Regardless of where you stand on dispensationalism (administrations), I think we can all agree that the words of Jesus Christ are worth studying if we are going to call ourselves Christians. I mean, duhhhhh. :)-->
"As for Athletes of the Spirit: Is there any written account of Wierwille's doctrine, where the writing/editing/publication was overseen by Wierwille?"
Frpm what I heard in posts past re: Wierwille's response to "Athletes of the Spirit" production by dancing boy Loy, I've heard that he was quite disgusted with Craig's involvement with the whole thing. (yet nobody even payed attention to Vic, further contributing to his "Nobody loves/respects me/the Word anymore!!" whining to Chris G.) Probably had something to do with Craig not paying enough attention to "the Word".
Hey! Wow! Victor got something right for a change. :D-->
Garth, Rafael asked about the doctrine, not the show.
Chapter 13 of Karl's book, The Cult That Snapped, discusses Martindale's teaching in some detail. As he records, Wierwille put his stamp of approval on it and Walter Cummins offered some rather feeble support for it.
I don't remember exactly when that teaching came out but I do remember that Wierwille's and Cummins' support of it was what finally convinced me that TWI cared little about "the integrity and accuracy of God's Word."
The doctrine for Athletes of the Spirit, as *I* remember it came out in 1980. I was living in a branch way home and was about to go WOW (first year out...big outreach cities to go to, very exciting time..knew Oak then) and I believe it was a Sunday Night tape. I believe..although can't swear on a stack of bibles that VP spoke with his seal of approval. But what I remember is that it was said that the warfare analogies were wrong and were really athletic terms instead.
It seems from the way I remember it, Rev Cummins went to Europe somewhere and studied microfiche films of old manuscripts of the Bible and that is where he realized the error. I don't know how the armour of God was explained..I forget..but heck..been a couple of years.
Still working on the passage of Paul...take out VP's subjective interpretation (and it was subjective as no research, as far as I can remember was offered) of being bound with the spirit and the chapters/context seems to contradict itself.
Oh for the record..in case in comes up...that WOW year, 1980-1981, spring of that 1981 while still on the WOW field...another Sunday Night Tape where LCM did the believing images of Victory thing..first time I had heard it.
I don't have documentation..just remember the first time I heard these doctrines introduced, but if there was someone with a still existent and extensive tape library...
Rafe, don't tell me you don't have a copy of my book open to Page 167, "The 'Master Student'."
I used to have Craig's original "Athletes of the Spirit" tapes, and then I lost the first one but still had the crucial second. I listened to it back in 1991 or so and transcribed and started analyzing it in writing. This became Chapter 13 of my humble book (which I wish I'd titled "Cult and Consequence").
If you don't have a copy, I could send you an e-mail with the relevant passages, if I knew your e-mail address. Mine is well-known, karl@ex-way.com, thank you very much Mr. Irishman with the Blue Cup full of Bass.
"Athletes of the imagination" is what I called the 10 pages I devoted to this examination of Martindale's imaginative brain. This athletes doctrine was made up out of whole cloth, it was manufactured from scratch in VP's head. Then Martindale unwisely took off with it, coerced Cummins into supporting it, and gave the teaching of his life, a tremendously inspiring teaching but dead wrong, a dreadful butchery of Ephesians 6, which contains not one athletic metaphor except, arguably, "wrestle."
Garth! How ya doin, old pal? Is this what it takes to bring the likes of you out of hiding? But where is Walker? And George Aar, you don't post enough, you're too smart to be so quiet.
By the way, the real history is that VP first taught "athletes of the spirit" in 1971 in the Way Woods. This teaching was not recorded, and would have been little noted and long forgotten if one of the people in the audience hadn't been Craig Martindale.
Craig loved this idea, and he remembered it for 9 years, he worked it and developed it, and finally he gave this teaching that appeared to nail it, to "document" once and for all that there were NO military metaphors in the epistles, not one, not even in Ephesians 6. What a load of crap.
Next day, VP and Craig and Walter Cummins call the Corps together and turn on the recording equipment to discuss the stupid teaching Craig gave last night and to endorse its every assertion. Wierwille totally believes it. He's 5 years away from being dead, so he's not senile, he's just nuts. He couldn't care less what the Bible really says. All he cares about is making a splash with a new interpretation, something racy and sexy, something that's never been tried before. "New light" to our generation, yeah, right, thank you very much "Doctor" Wierwille.
Just remember, the word "athletes" appears nowhere in the Bible. The word "slave," doulos (Oakspear knows how to spell it) occurs something like 150 times in the New Testament. If you're looking for a "metaphor," Mr. Martindale, you might want to start with "slave." I know, I know, it's just not as sexy.
I recall that Wierwille did a teaching. I recall that Martindale ran with it. What I did not recall is whether any form of Wierwille's original teaching survived in written form. The answer appears to be no. Therefore, as much as I would include "athletes of the spirit" as an actual error, it is not exactly what I'm getting at with this thread.
maybe i am having selective amnesia, but didn't VPW say that the life was in the sperm of the man and hence forth that is what gives life to the egg of the women? i don't remember the comments of white cells or red cells.....but sperm cells are alive...they can become dead and without flagellation henceforth they can no longer have motility and cannot impregnate the egg. i do not believe eggs are alive or dead. they are eggs...1/2 of dna chromasomes are from the female, 1/2 from the male.
pt. 10 at the start of this thread...altho the gospels were written after the resurrection, they were about Jesus' life; his birth-lineage-actions-death. i do believe they were written to the Israelites to prove that He was the Messiah...for believers' this is a no brainer. it is for our learning.
do i agree with everything in PFAL? of course not. i agree that lama is a question why? it makes sense. if JC suffered and was tempted in all things...he would be tempted to believe that God deserted him...don't we in times of extreme trial question the same. even for a quick second...then we grab our mind back and know "I will never leave you or forsake you".
i don't believe cancer is devil spirit possession...as my (then) 12 y.o. son had it...i believe it is mutations of genes...environmental...dna....what have u. i was protected from hearing this during the Defeating the Adv. class....i truly did not hear this at all.......amazing! since my son was sick at the time.....God works in mysterious ways.
Personally, I thank God for knowledge of HIs mighty word....yes, I learned this at the Way...no I do not belong anymore...yes there are errors in the classes...there are errors in biblical translations. does this mean i should throw out the word and God also...NO NO a thousand times NO....God is not a man that he should lie...but men make mistakes, they make real errors and they do lie.....do not throw out truth because of bitterness. discern.
Oh yeah wasn't something mentioned about Job's believing started to be fearful, which is why all the trouble started with him? He started worrying about his family or something.
"Is this what it takes to bring the likes of you out of hiding?"
??? Me in hiding? You ask some of the folks around here, and they'll tell you that for some reason, they just can't get rid of me. :D--> Besides, I thought you were one of those who have had it up to here in exWayland, and have moved on to bigger and better things.
Where is Walker? You mean Howard Walker? K.I.S.S.? I haven't seen that dude around in a LONG time; ever since the Trashnet days. And I remember him pretty much saying that he had it up to here with hashing over things Way.
Hi Hope and Garth. Walker is a hilarious guy who posts with a logo of a cow skull. Once you get to know him he's quite a treasure.
Hey QQ, a little bird told me you're actually Satori. Ha! Good to see you too. What happened to that other guy? I heard he bought a Lexus and a yacht and a house in the Caribbean. With OUR abundant sharing.
How's this for your list, Rafe? VP insisted that "faith" was an inaccurate translation of the word "pistis." This is more than a matter of opinion; it's a blatant error. Every Greek linguist in the world will tell you that pistis is faith and faith is pistis. VP had a problem with "faith," and then he made it our problem.
As John Juedes has said, "pistis" should no more be translated "believing" than "agape" should be translated "loving" or "elpis" should be translated "hoping." Pistis is a common noun, not a gerund. "Believing" is a gerund. It is NOT an accurate translation of "pistis."
Boy, you get me started and I just can't shut up.
Cheers to all,
Karl
P.S. Hey, how come nobody's mentioned the four crucified with Christ? Too many people still believe it? What saith Zixar?
quote:...altho the gospels were written after the resurrection, they were about Jesus' life; his birth-lineage-actions-death. i do believe they were written to the Israelites to prove that He was the Messiah...for believers' this is a no brainer. it is for our learning.
It's not a "no-brainer". I think you'll find that there are differences of opinion about this among "believers", if by that you mean Christians. Your position could be correct, but what's your basis for it? It's just as logical to believe that the Gospels were written to the church so that we could know about the earthly life of the savior, read his actual words, see what he accomplished before he was "taken up".
As far as anything being "for our learning": that flies only if you accept dispensationalism, and even then if you accept that "for our learning" necessarily precludes being "to us" as well.
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
P.S. Hey, how come nobody's mentioned the four crucified with Christ? Too many people still believe it?
I don't think that four crucified would fall under the guidelines that Rafael set for this thread (not that we've all been following the "rules"). More of an interpretation isssue than a facts issue.
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
pt. 10 at the start of this thread...altho the gospels were written after the resurrection, they were about Jesus' life; his birth-lineage-actions-death. i do believe they were written to the Israelites to prove that He was the Messiah...for believers' this is a no brainer. it is for our learning.
...
Wierwille writes:
quote:To whom were the gospels addressed? To a period before or after Pentecost?
Piece of cake. Since they were written after Pentecost, they are ADDRESSED TO a period after Pentecost.
Had Wierwille written "the gospels are ABOUT a period before Pentecost," he would be correct. However, he did not say ABOUT, he said TO. And God has a porpoise for everything He says, where he says it how he says it, etc etc etc.
Further, is it correct to say they are addressed solely to Israel or Gentiles?
quote:Luke 1:1-4
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Luke may be ABOUT a period before Pentecost, but there is no question whatsoever that it is written TO and FOR practicing Christians. It is an effort to separate the truth of the gospel of Christ apart from the lies that were being spread by the early church heretics (people like the Gnostics, for example).
So, at the very least, Luke is written TO the church. Therefore, Wierwille's statement that it is written to Israel or the Gentiles, but "never to the church of God" is false, according to Luke 1:1-4.
I therefore stand by my statement.
I believe Jesus was simply quoting Psalm 22. There are references to Psalm 22 all over the accounts of the crucifixion. There's no reason to believe he wasn't calling attention to the Psalm in the midst of his suffering. I don't think he was questioning God's presence at all. Expressing pain? Maybe. But doubt? Not at all.
Four crucified is a matter of interpretation, not "actual error." You may not believe it, but it's an interesting argument to say the least.
Sirguessalot: Stop bothering me. I have a right to my opinion and a right to express it :D-->
Hope you catch the joke there, sir.
Faith, faith, faith. Actual error, or an error of interpretation? As a non-master of Greek, I don't know what to say. I'll leave that to the expertise of others. My common sense tells me that "faith" is a noun, and that "believing" is the nominative form of a verb. Is that what a gerund is? I forgot all those meanings as soon as the final exams were over.
I will say this, Karl: any criticism that uses the word "gerund" is an interpretation error, not an actual error. Remember, these are my rules, I make 'em up. BAAAAhahahahahaha.
Okay, seriously:
Wierwille's absurdity becomes very easy to refute once you substitute the word "pistis" for the translated words in his argument. So, here it is, the gospel according to Victor Paul Wierwille:
Before Pentecost, it was not available for people to have pistis, because pistis did not come until Jesus Christ came to make it available. They could have pistis, but they could not have pistis. So whenever you read the word pistis before Pentecost, it's pistis, but when it's after Pentecost, it's pistis.
Got that?
I don't agree with Wierwille's distinction between "faith" and "believing." But it IS an interpretation of the statement in Galatians: "before faith came." I think it's an absurd interpretation, but that's my opinion. I'd still put it under an error of interpretation, but I'm open to be persuaded with a little more evidence (complete with documentable sources) if you don't mind, Karl.
It's just as logical to believe that the Gospels were written to the church so that we could know about the earthly life of the savior, read his actual words, see what he accomplished before he was "taken up".
In fact, it is more logical, considering that time was passing and that false doctrines about the Messiah were popping up all over the place. Authoritative accounts of the Lord's life and doctrine were needed.
quote:As far as anything being "for our learning": that flies only if you accept dispensationalism, and even then if you accept that "for our learning" necessarily precludes being "to us" as well.
Amen. The word "learning" in Romans 15:4 is the same word as "doctrine" in II Timothy 3:16. Those scriptures contain OUR DOCTRINE. We are not to exalt the epistles over the gospels. We are to put all scriptures in their proper place.
I do not reject dispensationalism, but I do reject nonsensical statements. Diminishing the legitimacy of the gospels because they are written about a period before Pentecost is silly. It's for our doctrine. I know there are many things that were required of believers before Pentecost that are not required after Pentecost. That's great. But we learn about those differences not by diminishing the Old Testament and the Gospels, but by studying the Epistles AS WELL in order to gain an understanding of what changed, how, and why.
Amazingly enough, Wierwille held to the law like a pit bull when it came to tithing, (although the rules changed on that subject) but not to adultery (although the rules remained the same on that subject).
Since we are on the before faith came subject I thought I would point out some interesting research from Donald Dicks MAster's of Theology Thesis paper that someone posted a link to in another thread here on GS.
This is totally interesting although long it is worth consideration:
Wierwille writes: "Before going further, let us clarify the difference between the two words "faith" and "believing". These two words are not synonymous though the King James and other translations have used them interchangeably. Fait his an inner spiritual development, while believing is an action fo the human mind. The natural man of boday and soul can believe; but the natural man cannot have faith."
It is both interesting and important to note HOW he builds his argument at this point. Wierwille makes his distinction between "faith" and "believing" prior to any examination of passages of scripture. He uses this same a priori approach elsewhere in his writings. this approach, however, biases his reader prior to any examination of the Biblical evidence.
Before we examine his perceived Biblical evidence, let's critique his present claim that the words "faith" and "believing" are not synonmous. In reality, faith (pistis) is a noun and believing (pisteuo) is a verb, yet both come from the same Greek root word. Wierwille inadvertantly acknowledges this commonality by declaring that the paddages which read "by faith" in Hebrew 11 are a mistranslation and should read "by believing." What he fails to acknowledge is that the Greek term pistei (by faith) is simply the singular dative form of pistis (faith) and not pisteuo (believe). If he were consistent, Weirwille would also have to distinguish between the terms love (agape) and loving (agapao), repentance (metanoia) and repenting (metanoeo) and belief (pistis) and believing (pisteuo), for each of these pairs of nouns and verbs have a common root word meaning in Greek. Of course, Wierwille makes no effort to distinguish between these verbs from their respective nouns. Therefore, he gets no support from the definition of their terms.
Also, hi statement that "faith is a spiritual element" stems from his dualism of knowledge (his law of logic) because natural man cannot understand spiritual matters. We have already seen in chapter four, though, that his "law of logic" is fallacious and unbiblical. To build one's argument on a faulty premise is like building one's house on shifting sand.
Wierwille then argues that the faith needed for salvation is not the faith of the individual, but instead the "faith of Jesus Christ." His argument is two fold.
First appealing to a phrase in Galatians 3:23 which says "before faith came...," Weirwille argues that "there must have been a time when faith did not exist." Wierwille's understanding of this passage reveals a shallow study of the Greek text. The term faith (pistin) in this phrase is preceded by the definite article, the (the greek word ten). This indicates not faith in general, but a particular faith. It indicates the faith of the Christian religion whose object of trust is Jesus Christ. Greek scholar Dr. W. Robertson Nicoll explains.
{ten pistin}. The article, though ignored in our versions, is essential to the sense. By the coming of THE faith is menat the historic fact of the Christian religion, the spread of the gospel on earth. The term has the same objective sense *** in Galatians 1:23, 3:25, Acts 6:7 and romans 3:30, where also a clear distinction is drawn between (pisteos), faith in the abstract, and (tes pisteos), THE faith of christ. Obviously faith did not come with Christ, it was the most conspicuous virtue of the Jewish church, and Abraham was but the first of many splendid examples of it.}
(back to thesis) Also, Greek grammarian Dr. A.T. Robertson concurs.
"Before faith came is (pro tou elthein ten pistin). "Before the coming (second aorist active infinitive of erchomai, the definite event) as to the Faith" (note article, meaning the faith in verse 22 made possible by the historic coming of Christ the Redeemer), the faith in Christ as Saviour (verse 22)."
(Back to thesis) - Hence, both greek scholars agree that, by the language used, Paul is referring not to faith in the abstract, but instead to the faith of the Christian religion whose object of faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the first horn of Wierwille's argument is invalid."
Just thought I would type that up for your review. I'll post it in the doctrinal section as well.
Zixar, of all people, the smartest man I ever met on the Internet, is an expert on a great many things, and ordinarily I would recommend him for answering just about any question correctly. Truly, he is a genius, and I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being truthful. But, having said that, I'm wondering if he slept through his Greek lessons. I think any "expert" could look at that verse, study it from every conceivable angle, and conclude that it's punctuated perfectly.
Karl: Greetings back to you, O absent scribe!
I think you may have misunderstood my take on that verse. I wasn't declaring Wierwille's version the truth, I'm certainly not qualified to do that. I wrote my original post at the office and didn't have an interlinear in front of me.
Not that it would have done me any good, mind you. I've never had a Greek course, so I don't know how idioms break naturally in that language. I knew that Goey and others are much more knowledgeable of Greek than I, so I was hoping someone would say "Well, if it was Wierwille's way, it would read "greekity-greek-greek-GREEK", but the text says "greek, greek, GREEKITY greek" instead. So, it really can't be accurately punctuated his way without completely mangling this expression."
Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I didn't think I was trying to speak ex cathedra (as if) about it. I just think it made sense Wierwille's way, and given VL's side at the time, I didn't see it as a conclusive refutation, that's all.
My ISP has had DNS problems for most of the past 48 hours, so I couldn't respond earlier.
God bless!
Zix
(p.s. Thanks for the kind, but undeserved, compliments. I'll try to be a little more circumspect in the future when it comes to differentiating between my opinions and provable theses.)
In Genesis, when VPW is talking about Abraham and Isaac, he makes the statement "You tell me anything in the Bible that Abraham ever 'fore' told and I'll eat the book" (this was in reference to another bizarre Wierwillian tenet, that all prophesy is either "forthtelling" [is that even a word?] or "foretelling").
Well, IIRC, when Abraham is taking Isaac up in the hills to sacrifice him, Isaac asks, "Where is the animal for the sacrifice?" To which Abraham replies "God will provide one for us." Which was actually what happened. Wasn't that "foretelling"?
The other one takes me out on a little thinner ice, as I've not studied this stuff (nor do I ever again intend to) for a loooong time. But I remember after first taking "the class" in '74 that I spent a day or so in the "stacks" at the U.W. library.
Looking through various and sundry "Biblical studies" texts, I quickly found that, Wierwille's assertions notwithstanding, the seven "church" epistles do not always occur in the same order, from one text to the other. Hence some of the underpinnings for the "doctrine - reproof - correction" teaching are bogus as well.
Karl, that's just how rumors get started. A journalist ought to set the example for the rest. (Right Rafael?) I understand people also thought satori was you, Karl. Well I'd almost believe it. But my best theory is that the satori was never a real person, but an cosmic artifact, a quantum-level hologram, an internet-generated "ghost," a digital phantom, a cyber-spirit, the tangible personification of an animated amalgamation of billions of billions of ones and zeros, synthesized ("conjured" if the truth be told) from all those many posts expressing the hopes, fears and dreams of you and me and all the world! In fact, I wrote a song about it.
Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
a tale of a fateful trip.
That started from this tropic port,
aboard this tiny ship.
Damn. Not the song I was thinking of. I have to look for it.
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
RottieGrrrl
Gee thanks Rafael I feel honered.
Did I tell you I liked your living epistles website?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You did. Thanks.
Regardless of where you stand on dispensationalism (administrations), I think we can all agree that the words of Jesus Christ are worth studying if we are going to call ourselves Christians. I mean, duhhhhh.
:)-->
The Living Epistles Society
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I do not think there is a written record of that teaching by Wierwille, so you're right Rafael.
The posthumously edited books may not be "Vic-breathed" ??????????????" (victorpneustos)
[the Greek is for Karl
:D-->]
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Raf,
"As for Athletes of the Spirit: Is there any written account of Wierwille's doctrine, where the writing/editing/publication was overseen by Wierwille?"
Frpm what I heard in posts past re: Wierwille's response to "Athletes of the Spirit" production by dancing boy Loy, I've heard that he was quite disgusted with Craig's involvement with the whole thing. (yet nobody even payed attention to Vic, further contributing to his "Nobody loves/respects me/the Word anymore!!" whining to Chris G.) Probably had something to do with Craig not paying enough attention to "the Word".
Hey! Wow! Victor got something right for a change.
:D-->
P.S., How's it going Karl, ya ol' hoss thief?
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Garth, Rafael asked about the doctrine, not the show.
Chapter 13 of Karl's book, The Cult That Snapped, discusses Martindale's teaching in some detail. As he records, Wierwille put his stamp of approval on it and Walter Cummins offered some rather feeble support for it.
I don't remember exactly when that teaching came out but I do remember that Wierwille's and Cummins' support of it was what finally convinced me that TWI cared little about "the integrity and accuracy of God's Word."
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mandii
The doctrine for Athletes of the Spirit, as *I* remember it came out in 1980. I was living in a branch way home and was about to go WOW (first year out...big outreach cities to go to, very exciting time..knew Oak then) and I believe it was a Sunday Night tape. I believe..although can't swear on a stack of bibles that VP spoke with his seal of approval. But what I remember is that it was said that the warfare analogies were wrong and were really athletic terms instead.
It seems from the way I remember it, Rev Cummins went to Europe somewhere and studied microfiche films of old manuscripts of the Bible and that is where he realized the error. I don't know how the armour of God was explained..I forget..but heck..been a couple of years.
Still working on the passage of Paul...take out VP's subjective interpretation (and it was subjective as no research, as far as I can remember was offered) of being bound with the spirit and the chapters/context seems to contradict itself.
Oh for the record..in case in comes up...that WOW year, 1980-1981, spring of that 1981 while still on the WOW field...another Sunday Night Tape where LCM did the believing images of Victory thing..first time I had heard it.
I don't have documentation..just remember the first time I heard these doctrines introduced, but if there was someone with a still existent and extensive tape library...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEnd
According to Craig, VP first taught athletes in the early 70's. It was a teaching in the woods. I believe it was Craig's first year in New Hicksville.
According to Craig, few did anything with it until he decided to go full boar on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Karl Kahler
Rafe, don't tell me you don't have a copy of my book open to Page 167, "The 'Master Student'."
I used to have Craig's original "Athletes of the Spirit" tapes, and then I lost the first one but still had the crucial second. I listened to it back in 1991 or so and transcribed and started analyzing it in writing. This became Chapter 13 of my humble book (which I wish I'd titled "Cult and Consequence").
If you don't have a copy, I could send you an e-mail with the relevant passages, if I knew your e-mail address. Mine is well-known, karl@ex-way.com, thank you very much Mr. Irishman with the Blue Cup full of Bass.
"Athletes of the imagination" is what I called the 10 pages I devoted to this examination of Martindale's imaginative brain. This athletes doctrine was made up out of whole cloth, it was manufactured from scratch in VP's head. Then Martindale unwisely took off with it, coerced Cummins into supporting it, and gave the teaching of his life, a tremendously inspiring teaching but dead wrong, a dreadful butchery of Ephesians 6, which contains not one athletic metaphor except, arguably, "wrestle."
Garth! How ya doin, old pal? Is this what it takes to bring the likes of you out of hiding? But where is Walker? And George Aar, you don't post enough, you're too smart to be so quiet.
By the way, the real history is that VP first taught "athletes of the spirit" in 1971 in the Way Woods. This teaching was not recorded, and would have been little noted and long forgotten if one of the people in the audience hadn't been Craig Martindale.
Craig loved this idea, and he remembered it for 9 years, he worked it and developed it, and finally he gave this teaching that appeared to nail it, to "document" once and for all that there were NO military metaphors in the epistles, not one, not even in Ephesians 6. What a load of crap.
Next day, VP and Craig and Walter Cummins call the Corps together and turn on the recording equipment to discuss the stupid teaching Craig gave last night and to endorse its every assertion. Wierwille totally believes it. He's 5 years away from being dead, so he's not senile, he's just nuts. He couldn't care less what the Bible really says. All he cares about is making a splash with a new interpretation, something racy and sexy, something that's never been tried before. "New light" to our generation, yeah, right, thank you very much "Doctor" Wierwille.
Just remember, the word "athletes" appears nowhere in the Bible. The word "slave," doulos (Oakspear knows how to spell it) occurs something like 150 times in the New Testament. If you're looking for a "metaphor," Mr. Martindale, you might want to start with "slave." I know, I know, it's just not as sexy.
Happy Saturday,
Karl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Of course I have your book, dumb dumb.
:)-->
I recall that Wierwille did a teaching. I recall that Martindale ran with it. What I did not recall is whether any form of Wierwille's original teaching survived in written form. The answer appears to be no. Therefore, as much as I would include "athletes of the spirit" as an actual error, it is not exactly what I'm getting at with this thread.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
2beenthere2
maybe i am having selective amnesia, but didn't VPW say that the life was in the sperm of the man and hence forth that is what gives life to the egg of the women? i don't remember the comments of white cells or red cells.....but sperm cells are alive...they can become dead and without flagellation henceforth they can no longer have motility and cannot impregnate the egg. i do not believe eggs are alive or dead. they are eggs...1/2 of dna chromasomes are from the female, 1/2 from the male.
pt. 10 at the start of this thread...altho the gospels were written after the resurrection, they were about Jesus' life; his birth-lineage-actions-death. i do believe they were written to the Israelites to prove that He was the Messiah...for believers' this is a no brainer. it is for our learning.
do i agree with everything in PFAL? of course not. i agree that lama is a question why? it makes sense. if JC suffered and was tempted in all things...he would be tempted to believe that God deserted him...don't we in times of extreme trial question the same. even for a quick second...then we grab our mind back and know "I will never leave you or forsake you".
i don't believe cancer is devil spirit possession...as my (then) 12 y.o. son had it...i believe it is mutations of genes...environmental...dna....what have u. i was protected from hearing this during the Defeating the Adv. class....i truly did not hear this at all.......amazing! since my son was sick at the time.....God works in mysterious ways.
Personally, I thank God for knowledge of HIs mighty word....yes, I learned this at the Way...no I do not belong anymore...yes there are errors in the classes...there are errors in biblical translations. does this mean i should throw out the word and God also...NO NO a thousand times NO....God is not a man that he should lie...but men make mistakes, they make real errors and they do lie.....do not throw out truth because of bitterness. discern.
2Beenthere2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
Speaking of "coming out of hiding"...
Karl, it's great to see you here
:)--> Welcome back!
Hope R. color>size>face>
Life, what is it but a dream? - Lewis Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Oh yeah wasn't something mentioned about Job's believing started to be fearful, which is why all the trouble started with him? He started worrying about his family or something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Karl,
"Is this what it takes to bring the likes of you out of hiding?"
??? Me in hiding? You ask some of the folks around here, and they'll tell you that for some reason, they just can't get rid of me.
:D--> Besides, I thought you were one of those who have had it up to here in exWayland, and have moved on to bigger and better things.
Where is Walker? You mean Howard Walker? K.I.S.S.? I haven't seen that dude around in a LONG time; ever since the Trashnet days. And I remember him pretty much saying that he had it up to here with hashing over things Way.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Karl Kahler
Hi Hope and Garth. Walker is a hilarious guy who posts with a logo of a cow skull. Once you get to know him he's quite a treasure.
Hey QQ, a little bird told me you're actually Satori. Ha! Good to see you too. What happened to that other guy? I heard he bought a Lexus and a yacht and a house in the Caribbean. With OUR abundant sharing.
How's this for your list, Rafe? VP insisted that "faith" was an inaccurate translation of the word "pistis." This is more than a matter of opinion; it's a blatant error. Every Greek linguist in the world will tell you that pistis is faith and faith is pistis. VP had a problem with "faith," and then he made it our problem.
As John Juedes has said, "pistis" should no more be translated "believing" than "agape" should be translated "loving" or "elpis" should be translated "hoping." Pistis is a common noun, not a gerund. "Believing" is a gerund. It is NOT an accurate translation of "pistis."
Boy, you get me started and I just can't shut up.
Cheers to all,
Karl
P.S. Hey, how come nobody's mentioned the four crucified with Christ? Too many people still believe it? What saith Zixar?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
What's wrong with the 4 crucified? I still believe that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Raphael 1969,
FYI,
2+2 does equal 5.
If...
...each one has a hidden quarter attached.
But only the enlightened know this two-bit secret.
(snarf)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
As far as anything being "for our learning": that flies only if you accept dispensationalism, and even then if you accept that "for our learning" necessarily precludes being "to us" as well.
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
...
Wierwille writes:
Piece of cake. Since they were written after Pentecost, they are ADDRESSED TO a period after Pentecost.
Had Wierwille written "the gospels are ABOUT a period before Pentecost," he would be correct. However, he did not say ABOUT, he said TO. And God has a porpoise for everything He says, where he says it how he says it, etc etc etc.
Further, is it correct to say they are addressed solely to Israel or Gentiles?
Luke may be ABOUT a period before Pentecost, but there is no question whatsoever that it is written TO and FOR practicing Christians. It is an effort to separate the truth of the gospel of Christ apart from the lies that were being spread by the early church heretics (people like the Gnostics, for example).
So, at the very least, Luke is written TO the church. Therefore, Wierwille's statement that it is written to Israel or the Gentiles, but "never to the church of God" is false, according to Luke 1:1-4.
I therefore stand by my statement.
I believe Jesus was simply quoting Psalm 22. There are references to Psalm 22 all over the accounts of the crucifixion. There's no reason to believe he wasn't calling attention to the Psalm in the midst of his suffering. I don't think he was questioning God's presence at all. Expressing pain? Maybe. But doubt? Not at all.
Four crucified is a matter of interpretation, not "actual error." You may not believe it, but it's an interesting argument to say the least.
Sirguessalot: Stop bothering me. I have a right to my opinion and a right to express it
:D-->
Hope you catch the joke there, sir.
Faith, faith, faith. Actual error, or an error of interpretation? As a non-master of Greek, I don't know what to say. I'll leave that to the expertise of others. My common sense tells me that "faith" is a noun, and that "believing" is the nominative form of a verb. Is that what a gerund is? I forgot all those meanings as soon as the final exams were over.
I will say this, Karl: any criticism that uses the word "gerund" is an interpretation error, not an actual error. Remember, these are my rules, I make 'em up. BAAAAhahahahahaha.
Okay, seriously:
Wierwille's absurdity becomes very easy to refute once you substitute the word "pistis" for the translated words in his argument. So, here it is, the gospel according to Victor Paul Wierwille:
Before Pentecost, it was not available for people to have pistis, because pistis did not come until Jesus Christ came to make it available. They could have pistis, but they could not have pistis. So whenever you read the word pistis before Pentecost, it's pistis, but when it's after Pentecost, it's pistis.
Got that?
I don't agree with Wierwille's distinction between "faith" and "believing." But it IS an interpretation of the statement in Galatians: "before faith came." I think it's an absurd interpretation, but that's my opinion. I'd still put it under an error of interpretation, but I'm open to be persuaded with a little more evidence (complete with documentable sources) if you don't mind, Karl.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
In fact, it is more logical, considering that time was passing and that false doctrines about the Messiah were popping up all over the place. Authoritative accounts of the Lord's life and doctrine were needed.
Amen. The word "learning" in Romans 15:4 is the same word as "doctrine" in II Timothy 3:16. Those scriptures contain OUR DOCTRINE. We are not to exalt the epistles over the gospels. We are to put all scriptures in their proper place.
I do not reject dispensationalism, but I do reject nonsensical statements. Diminishing the legitimacy of the gospels because they are written about a period before Pentecost is silly. It's for our doctrine. I know there are many things that were required of believers before Pentecost that are not required after Pentecost. That's great. But we learn about those differences not by diminishing the Old Testament and the Gospels, but by studying the Epistles AS WELL in order to gain an understanding of what changed, how, and why.
Amazingly enough, Wierwille held to the law like a pit bull when it came to tithing, (although the rules changed on that subject) but not to adultery (although the rules remained the same on that subject).
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
Since we are on the before faith came subject I thought I would point out some interesting research from Donald Dicks MAster's of Theology Thesis paper that someone posted a link to in another thread here on GS.
This is totally interesting although long it is worth consideration:
Wierwille writes: "Before going further, let us clarify the difference between the two words "faith" and "believing". These two words are not synonymous though the King James and other translations have used them interchangeably. Fait his an inner spiritual development, while believing is an action fo the human mind. The natural man of boday and soul can believe; but the natural man cannot have faith."
It is both interesting and important to note HOW he builds his argument at this point. Wierwille makes his distinction between "faith" and "believing" prior to any examination of passages of scripture. He uses this same a priori approach elsewhere in his writings. this approach, however, biases his reader prior to any examination of the Biblical evidence.
Before we examine his perceived Biblical evidence, let's critique his present claim that the words "faith" and "believing" are not synonmous. In reality, faith (pistis) is a noun and believing (pisteuo) is a verb, yet both come from the same Greek root word. Wierwille inadvertantly acknowledges this commonality by declaring that the paddages which read "by faith" in Hebrew 11 are a mistranslation and should read "by believing." What he fails to acknowledge is that the Greek term pistei (by faith) is simply the singular dative form of pistis (faith) and not pisteuo (believe). If he were consistent, Weirwille would also have to distinguish between the terms love (agape) and loving (agapao), repentance (metanoia) and repenting (metanoeo) and belief (pistis) and believing (pisteuo), for each of these pairs of nouns and verbs have a common root word meaning in Greek. Of course, Wierwille makes no effort to distinguish between these verbs from their respective nouns. Therefore, he gets no support from the definition of their terms.
Also, hi statement that "faith is a spiritual element" stems from his dualism of knowledge (his law of logic) because natural man cannot understand spiritual matters. We have already seen in chapter four, though, that his "law of logic" is fallacious and unbiblical. To build one's argument on a faulty premise is like building one's house on shifting sand.
Wierwille then argues that the faith needed for salvation is not the faith of the individual, but instead the "faith of Jesus Christ." His argument is two fold.
First appealing to a phrase in Galatians 3:23 which says "before faith came...," Weirwille argues that "there must have been a time when faith did not exist." Wierwille's understanding of this passage reveals a shallow study of the Greek text. The term faith (pistin) in this phrase is preceded by the definite article, the (the greek word ten). This indicates not faith in general, but a particular faith. It indicates the faith of the Christian religion whose object of trust is Jesus Christ. Greek scholar Dr. W. Robertson Nicoll explains.
{ten pistin}. The article, though ignored in our versions, is essential to the sense. By the coming of THE faith is menat the historic fact of the Christian religion, the spread of the gospel on earth. The term has the same objective sense *** in Galatians 1:23, 3:25, Acts 6:7 and romans 3:30, where also a clear distinction is drawn between (pisteos), faith in the abstract, and (tes pisteos), THE faith of christ. Obviously faith did not come with Christ, it was the most conspicuous virtue of the Jewish church, and Abraham was but the first of many splendid examples of it.}
(back to thesis) Also, Greek grammarian Dr. A.T. Robertson concurs.
"Before faith came is (pro tou elthein ten pistin). "Before the coming (second aorist active infinitive of erchomai, the definite event) as to the Faith" (note article, meaning the faith in verse 22 made possible by the historic coming of Christ the Redeemer), the faith in Christ as Saviour (verse 22)."
(Back to thesis) - Hence, both greek scholars agree that, by the language used, Paul is referring not to faith in the abstract, but instead to the faith of the Christian religion whose object of faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the first horn of Wierwille's argument is invalid."
Just thought I would type that up for your review. I'll post it in the doctrinal section as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Karl: Greetings back to you, O absent scribe!
I think you may have misunderstood my take on that verse. I wasn't declaring Wierwille's version the truth, I'm certainly not qualified to do that. I wrote my original post at the office and didn't have an interlinear in front of me.
Not that it would have done me any good, mind you. I've never had a Greek course, so I don't know how idioms break naturally in that language. I knew that Goey and others are much more knowledgeable of Greek than I, so I was hoping someone would say "Well, if it was Wierwille's way, it would read "greekity-greek-greek-GREEK", but the text says "greek, greek, GREEKITY greek" instead. So, it really can't be accurately punctuated his way without completely mangling this expression."
Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I didn't think I was trying to speak ex cathedra (as if) about it. I just think it made sense Wierwille's way, and given VL's side at the time, I didn't see it as a conclusive refutation, that's all.
My ISP has had DNS problems for most of the past 48 hours, so I couldn't respond earlier.
God bless!
Zix
(p.s. Thanks for the kind, but undeserved, compliments. I'll try to be a little more circumspect in the future when it comes to differentiating between my opinions and provable theses.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
O.K., since Karl has admonished me...
There's two others I just thought of.
In Genesis, when VPW is talking about Abraham and Isaac, he makes the statement "You tell me anything in the Bible that Abraham ever 'fore' told and I'll eat the book" (this was in reference to another bizarre Wierwillian tenet, that all prophesy is either "forthtelling" [is that even a word?] or "foretelling").
Well, IIRC, when Abraham is taking Isaac up in the hills to sacrifice him, Isaac asks, "Where is the animal for the sacrifice?" To which Abraham replies "God will provide one for us." Which was actually what happened. Wasn't that "foretelling"?
The other one takes me out on a little thinner ice, as I've not studied this stuff (nor do I ever again intend to) for a loooong time. But I remember after first taking "the class" in '74 that I spent a day or so in the "stacks" at the U.W. library.
Looking through various and sundry "Biblical studies" texts, I quickly found that, Wierwille's assertions notwithstanding, the seven "church" epistles do not always occur in the same order, from one text to the other. Hence some of the underpinnings for the "doctrine - reproof - correction" teaching are bogus as well.
geo.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
QamiQazi
Karl, that's just how rumors get started. A journalist ought to set the example for the rest. (Right Rafael?) I understand people also thought satori was you, Karl. Well I'd almost believe it. But my best theory is that the satori was never a real person, but an cosmic artifact, a quantum-level hologram, an internet-generated "ghost," a digital phantom, a cyber-spirit, the tangible personification of an animated amalgamation of billions of billions of ones and zeros, synthesized ("conjured" if the truth be told) from all those many posts expressing the hopes, fears and dreams of you and me and all the world! In fact, I wrote a song about it.
Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale,
a tale of a fateful trip.
That started from this tropic port,
aboard this tiny ship.
Damn. Not the song I was thinking of. I have to look for it.
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.