writes "Isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture," he is not referring to any verses in II Samuel. He is referring to II Timothy 3:16.
What do you think? (You need the book in front of you to sort this one out).
The error list is now at 33. It might be higher if I had more time, but I don't. I did finally add the JCING errors cited above, and the Judas Iscariot contradiction. I also added a brief summary of the discussion in which Mike attempted to explain error #1.
I've finally had a chance to look at this "eternal life" discussion you guys have been having (above). I clearly see what Jerry is saying. I do not clearly see what Zixar and WordWolf are saying.
Wierwille wrote that those who lived before Pentecost did not have the "new birth" spirit and therefore did not have "eternal life." The error is in equating those two terms. One could have eternal life prior to Pentecost. Jerry's scriptural quotes establish that. Further, there is no substantive difference between the fact that eternal life was promised but not manifested then, and promised but not manifested today.
The only thing I'll ask Jerry to address is this: can Wierwillites claim that VPW's use of "without eternal life" was an example of metonymy - with eternal life being put for "the new birth spirit," emphasizing that the eternal life we have is a rock solid and unretractable promise as opposed to a conditional promise? (The promise on the cross would be the exception only because of the circumstances: Jesus knew the robber was not going anywhere).
If that is the case, the error goes from actual to interpretational.
You've made repeated references to an error in which Wierwille states "isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture..." or something close to it after he goes over the whole Bathsheba affair. You've cited this as an error because Wierwille doesn't actually cite a single scripture in the preceding paragraphs.
I think I've resolved this error, however, and would like to ask you to reconsider your position: When Wierwille writes "Isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture," he is not referring to any verses in II Samuel. He is referring to II Timothy 3:16.
What do you think? (You need the book in front of you to sort this one out).
Hey Raf, I think you've got a point. He summarized II Tim 3:16 at the beginning of the paragraph. Okay, let's strike that one.
I'll have to give the metonymy question some thought after my thinker gets some sleep.
Actually, on further reflection, I think it's synecdoche and not metonymy. I could be wrong on either point, but the essence of what I'm saying is that the part (eternal life) is being put for the whole (new birth spirit).
By the way, WordWolf, what's going on? You're posting in the daytime! :)-->
Following seem to me to be apparent errors, however, I will need help (lots) to nail them down…
Session 12 (and I don’t still have a book, relying on memory).
I Cor. 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts….
We are told to scratch out gifts because it is in italics. And it is true there is no Greek word here for it. However…
The last verse: But covet earnestly the best gifts (NOT in italics)…
Next to the last verse: Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
If it is a given that all who are born again have nine manifestations (no more, no less) then why am I to covet the best ones if I already have them???? And since apostles, etc., is also included in the list am I also an apostle?
I also remember being taught that the diversities of tongues of 12:28 meant one person speaking several languages. Problem is the “divers kinds of tongues” of verse 10 is the same as verse 28 (genos).
Also: Verse 11: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
VP wants to say as he (the man) wills to believe. What if I said, “All the feeding was done by the same owner, feeding each cat his own as he will”. As each cat believed to be fed? Noooooooooooo….as the owner fed them. Also the word “severally” is idios, and “dividing” is used once elsewhere as in to give out an inheritance.
Also: There are three “gift” ministries listed, not five. But nine manifestations, but that is a complete list. Huh????? How about….
Romans 12:4-8
For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Having then GIFTS (not in italics) differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether PROPHESY, let us PROPHESY according to the proportion of faith;
Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching;
Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.
There is NO WAY to get this section to jibe with session 12. Evidently VP needed non-gift and gift persons to set up his ‘kingdom” (ie leadership structure, ie then he could be the TEACHER, MOG, etc). I am sorry, if I’m going to go with “gift ministries” I have to say there are seven. Romans lists seven. But we all have them. But do we all have all seven? (LOL). No doubt this is only the tip of the iceburg for session 12……..
Welcome to the thread, Ferbie. You should come by more often.
If you have the time, go through the previous pages (yikes) and/or through The Official Actual Errors List for an explanation of how I hoped this thread would work.
I believe you will agree with me that the errors you've outlined are "interpretational," which is to say they are subject to long and tedious arguments after which two reasonable people may still disagree.
Is Wierwille wrong about those things? Maybe. Can a good, honest argument be made that he is right? I think so. Do you?
I dunno. How about we start with as he (the man) wills (to believe)? The supposition was the pronoun refers to the nearest noun. Is that actually true? Does it actually make sense gramatically? In this verse the noun (Spirit) is taking the action. It divides severally. As WHO wills? There seems to be a noun doing the acting, and a noun being acted upon. The giver or the receiver? The noun taking the action, or the noun receiving? The owner fed the cats, giving each to them their own, as he wills. “He wills.” Which is it, the cats or the owner? To me, to say as the cats will is plain weird. But I’m not an English or Greek scholar. Just a dumb Okie. And, to me this issue isn’t interpretation. It is either or. Help me out here, Jerry B. I KNOW if you will read my post and think about it, you will see what I’m saying.
I guess my point is, gramatical rules aren't interpretive (to the best of my knowledge). If they are, then there's no point in language. It is all ambiguous (sp?) and a complete waste of time. (Can't make any assertions because the medium negates that possibility because it is lacking in the capibility to be anything else because it is inherently.....indefinite). Sigh.
The principle that a pronoun referst to the nearest antecedent noun is worth investigating. I've never given it too much thought, but I'll bet good money that you're right: it's an actual error.
You have no problem understanding which pronoun refers to which antecedent, but it's obvious that it's not the closest possible noun except for "they" and "police".
Wierwille was wrong. (edit: Wrong about the rule, not necessarily about the antecedence in that verse. It's theoretically possible it is as he said. But his rule is not a true rule.)
[This message was edited by Zixar on April 03, 2003 at 20:44.]
Hi Raf. And BTW thank you for your gracious anticedent remarks. I looked that word up in the dictionary and I now know what it means. I can even spell it. Interesting in the definition: “ The word, phrase, or clause to which a relative pronoun refers.” So we are NOT only talking nouns, folks, we are talking whole phrases and clauses. My Gawd, the things we learn. Raf, you gave me the answer. Thank you. I fought with that all day.
Yep. I think this is a bonifide error. Mistake. Shouldn't have happened. But, probably not an accident. But, that is interpretive (sorry, couldn't help it).
Okay, so we need to do a couple of things here to establish this as an actual error (and I believe at this point that it is):
First, we need the exact quote from Wierwille. It should be in Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, the chapter on I Corinthians 12. If it's not there, we can try the chapter on John 1 in Jesus Christ is Not God (or the appendix on antanaclasis). Point is, if you can find the quote, you can't claim the error.
Second, we need to determine that the statement is as absolute as we're discussing. If Wierwille leaves any other possible interpretation of his words, that other possible interpretation MUST be considered. In other words, if his statement is conditional, or if it is written in a way that the principle applies in some cases but not in others, then it's not an actual error. It's a statement that is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
Finally, we need examples from the Bible and from PFAL itself that directly contradict the statement. That should be real, real easy.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Jbarrax
Wordwolf.
What is "eternal life per se"? If eternal life could be received, whether by the law or by faith, it's still eternal life. Jesus told his apostles they would receive not only eternal life but special rewards. This was before his crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and the day of Pentecost. Please read Matthew 19:27-29.
So again it seems to me that, to paraphrase VP, if it's available, it's available. Wierwille wrote in PFAL chapter nineteen that the new birth wasn't available and therefore, all those who lived before Penetecost didn't have eternal life, thereby equating eternal life with being born again. This is an erroneous teaching because eternal life was available before the "new birth", before the day of Pentecost.
And before you write it off based on the conditions by which it was received, you should note that not every reference in the Gospels says it was "conditional" or received only by the law. Most of the reference to eternal life in the gospel of John say the opposite.
You get the point. The majority of the verses in the Gospels that mention eternal or everlasting life (aionios zoe) are in John. And most of these indicate that it was something Jesus gave to those who believed on him. The conflict between this and the works based standard set in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is a matter for another discussion perhaps, but what is abundantly clear to me is the fact that Jesus spoke of everlasting life as a present reality during his ministry, not something available only in the future. Therefore, Dr. Wierwille's statement is a contradiction of the Scriptures.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm thinking it's largely a matter of semantics-
like being DESIGNATED heir versus receiving
your inheritance. (See the end of Hebrews 1.)
CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
WW, I think you're missing the point.
Read the Gospels with the understanding that they are historical documents. They record what Jesus Christ spoke to Israel. Read what he told them and put yourself in the shoes of those to whom he spoke. He didn't say, "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood might one day have eternal life" (Of course since Jesus spoke Aramaic, he didn't actually say "Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath have eternal life". But you get the point)
Jesus Christ told those people eternal life was something they could receive, not hope for. Whether they received it by works, as Matthew, Mark, and Luke record, or by faith, as John wrote, they could still receive it in their lifetime. Jesus preached that those who followed him could have eternal life right then. He told the robber just before he died on the cross that he would be with him in Paradise. How could that man inherit something that wouldn't be available until after Pentecost when he didn't live to see it?
Wierwille wrote,
You see, if we accept VP's statement in PFAL as true, we have to assume that the man on the cross did not and will not receive eternal life despite the fact that Jesus told him in no uncertain terms that he would be with him in paradise. The only way to accept both Dr. Wierwille's statement and Jesus' promise as true is to say that someone can be with Jesus in paradise yet not have eternal life. Personally, I think that's a very shaky position to take.
Peace
JerryB
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Jerry: I think your thesis is only valid if everyone who will wind up with eternal life is already predestined to have it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Zix,I'm not following you. How does predestination figure in the verses in Luke 23:43 or Matthew 19:16&17?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Jerry: I tend to believe Wierwille had it right with that misplaced comma in Luke 23. As for the rest, I don't think "shall have" is the same as "have now". I still think this is a matter of interpretation, not an indisputable actual error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Zix, even if you agree with VP on the punctuation, you have to deal with the fact that that man died with a promise from Jesus that he would be with him in Paradise. The man died knowing that he would be with Christ in the new heaven and new earth.
Just as thousands of born-again Christians have died with the same hope. So how do you figure that what he received is not eternal life?
JerryB
[This message was edited by Jbarrax on March 18, 2003 at 18:19.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
My employer tells me he'll pay me every two weeks, but I can't actually spend the money until it's in the bank.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make.
CLFOBS Ministries. Join NOW!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Zix & WW
Maybe where we're not connecting is on our understanding of the term "eternal life". I am equating Jesus' many public statements about how to receive eternal life with his emphatic promise to the robber that he would surely be with him in Paradise. In my mind, that means the man received the promise of eternal life. The fact that he hasn't received the fulfilment yet doesn't make him any different from any post-Pentecost believer who has died and is awaiting the Return. Those believers will get the fulfilment of the promise earlier, but in the end, both them and the repentant robber will be in the same place with the same Lord.
So, to use your analogy, neither the repentant robber nor Ananias and Sapphira have been paid yet. So what's the difference?
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Changing the subject (without comment):
Jerry,
You've made repeated references to an error in which Wierwille states "isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture..." or something close to it after he goes over the whole Bathsheba affair. You've cited this as an error because Wierwille doesn't actually cite a single scripture in the preceding paragraphs.
I think I've resolved this error, however, and would like to ask you to reconsider your position: When Wierwille writes "Isn't that a wonderful verse of scripture," he is not referring to any verses in II Samuel. He is referring to II Timothy 3:16.
What do you think? (You need the book in front of you to sort this one out).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The error list is now at 33. It might be higher if I had more time, but I don't. I did finally add the JCING errors cited above, and the Judas Iscariot contradiction. I also added a brief summary of the discussion in which Mike attempted to explain error #1.
Actual Errors in PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've finally had a chance to look at this "eternal life" discussion you guys have been having (above). I clearly see what Jerry is saying. I do not clearly see what Zixar and WordWolf are saying.
Wierwille wrote that those who lived before Pentecost did not have the "new birth" spirit and therefore did not have "eternal life." The error is in equating those two terms. One could have eternal life prior to Pentecost. Jerry's scriptural quotes establish that. Further, there is no substantive difference between the fact that eternal life was promised but not manifested then, and promised but not manifested today.
The only thing I'll ask Jerry to address is this: can Wierwillites claim that VPW's use of "without eternal life" was an example of metonymy - with eternal life being put for "the new birth spirit," emphasizing that the eternal life we have is a rock solid and unretractable promise as opposed to a conditional promise? (The promise on the cross would be the exception only because of the circumstances: Jesus knew the robber was not going anywhere).
If that is the case, the error goes from actual to interpretational.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hey Raf, I think you've got a point. He summarized II Tim 3:16 at the beginning of the paragraph. Okay, let's strike that one.
I'll have to give the metonymy question some thought after my thinker gets some sleep.
Peace
JerryB
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, I can see where you were going now.
I think the "metonymy" thing will probably not
be a major issue for a few reasons. It's
technical. It won't hold interest in many
people, and some of those won't be able to
fully understand it. So, either side, if
cleverly-phrased, could "convince" most people
who WANTED to believe in it.
It is on that principle that the Research Dept
got an easy ride for a LONG time.
Of course, feel free to pursue this-I just
wanted to point that out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, on further reflection, I think it's synecdoche and not metonymy. I could be wrong on either point, but the essence of what I'm saying is that the part (eternal life) is being put for the whole (new birth spirit).
By the way, WordWolf, what's going on? You're posting in the daytime!
:)-->
Throwing off my clock is what you're doing.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ferbie
Following seem to me to be apparent errors, however, I will need help (lots) to nail them down…
Session 12 (and I don’t still have a book, relying on memory).
I Cor. 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts….
We are told to scratch out gifts because it is in italics. And it is true there is no Greek word here for it. However…
The last verse: But covet earnestly the best gifts (NOT in italics)…
Next to the last verse: Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
If it is a given that all who are born again have nine manifestations (no more, no less) then why am I to covet the best ones if I already have them???? And since apostles, etc., is also included in the list am I also an apostle?
I also remember being taught that the diversities of tongues of 12:28 meant one person speaking several languages. Problem is the “divers kinds of tongues” of verse 10 is the same as verse 28 (genos).
Also: Verse 11: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
VP wants to say as he (the man) wills to believe. What if I said, “All the feeding was done by the same owner, feeding each cat his own as he will”. As each cat believed to be fed? Noooooooooooo….as the owner fed them. Also the word “severally” is idios, and “dividing” is used once elsewhere as in to give out an inheritance.
Also: There are three “gift” ministries listed, not five. But nine manifestations, but that is a complete list. Huh????? How about….
Romans 12:4-8
For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Having then GIFTS (not in italics) differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether PROPHESY, let us PROPHESY according to the proportion of faith;
Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching;
Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.
There is NO WAY to get this section to jibe with session 12. Evidently VP needed non-gift and gift persons to set up his ‘kingdom” (ie leadership structure, ie then he could be the TEACHER, MOG, etc). I am sorry, if I’m going to go with “gift ministries” I have to say there are seven. Romans lists seven. But we all have them. But do we all have all seven? (LOL). No doubt this is only the tip of the iceburg for session 12……..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Welcome to the thread, Ferbie. You should come by more often.
If you have the time, go through the previous pages (yikes) and/or through The Official Actual Errors List for an explanation of how I hoped this thread would work.
I believe you will agree with me that the errors you've outlined are "interpretational," which is to say they are subject to long and tedious arguments after which two reasonable people may still disagree.
Is Wierwille wrong about those things? Maybe. Can a good, honest argument be made that he is right? I think so. Do you?
But I do appreciate the contribution.
Does anyone disagree with me on this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ferbie
I dunno. How about we start with as he (the man) wills (to believe)? The supposition was the pronoun refers to the nearest noun. Is that actually true? Does it actually make sense gramatically? In this verse the noun (Spirit) is taking the action. It divides severally. As WHO wills? There seems to be a noun doing the acting, and a noun being acted upon. The giver or the receiver? The noun taking the action, or the noun receiving? The owner fed the cats, giving each to them their own, as he wills. “He wills.” Which is it, the cats or the owner? To me, to say as the cats will is plain weird. But I’m not an English or Greek scholar. Just a dumb Okie. And, to me this issue isn’t interpretation. It is either or. Help me out here, Jerry B. I KNOW if you will read my post and think about it, you will see what I’m saying.
I guess my point is, gramatical rules aren't interpretive (to the best of my knowledge). If they are, then there's no point in language. It is all ambiguous (sp?) and a complete waste of time. (Can't make any assertions because the medium negates that possibility because it is lacking in the capibility to be anything else because it is inherently.....indefinite). Sigh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The principle that a pronoun referst to the nearest antecedent noun is worth investigating. I've never given it too much thought, but I'll bet good money that you're right: it's an actual error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rafael: I found a good example on the Net.
Consider the following sentences:
You have no problem understanding which pronoun refers to which antecedent, but it's obvious that it's not the closest possible noun except for "they" and "police".
Wierwille was wrong. (edit: Wrong about the rule, not necessarily about the antecedence in that verse. It's theoretically possible it is as he said. But his rule is not a true rule.)
[This message was edited by Zixar on April 03, 2003 at 20:44.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ferbie
Hi Raf. And BTW thank you for your gracious anticedent remarks. I looked that word up in the dictionary and I now know what it means. I can even spell it. Interesting in the definition: “ The word, phrase, or clause to which a relative pronoun refers.” So we are NOT only talking nouns, folks, we are talking whole phrases and clauses. My Gawd, the things we learn. Raf, you gave me the answer. Thank you. I fought with that all day.
Yep. I think this is a bonifide error. Mistake. Shouldn't have happened. But, probably not an accident. But, that is interpretive (sorry, couldn't help it).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ferbie
A-n-t-e-c-e-d-e-n-t. I said I could spell it. WRONG!!!!.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Okay, so we need to do a couple of things here to establish this as an actual error (and I believe at this point that it is):
First, we need the exact quote from Wierwille. It should be in Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, the chapter on I Corinthians 12. If it's not there, we can try the chapter on John 1 in Jesus Christ is Not God (or the appendix on antanaclasis). Point is, if you can find the quote, you can't claim the error.
Second, we need to determine that the statement is as absolute as we're discussing. If Wierwille leaves any other possible interpretation of his words, that other possible interpretation MUST be considered. In other words, if his statement is conditional, or if it is written in a way that the principle applies in some cases but not in others, then it's not an actual error. It's a statement that is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.
Finally, we need examples from the Bible and from PFAL itself that directly contradict the statement. That should be real, real easy.
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.