Tzaia - It's good to know you're still alive and kickin'! We'll have to get together sometime and use those serving utensils again, and catch up on what's been happening.
In a legal partnership, the partnership as a whole is bound by the decisions of ANY of the partners (except for partners who are formally silent). That is, the partners share not only in responsibility for the assests and liabilities of their organization, they also share in determining what the organization says and does. The partners have authority within the partnership.
How much authority can YOU exercise within CES?
For instance, CES has published a list of 22 principles for interpreting the Bible. Say you are examing these principles and you realize several of them are contradictory. You realize those principles derive, not from an examination of the truth, but from a thoughtless acceptance of tradition taught in PFAL.
You point this out to your other "partners", with valid, sound, scriptural evidence for your position. Your "partners" refuse to even consider what you have to say. For form's sake, they may sit there and listen to you, nodding appreciatively... but nothing changes. They continue to teach erroneous tradition, all the while bloviating about the importance of truth.
What authority can you - as a CES "partner" - exercise to correct error?
Do the legal owners of the CES corporation really see you as partners? or as organizational cash-cows?
For heaven's sake, CES partnership is not entering into a legal relationship. Chill out. What I can do as a "partner" if they continue to teach something I think is hurtful to the body is stop giving. I have no illusions that I am a "partner" of CES in the sense that you describe.
"Cash cows" is a pretty bitter way of saying "free-will regular donors." As a member of a non-profit board, I can tell you that the partnership program is an innovative way of ensuring cash flow, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. The United Way takes money out of my paycheck every two weeks. It's the exact same principle. I don't review every decision they make, and the extent of my involvement with them is I can choose to stop giving any time I want to. They don't call it a Partnership Plan, but it's the exact same thing: a regularly scheduled contribution that the non-profit board can rely upon during budgeting.
WordWolf: best as I can tell, Wierwille's antitrinitarianism falls under the definition of Socinianism, which is, oddly, not on the list.
quote: Say you are examing these principles and you realize several of them are contradictory. You realize those principles derive, not from an examination of the truth, but from a thoughtless acceptance of tradition taught in PFAL.
Steve,
Will you share your perspective on which ones are contradictory?
As for calling regular contributors "partners" it definitely is not a legal partnership and I'm not sure why it's called one, but then I didn't understand changing Dialogue to Contender.
It's called "partnership" because they want donors to feel that they're part of what CES is doing. The importance on their end is that they can have a much easier time making budgets if they have an idea of how much income will be coming in. Since they do NOT teach tithing and don't feel they can coerce donations, they came up with something whereby donors call the shots of when and how much they'll contribute.
(These explanations of mine look at the non-profit organization as a business).
I should note that my contributions to CES, while regular, don't amount to a whole heckuva lot of money. I would have to give the same amount monthly for 15 years to match ONE of my biweekly paychecks.
They do pledges at our church. It is a budgeting tool. I have absolutely no problem with a partnership plan.
We were partners, not a large amount. $25 a month for years. Occasionally more. When I parted ways with CES my husband said that continuing partnership support had come to a logical conclusion.
Just in: Received an email from JAL. Probably the first one ever.
If there's a contention between them, it would be appropriate that the first (renewed) attempt to settle it would be private. I presume Tzaia's previous attempts to settle it did not meet with her satisfaction.
I'd rather have him e-mail her privately than have him bully onto this forum and accuse her of being a disgruntled liar.
Does that mean John Lynn reads this forum? Hey John if you are out there. I invite you to read my posts in the Biblical Universalism thread also in Doctrinal here. Not that you will agree or disagree immediately mind you. You might need to first read and then weigh the material for a few days. Nonetheless, isn't it more rewarding to learn new things from the bible rather than having to constantly work on damage control? Didn't we get enough of that in the Way Denomination?
I wrote the staff a short note on Sunday asking to be removed from the mailing list as I was pretty perturbed over the massive back slapping and no mention of how they were able to accomplish those things (namely my technical ability)in the latest Sower. He was writing to apologize if I felt "slighted". No, I just felt like they were taking credit where credit wasn't due.
That's all. He really doesn't lurk around in these places.
quote: What authority can you - as a CES "partner" - exercise to correct error?
The only one already pointed out. It has never been postulated to me (or any one else - that I am aware of) to be anything more than a financial partner. As financial partners our ability to correct error comes from choosing to terminate contributions.
I started giving to them, cause I liked what I heard. If I change my mind about the quality of their organization, or it's teachings -- I'll pull support.
I never saw myself as either a "cash cow", or a decision making partner for CES. Simply someone who wanted to help out. I'm pretty liberal at giving money to folks, even though I haven't much.
I give to down and outers on the street, *religious* organizatiions, etc. Some I feel sorry for, some I believe in. Meebe you can figure out which is which, for me. ;)-->
Tzaia - You wrote, "Will you share your perspective on which ones [CES' "22 Principles"] are contradictory?"
I could do several that require some time to digest because of the convolution, but I'll start with one that is fairly simple. It is real, not apparent, and it is not a matter of interpretational differences.
Before I launch into this, the material is several years old. If some of you who still have contact with CES find that they HAVE changed some of these things, I appeal to you to inform me of any updates they have made.
From CES' "22 Principles":
quote: 6. The Bible must be read carefully with appropriate attention paid to each detail of the context, for God has a purpose for what is said, who says it, where it is said, when it is said, how it is said, to whom it is said and why it is said. Logic demands that words and verses must not be wrested out of context and made to mean something foreign to the original meaning of the text.
Let's examine II Timothy 3:16&17 in light of CES Principle #6., specifically "what is said",
quote: 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
These two verses contain one sentence, or complete thought, composed of two clauses. The clause in verse 17 indicates the purpose of the things stated in the first clause, verse 16. The information in verse 17 may or may not effect our understanding, one way OR the other, concerning the contradiction to verse 16 presented in CES' Principles, but discussion of THAT would greatly lengthen this post.
Verse 16 consists of one subject, "All Scripture"; one understood verb substantive, correctly supplied by the KJV translators, "is"; two predicative adjectives, "given by inspiration of God" ["theopneustos" = "God-breathed"] and "profitable", connected by the conjunction "and" ["kai" = "and"]; and five prepositional phrases, "for ["pros" = "for"] doctrine, for ["pros"] reproof, for ["pros"] correction, for ["pros"]instruction in ["en" = "by the instrument or agency of"] righteousness"
"All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction by righteousness."
The four prepositional phrases beginning with "for" modify the second predicative adjective "profitable". They tell what "All Scripture" is "profitable" for.
The prespositional phrase beginning with "in" modifies the word "instruction". "All Scripture" is "profitable" "for instruction" that is by the agency or instrument of righteousness.
If we delete the first predicative adjective, the prepositional phrase beginning with "in", and the second clause in verse 17, we will not have the COMPLETE thought the author intended to convey, but we can draw out an ACCURATE SENSE of the portion left:
"All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction."
It would be grammatically valid for us to distribute the subject and the verb to each of the four prepositional phrases:
"All Scripture is profitable for doctrine. All Scripture is profitable for reproof. All Scripture is profitable for correction. All Scripture is profitable for instruction."
That is what II Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture..." That is what II Timothy 3:16 means, "All Scripture..."
Yet CES Principle #15.c. says,
quote: 15.c. The Church Epistles are written from the perspective of doctrine (right belief and practice), reproof (where not believing or practicing rightly) and correction (where teaching error). Romans (faith), Ephesians (love) and Thessalonians (hope) are doctrinal epistles. 1&2 Corintians and Philippians are reproof epistles. Galatians and Colossians are correction epistles.
How does CES Principle #15.c. contradict II Timothy 3:16 interpreted in light of CES Principle #6.?
First, it reduces the number of things "All Scripture" is profitable for, from four to three. Then it indicates that different sections of Scripture are profitable for different things.
Is CES Principle #15.c. a result of diligent research, or a blind parroting of Wierwille's tradition? Where did the idea come from?
On page 1660 of "The Companion Bible" Bullinger gives "The Inter-relation of the Seven Church Epistles as Shown by the Structure as a Whole"
In a highly abbreviated form, it reads,
quote: A. Romans. "Doctrine and Instruction"...
B. Corinthians. "Reproof"...
C. Galatians. "Correction"...
A. Ephesians. "Doctrine and Instruction"...
B. Philippians. "Reproof"...
C. Colossians. "Correction"...
A. Thessalonians. "Doctrine and Instruction"...
So we see that Wierwille cribbed it from Bullinger. BUT... was Bullinger being consistent?
On page 146 of Bullinger's "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible", Bullinger presented II Timothy 3:16 as an example of "asyndeton", or "without conjunctions". Notice that there are no "ands" connecting the four "pros" phrases in the verse.
Regarding "asyndeton", on page 137 (op.cit.) Bullinger wrote, "...we are not detained over the separate statements, and asked to consider each in detail, but we are hurried on over the various matters that are mentioned, as though they were of no account..."
Back on page 146, specifically with reference to II Timothy 3:16, Bullinger wrote, "Here we are hurried on, and not asked to stop and consider the four things for which all Scripture is profitable..."
According to Bullinger's "Figures of Speech", there are FOUR things for which ALL Scripture is profitable. "Asyndeton" tells us it's not important for us to pry into the differences between those four things.
Yet in the "Companion Bible", Bullinger teaches that there are only three things for which Scripture is profitable, by equating "doctrine" with "instruction". He had to reduce the number to three in order to make his perceived structure work, and he had to violate the sense of II Timothy 3:16 to make it mean different parts of Scripture are profitable for different things.
Wierwille did not quote straight from Bullinger. He taught II Timothy 3:16 as, "All Scripture is God-breathed, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, which is instruction in righteousness..."
Wierwille didn't reduce the number from four to three by equating "doctrine" with "instruction" the way Bullinger did. Wierwille accomplished that sleight of hand by changing the prepositional phrase from "for instruction in righteousness" to "which is instruction in righteousness. How did he do that?
Here is Ricker-Berry's translation,
quote: Every scripture [is] God-inspired and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for discipline which [is] in righteousness;
Weirwille reduced the number from four to three by eliminating the presposition "for" and then slipping Ricker-Berry's "which [is]" to the other side of "discipline".
Was Wierwille practicing honest scholarship? Or was he handling the Word of God deceitfully? I think the answer to that question is pretty clear.
CES doesn't even pretend to relate Principle #15.c. to II Timothy 3:16. They just said #15.c., so... POOF!... #15.c. was there.
Why?
What question of interpretation has ever depended on CES' Principle #15.c.?
In Principle #15.c., CES wrests the words "doctrine", "reproof" and "correction" out of context (II Timothy 3:16) and makes them to mean something foreign to the original meaning of the text. Principle #15.c. contradicts Principle #6.
Now people may very well say, "So what? What does it matter?"
If CES were just another group of Bible fans saying, "Hey, this is what we think. What do you think?" it WOULDN'T matter. But that's not what CES makes itself out to be.
They take as a motto, "Speaking the truth in love". Are they really speaking the truth? Is it really in love if their attention has been called to their errors, and they ignore the reproof and correction?
They make a big deal about Truth versus Tradition, but they don't examine THEIR OWN DOCTRINES to eliminate the leaven of Wierwille's traditions that are still there.
PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!
If any of you have access to current CES thinking, PLEASE let us know if they have eliminated Principle #15.c.
If, on the other hand, they are continuing to propagate this particular error, please let us know THAT as well.
Raf - You wrote, "'Cash cows' is a pretty bitter way of saying 'free-will regular donors.'"
It may well seem that way to you, Raf, but "partner" seems like a pretty deceptive and manipulative way to say "free-will regular donor" to me.
If you ARE a regular donor, then that's what you are.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But if you are a REGULAR DONOR, why does CES, and all the other organizations they unconsciously imitate, use such a falsely empowering word as "partner"?
This may seem like a VERY SMALL thing, as well as my beef about CES Principle #15.c., but these very small things are indicators of the attitudes of heart carried by the leaders of CES, and ALL OF US whose thoughts were influenced by Wierwille's teachings. And those attitudes of heart are something VERY BIG.
If we're going to correct our attitudes of heart, we MUST pay attention to the details of the words we use, and the ways we use them.
I don't know if CES has corrected inconsistencies, but I do know this: When I stand before Jesus at the Bema, he's not going to be nearly as concerned about if I believed all scripture is for reproof correction and instruction or if some of it leaned more one way than another as he is going to be concerned about how my life was pleasing to his Father. How I used my life to glorify God and in what manner did I use the gifts bestowed upon me. W
What I have found is that it's real easy to get bogged down in the differences and that is like cancer to a body.
I'm talking to a former wayfer at the leadership conference, which I came to briefly to discuss technology. I knew him in Columbus and there had been much division there. He asked me what I was doing. Told him about the presbyterian church I have been going to. He said he couldn't fellowship with people he didn't agree with. I asked him how that was workin' for him. Because the problem is that he's not fellowshipping because he can find no one who agrees with him.
If you are spending all your time picking and finding fault, it leaves little energy and no heart for worship.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
44
33
28
45
Popular Days
Feb 7
41
Feb 21
24
Feb 9
21
Feb 10
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 44 posts
Tzaia 33 posts
Steve Lortz 28 posts
dmiller 45 posts
Popular Days
Feb 7 2005
41 posts
Feb 21 2005
24 posts
Feb 9 2005
21 posts
Feb 10 2005
14 posts
George Aar
But Raf,
in order for money to be an incentive, I'd probably have to have some first. Yeah, like that's going to happen...
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Like they know that.
One of the things they check for is if you swallowed your money.
("Another Fine Myth")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Funny.
Some time ago,
Jeff did a "drive-by posting" on a Christian board I was at doing that very
thing.
I replied quickly and raised the same issue you did.
I'm not sure if he ever visited again or if it was just a true "drive-by".
I am aware that the thread died pretty quickly once I asked him what the harm
would have been posting a more honest approach. (I posted exactly what I
thought he should have posted.)
Oh, and please post your Momentus experience, but give it its own thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
OK new thread on Momentus.
Hi Steve,
I still have some serving utensils of yours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
In case your wonder where your vision of Christ stands among the various theories, here's a rundown.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/51h/51h020.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Tzaia - It's good to know you're still alive and kickin'! We'll have to get together sometime and use those serving utensils again, and catch up on what's been happening.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Here's a thought for partners of CES.
In a legal partnership, the partnership as a whole is bound by the decisions of ANY of the partners (except for partners who are formally silent). That is, the partners share not only in responsibility for the assests and liabilities of their organization, they also share in determining what the organization says and does. The partners have authority within the partnership.
How much authority can YOU exercise within CES?
For instance, CES has published a list of 22 principles for interpreting the Bible. Say you are examing these principles and you realize several of them are contradictory. You realize those principles derive, not from an examination of the truth, but from a thoughtless acceptance of tradition taught in PFAL.
You point this out to your other "partners", with valid, sound, scriptural evidence for your position. Your "partners" refuse to even consider what you have to say. For form's sake, they may sit there and listen to you, nodding appreciatively... but nothing changes. They continue to teach erroneous tradition, all the while bloviating about the importance of truth.
What authority can you - as a CES "partner" - exercise to correct error?
Do the legal owners of the CES corporation really see you as partners? or as organizational cash-cows?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*reads link*
Or DOESN'T stand, as the case may be.
Mine is missing, as are some other people's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Steve,
For heaven's sake, CES partnership is not entering into a legal relationship. Chill out. What I can do as a "partner" if they continue to teach something I think is hurtful to the body is stop giving. I have no illusions that I am a "partner" of CES in the sense that you describe.
"Cash cows" is a pretty bitter way of saying "free-will regular donors." As a member of a non-profit board, I can tell you that the partnership program is an innovative way of ensuring cash flow, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. The United Way takes money out of my paycheck every two weeks. It's the exact same principle. I don't review every decision they make, and the extent of my involvement with them is I can choose to stop giving any time I want to. They don't call it a Partnership Plan, but it's the exact same thing: a regularly scheduled contribution that the non-profit board can rely upon during budgeting.
WordWolf: best as I can tell, Wierwille's antitrinitarianism falls under the definition of Socinianism, which is, oddly, not on the list.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Steve,
Will you share your perspective on which ones are contradictory?
As for calling regular contributors "partners" it definitely is not a legal partnership and I'm not sure why it's called one, but then I didn't understand changing Dialogue to Contender.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's called "partnership" because they want donors to feel that they're part of what CES is doing. The importance on their end is that they can have a much easier time making budgets if they have an idea of how much income will be coming in. Since they do NOT teach tithing and don't feel they can coerce donations, they came up with something whereby donors call the shots of when and how much they'll contribute.
(These explanations of mine look at the non-profit organization as a business).
I should note that my contributions to CES, while regular, don't amount to a whole heckuva lot of money. I would have to give the same amount monthly for 15 years to match ONE of my biweekly paychecks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Hey St. Steve the Apostle,
Ya know, there are other things worse, more vile, more *heinous* than entering into a partnership with C.E.S.
..... Ohhhh, like, ... getting a parking ticket, for example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Sorry WW, but I don't control the content.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
They do pledges at our church. It is a budgeting tool. I have absolutely no problem with a partnership plan.
We were partners, not a large amount. $25 a month for years. Occasionally more. When I parted ways with CES my husband said that continuing partnership support had come to a logical conclusion.
Just in: Received an email from JAL. Probably the first one ever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oh, NOW he gets involved and says "Geee, is there anything wrong?"
Bad PR can be a *real* good motivator.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If there's a contention between them, it would be appropriate that the first (renewed) attempt to settle it would be private. I presume Tzaia's previous attempts to settle it did not meet with her satisfaction.
I'd rather have him e-mail her privately than have him bully onto this forum and accuse her of being a disgruntled liar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Does that mean John Lynn reads this forum? Hey John if you are out there. I invite you to read my posts in the Biblical Universalism thread also in Doctrinal here. Not that you will agree or disagree immediately mind you. You might need to first read and then weigh the material for a few days. Nonetheless, isn't it more rewarding to learn new things from the bible rather than having to constantly work on damage control? Didn't we get enough of that in the Way Denomination?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Hey guys,
I wrote the staff a short note on Sunday asking to be removed from the mailing list as I was pretty perturbed over the massive back slapping and no mention of how they were able to accomplish those things (namely my technical ability)in the latest Sower. He was writing to apologize if I felt "slighted". No, I just felt like they were taking credit where credit wasn't due.
That's all. He really doesn't lurk around in these places.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I didn't think he lurked here, but I do think Jeff and some other CES types do, so it doesn't surprise me that it got back to him.
What I'd like to know is, if Mark is president of CES/STFI, why was JAL the one to try to smooth things over?
Not that it's any of my business, but I'd like to know.
Tzaia, I'm impressed by the class you've shown.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
The only one already pointed out. It has never been postulated to me (or any one else - that I am aware of) to be anything more than a financial partner. As financial partners our ability to correct error comes from choosing to terminate contributions.
And that is good enough for me.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I started giving to them, cause I liked what I heard. If I change my mind about the quality of their organization, or it's teachings -- I'll pull support.
I never saw myself as either a "cash cow", or a decision making partner for CES. Simply someone who wanted to help out. I'm pretty liberal at giving money to folks, even though I haven't much.
I give to down and outers on the street, *religious* organizatiions, etc. Some I feel sorry for, some I believe in. Meebe you can figure out which is which, for me.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Tzaia - You wrote, "Will you share your perspective on which ones [CES' "22 Principles"] are contradictory?"
I could do several that require some time to digest because of the convolution, but I'll start with one that is fairly simple. It is real, not apparent, and it is not a matter of interpretational differences.
Before I launch into this, the material is several years old. If some of you who still have contact with CES find that they HAVE changed some of these things, I appeal to you to inform me of any updates they have made.
From CES' "22 Principles":
Let's examine II Timothy 3:16&17 in light of CES Principle #6., specifically "what is said",
These two verses contain one sentence, or complete thought, composed of two clauses. The clause in verse 17 indicates the purpose of the things stated in the first clause, verse 16. The information in verse 17 may or may not effect our understanding, one way OR the other, concerning the contradiction to verse 16 presented in CES' Principles, but discussion of THAT would greatly lengthen this post.
Verse 16 consists of one subject, "All Scripture"; one understood verb substantive, correctly supplied by the KJV translators, "is"; two predicative adjectives, "given by inspiration of God" ["theopneustos" = "God-breathed"] and "profitable", connected by the conjunction "and" ["kai" = "and"]; and five prepositional phrases, "for ["pros" = "for"] doctrine, for ["pros"] reproof, for ["pros"] correction, for ["pros"]instruction in ["en" = "by the instrument or agency of"] righteousness"
"All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction by righteousness."
The four prepositional phrases beginning with "for" modify the second predicative adjective "profitable". They tell what "All Scripture" is "profitable" for.
The prespositional phrase beginning with "in" modifies the word "instruction". "All Scripture" is "profitable" "for instruction" that is by the agency or instrument of righteousness.
If we delete the first predicative adjective, the prepositional phrase beginning with "in", and the second clause in verse 17, we will not have the COMPLETE thought the author intended to convey, but we can draw out an ACCURATE SENSE of the portion left:
"All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction."
It would be grammatically valid for us to distribute the subject and the verb to each of the four prepositional phrases:
"All Scripture is profitable for doctrine. All Scripture is profitable for reproof. All Scripture is profitable for correction. All Scripture is profitable for instruction."
That is what II Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture..." That is what II Timothy 3:16 means, "All Scripture..."
Yet CES Principle #15.c. says,
How does CES Principle #15.c. contradict II Timothy 3:16 interpreted in light of CES Principle #6.?
First, it reduces the number of things "All Scripture" is profitable for, from four to three. Then it indicates that different sections of Scripture are profitable for different things.
Is CES Principle #15.c. a result of diligent research, or a blind parroting of Wierwille's tradition? Where did the idea come from?
On page 1660 of "The Companion Bible" Bullinger gives "The Inter-relation of the Seven Church Epistles as Shown by the Structure as a Whole"
In a highly abbreviated form, it reads,
So we see that Wierwille cribbed it from Bullinger. BUT... was Bullinger being consistent?
On page 146 of Bullinger's "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible", Bullinger presented II Timothy 3:16 as an example of "asyndeton", or "without conjunctions". Notice that there are no "ands" connecting the four "pros" phrases in the verse.
Regarding "asyndeton", on page 137 (op.cit.) Bullinger wrote, "...we are not detained over the separate statements, and asked to consider each in detail, but we are hurried on over the various matters that are mentioned, as though they were of no account..."
Back on page 146, specifically with reference to II Timothy 3:16, Bullinger wrote, "Here we are hurried on, and not asked to stop and consider the four things for which all Scripture is profitable..."
According to Bullinger's "Figures of Speech", there are FOUR things for which ALL Scripture is profitable. "Asyndeton" tells us it's not important for us to pry into the differences between those four things.
Yet in the "Companion Bible", Bullinger teaches that there are only three things for which Scripture is profitable, by equating "doctrine" with "instruction". He had to reduce the number to three in order to make his perceived structure work, and he had to violate the sense of II Timothy 3:16 to make it mean different parts of Scripture are profitable for different things.
Wierwille did not quote straight from Bullinger. He taught II Timothy 3:16 as, "All Scripture is God-breathed, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, which is instruction in righteousness..."
Wierwille didn't reduce the number from four to three by equating "doctrine" with "instruction" the way Bullinger did. Wierwille accomplished that sleight of hand by changing the prepositional phrase from "for instruction in righteousness" to "which is instruction in righteousness. How did he do that?
Here is Ricker-Berry's translation,
Weirwille reduced the number from four to three by eliminating the presposition "for" and then slipping Ricker-Berry's "which [is]" to the other side of "discipline".
Was Wierwille practicing honest scholarship? Or was he handling the Word of God deceitfully? I think the answer to that question is pretty clear.
CES doesn't even pretend to relate Principle #15.c. to II Timothy 3:16. They just said #15.c., so... POOF!... #15.c. was there.
Why?
What question of interpretation has ever depended on CES' Principle #15.c.?
In Principle #15.c., CES wrests the words "doctrine", "reproof" and "correction" out of context (II Timothy 3:16) and makes them to mean something foreign to the original meaning of the text. Principle #15.c. contradicts Principle #6.
Now people may very well say, "So what? What does it matter?"
If CES were just another group of Bible fans saying, "Hey, this is what we think. What do you think?" it WOULDN'T matter. But that's not what CES makes itself out to be.
They take as a motto, "Speaking the truth in love". Are they really speaking the truth? Is it really in love if their attention has been called to their errors, and they ignore the reproof and correction?
They make a big deal about Truth versus Tradition, but they don't examine THEIR OWN DOCTRINES to eliminate the leaven of Wierwille's traditions that are still there.
PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE!
If any of you have access to current CES thinking, PLEASE let us know if they have eliminated Principle #15.c.
If, on the other hand, they are continuing to propagate this particular error, please let us know THAT as well.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Raf - You wrote, "'Cash cows' is a pretty bitter way of saying 'free-will regular donors.'"
It may well seem that way to you, Raf, but "partner" seems like a pretty deceptive and manipulative way to say "free-will regular donor" to me.
If you ARE a regular donor, then that's what you are.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
But if you are a REGULAR DONOR, why does CES, and all the other organizations they unconsciously imitate, use such a falsely empowering word as "partner"?
This may seem like a VERY SMALL thing, as well as my beef about CES Principle #15.c., but these very small things are indicators of the attitudes of heart carried by the leaders of CES, and ALL OF US whose thoughts were influenced by Wierwille's teachings. And those attitudes of heart are something VERY BIG.
If we're going to correct our attitudes of heart, we MUST pay attention to the details of the words we use, and the ways we use them.
More on this later.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I don't know if CES has corrected inconsistencies, but I do know this: When I stand before Jesus at the Bema, he's not going to be nearly as concerned about if I believed all scripture is for reproof correction and instruction or if some of it leaned more one way than another as he is going to be concerned about how my life was pleasing to his Father. How I used my life to glorify God and in what manner did I use the gifts bestowed upon me. W
What I have found is that it's real easy to get bogged down in the differences and that is like cancer to a body.
I'm talking to a former wayfer at the leadership conference, which I came to briefly to discuss technology. I knew him in Columbus and there had been much division there. He asked me what I was doing. Told him about the presbyterian church I have been going to. He said he couldn't fellowship with people he didn't agree with. I asked him how that was workin' for him. Because the problem is that he's not fellowshipping because he can find no one who agrees with him.
If you are spending all your time picking and finding fault, it leaves little energy and no heart for worship.
Just my .02 worth.
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.