Vertical Limit - I may not agree 100% with some of the things you wrote in your post of 12/08/04, 07:25, but I do agree with your last paragraph,
quote: Beliefs differ on subjects but that is ok. Brothers in Christ can disagree and still be brothers. This likemindedness that TWI promoted was not true, where everyone has to believe and think the same way. Paul was likeminded with a few people but not all. One accord does not mean likeminded. One accord is more in line with having the same purpose which does not require thinking the same way about everything.
Oakspear - You asked, "In your "non-administrative" view of the bible, do you believe that there are some parts of the bible that aren't 'written to us'?"
I wouldn't characterize my view of the Bible as "non-administrative". There ARE administrations in the Bible, they just aren't periods of time. There was the administration of Joseph over Potiphar's household. There was the administration of Joseph over the prison. There was the administration of Joseph over Egypt. All of these were foreshadowings of Jesus Christ's administration over creation, instituted by God the Father when Jesus Was glorified after his resurrection. There was also the administration of Paul over the knowledge that God had extended grace to believing Gentiles, as Gentiles. I would call my view "anti-dispensational".
When Wierwille called his scheme "administrations" he was just slapping a different label on Darby's can of dispensationalism. Wierwille by-passed Bullinger's ultra-dispensationalism because Bullinger believed the manifestations of holy spirit evident on Pentescost went out with the revelation of "the mystery" to Paul when he was in prison in Acts 28.
"Do you believe that there are some parts of the bible that aren't 'written to us'?"
The truth is, Oakspear, I don't believe there are ANY parts of the Bible written directly TO us.
It appears to me that every scrap of the Bible was written with a specific purpose in mind TO specific people at the time of the writing. For instance, I think Samuel and Kings were composed during the reign of Solomon with a view to establishing the legitimacy of his authority. In the process, they foretell the coming of a son of David who will also be a son of God, to whose kingdom there will be no end.
Was it written TO me? No.
Is it necessary for me to know what's written in Samuel and Kings in order to be saved? No.
Do I gain, by knowing what's written in Samuel and Kings, a fuller understanding of what Paul meant when he wrote about who Jesus Christ is, and the nature of his lordship? Yes.
Was the book of Hebrews written TO me? No, it was written to believers who had come to Christ from Jewish backgrounds.
Do I need to know what's written in Hebrews in order to be saved? No.
Do I gain, by knowing the book of Hebrews, a fuller understanding of how Jesus Christ mediated the New Testament originally promised to Israel in Jeremiah 31? Yes, I do.
Was the book of Ephesians written to me? No. It was written to a group of believers who lived in Ephesus around the middle of the first century, who additionally, had been personally ministered to by Paul.
Do I need to know what's in Ephesians in order to be saved? No.
Do I gain a fuller understanding that I, as a Gentile born and bred, can still get in on the benefits of the New Testament God promised to Israel? Yes, I do.
Was the book of Romans written to me? No. It was written to a group of believers who lived in Rome around the middle of the first-century.
I can learn a lot from reading Romans about what Paul thought, because he had to explain more things to them. He had never taught them in person before his writing.
And no, I don't need to know what's written in Romans in order to be saved. The fundamental promise of Christian salvation is Joel 2:32a.
Is the book of Revelation written TO me? No. It was written to seven groups of believers who lived in Asia Minor near the end of the first-century. One of those groups was living at Ephesus. Some of the older people at Ephesus, sitting there listening to John's messenger read Revelation, may have been able to remember sitting there as youths, listening to Tychicus read Paul's letter to them. Both Ephesians and Revelation may have been written to the SAME INDIVIDUAL believiers!
Do I need to know what's in Revelation in order to be saved? No.
By knowing Revelation, do I learn about the rewards Jesus offers to those who remain faithful in the midst of tribulation, and the "rewards" he offers to those those who oppose him? Yes, I do.
As for you list of "administrations", Oakspear:
You list a "Post-diluvian Administration -After the flood" immediately after a "Antediluvian Administration - pre-flood", yet we know the flood itself lasted for at least a year. Shouldn't we include a "Mid-diluvian Administration - during the flood"? We know the "rules of life" had to change. Somebody had to be responsible for shovelling all that poop.
Shouldn't your "Gettin' Their Butts Kicked by the Gentiles Administration" be divided into a series of 40 year "administrations" alternating between the rules of life being set by judges and the rules of life being set by various tribes of oppressors, concluding with the "Samuel's Sons Administration"?
In your "Petrine Administration" you wrote, "still following the law", and in your "Pauline Administration" you wrote , "out with the law". Yet you don't have any "Law Administration" listed. How can we know the extent of the "Law Administration" if you don't indicate when it began?
You have the "Christ on Earth Administration" immediately following the "Post Captivity Administration", but Luke 16:16a says "The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]..." and in John 3:30 John the Baptist says "He [Jesus Christ] must increase, but I must decrease."
Shouldn't there be a "John the Baptist Administration" in there somewhere? :-D
Hey, dmiller, what does that do for your numerological gematria? & again :-D
Your explanation of what was written to whom, etc makes a lot of sense. I always thought it was a "wrong dividing" to ignore the "...who are at Ephesus", or Corinth or wherever in the salutation section of each epistle.
Thanks for your insight into adding different "administrations"
Anyway, as I'm sure that you understood, the Oakspearian Administrations illustrate just how arbitrary the scheme is. Bullinger picked seven because it fit into his framework of number in scripture, and Wierwille picked up on it, although he changed them around a little.
Although many of them are in fun, there are just as many differences in the way God dealt with people within some of the TWI administrations as between them.
"For our learning" is the same Greek word translated "doctrine" almost everywhere else in the NT. Wierwille failed to mention that when he selective negated the things he didn't like in the OT and the Gospels.
I see Biblefan Dave still seems buys in to that Wierwillian theological twist. Too bad.
Dave writes concerning Diepensationalism:
quote:For the most part, VPW got this right. It does mention an administration of grace, in the Church Epistles.
And where would that be? Which Epsitle and what Bible mentions an "administration of grace". Not the King James. Not the NIV. Not the ASV. The words "administration of grace" do not appear in any Bible that I am aware of.
Paul does however write in Epehsians 3:2:
Eph 3:2 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Is this talking about an "Administration" as defined by Wierwille/Bullinger/et al - as in a period of time? No. In the context read verses 7 & 8:
Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles).
To pull a time framed "administration of grace" out of these verses is absurd and sloppy interpretation and is not reading it in the context.
Dave said elsewhere:
quote:Under the "administration of grace" (notice the actual words used in the Bible)...
Huh? What "actual words" are you taking about.
After posting a diatribe of TWI Doctrine and Wierwillian theology, Dave then writes:
quote:You see, if you unclutter your mind from this resentment and get rid of that "anti-way theology", you can simply ascertain what the Bible says. It's not that difficult.
LOL! Hey Dave have you ever closed your PFAL Book and your TWI materials are actually read anything else? I kinda doubt it. Maybe you should unclutter your mind of strict adherance to Wierwille's teachings and study the works of some true Christian scholars.
You are making a false presumption that folks who disagree with TWI doctrines do so becasue of resentment and anger. Not so.
You see some of us have actually studied outside of PFAL and TWI materials and have through objective study found them seriously flawed and wanting - broken cisters that can hold little water.
So get off of the anger and resentmet horsepucky - ok ? It doesn't cut it around here,
I don't think I'm coddling him. Or that anyone is too hard on him. But it could get that way quick. Then it's just another big fight instead of a discussion.
Your explanation of what was written to whom, etc makes a lot of sense. I always thought it was a "wrong dividing" to ignore the "...who are at Ephesus", or Corinth or wherever in the salutation section of each epistle.
Many of the early copies of Ephesians omit the words "at Ephesus." This could mean that it was addressed to all who are saints, or that the letter was circulated to several cities. Either way, a broader group than just the Christians at Ephesus are addressed.
On the other hand, all the manuscripts of the other epistles contain the names of the cities they were sent to.
I think some of these posters here are so wrapped up in their hatred of the TWI, it's impossible for them to understand truth.
Hatred, bitterness, resentments, and animosity do no one any good. They cloud your judgment.
When I left TWI, the Word did not leave me. I for one am extremely thankful for the 12 years I spent in TWI. When I was 18 years, I told God that things had to get better or I would kill myself on my 19th birthday. On my 19th birthday, I was sitting in the 2nd week of the PFAL.
I am very thankful for the Word that was taught me by Dr. Wierwille and other TWI leaders.
When I left, I re-examined many of the things I was taught. Did you get that, I re-examined. Some of you are so anti-Way you may never understand or believe truth again. I re-examined doctrines, whereas so of you go out of your way, to the farthest extremes possible, to try and find fault with everything taught in TWI.
Some of you clearly will never understand administrations but you are determined to prove it wrong, even though it is right. There is no hope for you knowing truth when your whole agenda is trying to put down Dr. Wierwille, when he isn't alive to defend himself. Even the ridiculous name for this forum shows immediately how some people are approaching this subject. And in case you didn't know it, there were many people before VPW who taught about administrations, including Bullinger. So, those of you propounding this anti-Way, anti-Wierwille have chosen probably the most idiotic, egotistical, self-centered, non-rewarding agenda possible.
As far as Way materials. I actually don't own any Way literature or other materials. As far as Way doctrines are concerned. Jesus Christ is not God was what TWI taught. And they were absolutely 100% right about. The stupid trinity doctrine is a paganistic pile of crap, with no biblical basis whatsoever.
As far as Way doctrine, I do not believe believing = receiving, I believe believing influences receiving. And God knows my needs so I don't have to have my needs and wants parallel. God can give me things before I know they are available.
The Cry of Triumph was not a cry of triumph but taken from Psalms 22 where the psalmist, David, was examining the course of events that he had experienced. There was a feeling of being forsaken by David. Later, David, in Psalm 23, tells of how great things had become. Jesus, on the cross, reminded people that things may seems bad now, but they will get better later on.
As for the Lay of Abundance and Power, I never took the class. Adultery is wrong, always has been wrong, and always will be wrong. Adultery is sin, period, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
As the the "absent Christ", my Christ has never been absent from my life.
Yes, I believe in devil spirits. I believe spirits affect homosexuals. I believe spirits affect adulterers. I believe that LCM would have been too influenced y his own spirits to spot the spirits affecting anyone else. We are supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner. LCM acted with hatred toward gays, therefore that hatred resonated toward anyone he merely suspected was gay.
10% tithing applied to the law administration, not the church. Giving of abundance applies to the church.
VPW did a great job when he showed 4 crucified with Christ. I absolutely believe that 4 others were crucified with him. What were they crucified on, stakes or crosses? I don't know. They used both items during that time period. The Bible uses the word "cross". A cross would have to be sawed or shaped would be take more preparation but make it lighter than a round pole or stake. A round pole is less work but harder to carry. If one merely intends to kill someone, less preparation would seem to be more likely. If one wants to make a spectacle of it, then a cross would be more likely. In otherwords, I don't know, and I really don't think it makes any difference if I do know.
What day was Jesus crucified on? I don't know. I have seen credible arguments made for both Wednesday and Friday. I actually think the argument for Thursday made more sense than Wednesday or Friday. So, I don't know what day he was crucified, and knowing the particular day won't affect or influence my life whatsoever.
Many of the early copies of Ephesians omit the words "at Ephesus." This could mean that it was addressed to all who are saints, or that the letter was circulated to several cities. Either way, a broader group than just the Christians at Ephesus are addressed.
George,
That's an excellent point. In the Marcionite NT (circ. 130 CE) Ephesians in that canon was titled "To the Laodiceans", not to be confused with the later, brief apocryphal letter of the same title.
I think some of these posters here are so wrapped up in their hatred of the TWI, it's impossible for them to understand truth.
Does this mean TWI is Truth?
Hatred, bitterness, resentments, and animosity do no one any good. They cloud your judgment.
So how's yours?
When I left TWI, the Word did not leave me. I for one am extremely thankful for the 12 years I spent in TWI. When I was 18 years, I told God that things had to get better or I would kill myself on my 19th birthday. On my 19th birthday, I was sitting in the 2nd week of the PFAL.
And this was a good thing?
I am very thankful for the Word that was taught me by Dr. Wierwille and other TWI leaders.
What word and which leaders?
When I left, I re-examined many of the things I was taught. Did you get that, I re-examined. Some of you are so anti-Way you may never understand or believe truth again. I re-examined doctrines, whereas so of you go out of your way, to the farthest extremes possible, to try and find fault with everything taught in TWI.
Could it be that others have re-examined TWI doctrine and came up with a different conclusion? Whose judgement is clouded?
Some of you clearly will never understand administrations but you are determined to prove it wrong, even though it is right.
This is your opinion. VPW used a new word to describe dispensationalist theology.
There is no hope for you knowing truth when your whole agenda is trying to put down Dr. Wierwille, when he isn't alive to defend himself.
We have his words, by what other means do we have to judge him?
Even the ridiculous name for this forum shows immediately how some people are approaching this subject. And in case you didn't know it, there were many people before VPW who taught about administrations, including Bullinger. So, those of you propounding this anti-Way, anti-Wierwille have chosen probably the most idiotic, egotistical, self-centered, non-rewarding agenda possible.
Again your mind appears made up and still you offer no supporting documentation, show who is egotistical and self-centered here anyway?
As far as Way materials. I actually don't own any Way literature or other materials. As far as Way doctrines are concerned. Jesus Christ is not God was what TWI taught. And they were absolutely 100% right about. The stupid trinity doctrine is a paganistic pile of crap, with no biblical basis whatsoever.
Some on GSC agree with you, others (like myself) do not. But what are you basing your conclusions on, TWI? VPW? Have you gone to trinitarian sources for understanding? Like Bullinger perhaps?
As far as Way doctrine, I do not believe believing = receiving, I believe believing influences receiving. And God knows my needs so I don't have to have my needs and wants parallel. God can give me things before I know they are available.
The Cry of Triumph was not a cry of triumph but taken from Psalms 22 where the psalmist, David, was examining the course of events that he had experienced. There was a feeling of being forsaken by David. Later, David, in Psalm 23, tells of how great things had become. Jesus, on the cross, reminded people that things may seems bad now, but they will get better later on.
So if VPW was wrong on believing and this point, how can you be so sure he was right on other things?
As for the Lay of Abundance and Power, I never took the class. Adultery is wrong, always has been wrong, and always will be wrong. Adultery is sin, period, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Well, duh!
As the the "absent Christ", my Christ has never been absent from my life.
Yes, I believe in devil spirits. I believe spirits affect homosexuals. I believe spirits affect adulterers. I believe that LCM would have been too influenced y his own spirits to spot the spirits affecting anyone else. We are supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner. LCM acted with hatred toward gays, therefore that hatred resonated toward anyone he merely suspected was gay.
10% tithing applied to the law administration, not the church. Giving of abundance applies to the church.
Chapter and verse please!
VPW did a great job when he showed 4 crucified with Christ.
But VPW stole this from Bullinger!
I absolutely believe that 4 others were crucified with him. What were they crucified on, stakes or crosses? I don't know. They used both items during that time period. The Bible uses the word "cross". A cross would have to be sawed or shaped would be take more preparation but make it lighter than a round pole or stake. A round pole is less work but harder to carry. If one merely intends to kill someone, less preparation would seem to be more likely. If one wants to make a spectacle of it, then a cross would be more likely. In otherwords, I don't know, and I really don't think it makes any difference if I do know.
Go check a history book, the cross was a common symbol and execution tool.
What day was Jesus crucified on? I don't know. I have seen credible arguments made for both Wednesday and Friday. I actually think the argument for Thursday made more sense than Wednesday or Friday. So, I don't know what day he was crucified, and knowing the particular day won't affect or influence my life whatsoever.
If speaking in tongues is speaking to God, wouldn't the interpretation be addressed to God also, not God speaking to man. That would be prophecy, thus what people that was interpretation was not but instead it was prophecy.
Too much focus on physical details leads to too little focus on spiritual matters.
The more abundant life is the new birth, not material possessions or wealth.
There is a difference between wealth and prosperity. III Jn 3 is God's desire for people, not necessarily a promise. God wants us to be prosperous and in good health, as our soul prospers. Hey, if we focus too much on hatred, our soul will not prosper.
I think some of these posters here are so wrapped up in their hatred of the TWI, it's impossible for them to understand truth.
_Does this mean TWI is Truth?_
Where is the heck do you come up with that stretch? Did I say TWI is truth? No, I did not. TWI leaders and others in TWI did teach a lot of truth. There were also some erroneous doctrines taught. But if your agenda is anti-Way, anti-Wierwille, or anti-Martindale, you will not be able to see what TWI people taught that was true. Where did you get that crazy idea that TWI equals truth. TWI is a legal entity. TWI does not in and of itself, but only but its members do. Def, you can go to some of the craziest leaps in logic known to mankind.
Hatred, bitterness, resentments, and animosity do no one any good. They cloud your judgment.
_So how's yours?_ I am thankful for my time in TWI. I am thankful for my time out of TWI. I harbor no animosity whatsoever toward VPW, LCM, R(whatever her middle initial is)R, Harve Platig, Yves (whatever he name is, I never knew him anyway) or anyone else who was in TWI leadership. Your words reek of hatred. But, that's your problem.
When I left TWI, the Word did not leave me. I for one am extremely thankful for the 12 years I spent in TWI. When I was 18 years, I told God that things had to get better or I would kill myself on my 19th birthday. On my 19th birthday, I was sitting in the 2nd week of the PFAL.
_And this was a good thing?_ Duh, of course, it was a good thing. There were many people who got involved in TWI that were delivered from drug addictions. Many people overcome child abuse, childhood abandonment, diseases, bad and/or abusive relationships, mental problems, etc. Do you think God delivered people from affllictions is a bad thing?
I am very thankful for the Word that was taught me by Dr. Wierwille and other TWI leaders.
_What word and which leaders?_ What word? What planet are you from? The Word of God. From your words, it certainly sounds like the Word of God is a very foreign concept to you. Leaders such as LCM (yeah, even him), Ralph Dubofsky, John and Pat Lynn, Bob Carden, Michael Rood, Phil and Teri Dean, Doug Lambert, John Guthrie, Duke Clarke, Dean and Wanda Rhoades, Michael Cahill, Susan Palange, Paul Kern, Wayne and Cindy Schneider, Sue Washington, Carol Gellner, Randy Anderson, Earl Burton, Walter Cummins, and many others. Maybe you should try finding some decent leadership, but whoever you are following (yourself!!!) isn't doing a very good job of leading you.
When I left, I re-examined many of the things I was taught. Did you get that, I re-examined. Some of you are so anti-Way you may never understand or believe truth again. I re-examined doctrines, whereas so of you go out of your way, to the farthest extremes possible, to try and find fault with everything taught in TWI.
_Could it be that others have re-examined TWI doctrine and came up with a different conclusion? Whose judgement is clouded?_ Re-examining is taking an honest and objective approach. You are obviously on anti-Way agenda, therefore your conclusions are obviously swayed to fit your hostile agenda.
Some of you clearly will never understand administrations but you are determined to prove it wrong, even though it is right.
_This is your opinion. VPW used a new word to describe dispensationalist theology._ That is truth, like it or not. Just because you choose not to belief truth in no way affects what truth is. Your unbelief affects you. Call it a car, a jalopy, auto, automobile, or sedan, it's still a car. Administration or dispensation, same difference. Again, many people before TWI taught about dispensations or adminstrations. Your focus on VPW teaching it clearly shows your anti-VPW mentality, which affects your judgment.
There is no hope for you knowing truth when your whole agenda is trying to put down Dr. Wierwille, when he isn't alive to defend himself.
_We have his words, by what other means do we have to judge him?_ If you judge only by words, that is one thing. If you try to twist or distort his words or take them out of context, you are making an error in judgment. And no one can presume the motives of another, unless that other person tells one of those motives. To assume motives is to lead to fallacious and undeserved judgment.
Even the ridiculous name for this forum shows immediately how some people are approaching this subject. And in case you didn't know it, there were many people before VPW who taught about administrations, including Bullinger. So, those of you propounding this anti-Way, anti-Wierwille have chosen probably the most idiotic, egotistical, self-centered, non-rewarding agenda possible.
_Again your mind appears made up and still you offer no supporting documentation, show who is egotistical and self-centered here anyway? _ When someone is so set to disprove something, that person lauds their own self as the savior that everyone else is supposed to follow. Your anti-Way, anti-Wierwille, anti-LCM, anti-reality mentality serves no valid function other than to feed your own ego.
As far as Way materials. I actually don't own any Way literature or other materials. As far as Way doctrines are concerned. Jesus Christ is not God was what TWI taught. And they were absolutely 100% right about. The stupid trinity doctrine is a paganistic pile of crap, with no biblical basis whatsoever.
_Some on GSC agree with you, others (like myself) do not. But what are you basing your conclusions on, TWI? VPW? Have you gone to trinitarian sources for understanding? Like Bullinger perhaps? I went to Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, MD for 2 years. I even took their class (do I hear gasping now). I went to their Sunday church services. I went to their care groups (groups that met in people's home). Awhile after my involvement in that church, I even went to a Baptist Church for awhile. I have gone to plenty of outside sources. The truth (something you obviously don't seem to comprehend) of the matter is that of all of the major mainstream Christian doctrines, the Trinity is least valid, least scriptural, least provable of all of them. The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible. God as a "person", never mentioned. Jesus as "God the Son", never mentioned. "Co-equal" and "co-eterenal", never mentioned. Orthodox Jews still believe pretty much what Jews have always believed, and Jews don't believe in any triune godhead. One of the most commonly used verses by Trinitarians to prove that Jesus is God is Jn 10:10, I and my Father are one. Three Gods in one, that verse should have read I and my Father are two-thirds. Or the poor Holy Spirit (who is supposed to be coequal) is yelling at Jesus because he forget all about him. The Trinity is bunk, period. Never can be proven.
As far as Way doctrine, I do not believe believing = receiving, I believe believing influences receiving. And God knows my needs so I don't have to have my needs and wants parallel. God can give me things before I know they are available.
The Cry of Triumph was not a cry of triumph but taken from Psalms 22 where the psalmist, David, was examining the course of events that he had experienced. There was a feeling of being forsaken by David. Later, David, in Psalm 23, tells of how great things had become. Jesus, on the cross, reminded people that things may seems bad now, but they will get better later on.
_So if VPW was wrong on believing and this point, how can you be so sure he was right on other things? _ Again, we can see blatant evidence of your lapses in logic. One compares what a Bible teacher says to what's in the Bible. The Bible clearly shows Jesus Christ is not God. Dr. Wierwille neglected verses in the Bible regarding receiving things from God, such as the verses that says that we have not because we ask amiss (for wrong motives or purposes). In that case, it is not whether there is doubt present, but what the motives of the heart are. If we go to the Word, not traditions, but to the Word, we can logically and rational examine which things Wierwille taught were true, and which weren't. By the way, why do you attribute everything to VPW? Bullinger taught about the straight poles versus crosses. Bullinger taught about the others crucified. Stiles taught about the giver and the gift. Why are you mad as hell toward Bullinger? Why are you mad as hell toward Stiles? I'll tell you why? Because you weren't personally involved or attached to those men. That personal involvement and the perceived betrayal has sparked that bitterness that resonates within your life. If you were objectively concerned about what doctrines you think were wrong, then logically you should direct your anger at Bullinger who taught about administrations or dispensations before VPW.
As for the Lay of Abundance and Power, I never took the class. Adultery is wrong, always has been wrong, and always will be wrong. Adultery is sin, period, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
_Well, duh!_
As for the "absent Christ", my Christ has never been absent from my life.
Yes, I believe in devil spirits. I believe spirits affect homosexuals. I believe spirits affect adulterers. I believe that LCM would have been too influenced y his own spirits to spot the spirits affecting anyone else. We are supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner. LCM acted with hatred toward gays, therefore that hatred resonated toward anyone he merely suspected was gay.
10% tithing applied to the law administration, not the church. Giving of abundance applies to the church.
_Chapter and verse please! Have you ever heard of the book of Malachi, it's in the OT. Read Malachi, then read II Corinthians chapters 8 and 9.
VPW did a great job when he showed 4 crucified with Christ.
_But VPW stole this from Bullinger!_ There again, you are showing your anti-Way, anti-VPW mentality. Bullinger did not teach the PFAL classes that we took. I said VPW "showed" us that. VPW laid out all of the relevant scriptures to positively show that there were 2 different categories of wrongdoers, and that the timing and sequence of events would have required two on either side for it to make sense. Your hatred and anger also shows when you used the word "stole". Reciting a truth from God's Word is not stealing. Your anti-TWI is obviously clouding your judgment. Yes, he failed to proper credit Bullinger.
I absolutely believe that 4 others were crucified with him. What were they crucified on, stakes or crosses? I don't know. They used both items during that time period. The Bible uses the word "cross". A cross would have to be sawed or shaped would be take more preparation but make it lighter than a round pole or stake. A round pole is less work but harder to carry. If one merely intends to kill someone, less preparation would seem to be more likely. If one wants to make a spectacle of it, then a cross would be more likely. In otherwords, I don't know, and I really don't think it makes any difference if I do know.
_Go check a history book, the cross was a common symbol and execution tool._ If you had actually read what I said, I said that both straight poles and crosses were used. The Romans used both. That doesn't exclude the straight pole from being used at Jesus' crucification. I don't think anyone can honestly declare it either way, pole or cross. The instrument of death isn't the important issue, what Jesus accomplished through his crucificion and resurrection was. As far as I'm concerned, it really doesn't make one bit of difference, cross or pole.
What day was Jesus crucified on? I don't know. I have seen credible arguments made for both Wednesday and Friday. I actually think the argument for Thursday made more sense than Wednesday or Friday. So, I don't know what day he was crucified, and knowing the particular day won't affect or influence my life whatsoever.
That's enough for now.
_Thanks, we can hardly wait._
Some people can be somewhat humorous with sarcasm, unfortunately, you are one of them. Don't give up your day job.
In all fairness, not everyone who has arrived to a perspective or conclusion or even a doctrine differing from the sphere of yours or Wierwille's or Bullinger's or Lynn's or anyone elses has done so out of a motivation of hatred, bitterness or spite.
Seems I recall once upon a time many folks in the Way giving testimonies which contrasted and compared their previous religious and spiritual ideas to their newly acquired ideas and understanding picked up in the Way; i.e., "I used to be a Roman Catholic but now I believe this", or, "I used to be a Liberal but now I believe that", etc. But now, years later, any of us who have continued in their "quest for truth" - whether with another group or independently - find it perfectly healthy and constructive to compare and contrast anything we newly learn against what we previously believed or were taught and experienced, including anything which came to us via Wierwille or Bullinger.
Please do not mistake this experiential, sifting comparative/contrastive learning process as necessarily a manifestation of bitterness or hatred against a particular group or teacher. I do not think this is the case with each individual here.
Just because someone believes Christ to be God -or the Bible not to be wholly perfectly perfect - or they have a different take on "administrations" - doesn't necessarily mean they do so out of hatred or bitterness.
Forgive me, Dan, but I thought this needed to be restated, in bold, capital letters, if I had the time or patience to work on that:
quote:In all fairness, not everyone who has arrived to a perspective or conclusion or even a doctrine differing from the sphere of yours or Wierwille's or Bullinger's or Lynn's or anyone elses has done so out of a motivation of hatred, bitterness or spite.
I am not claiming people are acting out of bitterness or hatred just because they disagree. I happen to live in a city where there is a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center. AA and NA are very big here. I have become friends with a number of people involved in the 12-step programs. I have gone to AA & NA meetings to see what it's all about. I find the people in these groups very spiritual, very kind, very understand, yet they disagree with me on many subjects. First of all, my "Way mentality" still tells me that if I limit myself to 2 drinks at a time, I will never have to humbly tell these friends that I am one of them. Second, my personal belief is that any "higher power" other than the one true God is idolatry.
But, if we examine this situation logically, the title for this forum is "Wierwille's Wacky Dispensationalism". Plenty of Bible researchers and teachers before VPW believed in dispensations or administrations. People before Bullinger believed in them. Yet, the creator of this forum characterized VPW and though this was clearly VPW's idea. There is certainly a Biblical basis for dispensations or administrations. Adam and Eve before the original sin, Adam and Eve kicked out of the Garden. Before the law was given, after the law was given. Under law, then under grace. So, attributing this doctrine to Wierwille was wrong because the OT and NT authors presented the idea. Plenty of theologicians have taught the idea. Bullinger taught the idea. So did VPW.
Why did the creator of this forum determine that it was "wacky". The creator of this forum and so others who have similarly "wacky" anti-Way mentalities reacted to the problems within TWI by deciding that everything about TWI was bad. Their decision that administrations were wrong was not based upon scriptural evidence but by how they reacted to the downfall of TWI.
In life, there are plenty of things that can anger us. I don't like standing in lines. But if I believed that anyone who made me stand in line was of the devil, my thinking would be pretty screwed up. I would be reacting to situations and personally blaming individuals who were doing the best they could do at the time.
I have heard people accuse VPW of being in it for the money. I saw some of VPW's tax returns. I think the most he made, at the time I saw the returns, was around $43,000. If I remember correctly, his salary was actually around $60,000 annually. He usually did not even collect his entire salary. And that's suppose to mean he was only in it for the money. That is people illogically and immorally attributing motives to someone to feel superior to that person or group.
I have been around plenty of people who had different viewpoints or conclusions. I moved to Maryland, my WOW year, from Oklahoma. Everyone I knew in Oklahoma, believer-wise, was a Cowboys fan. I moved to Maryland and, to my surprise, believers in Maryland actually had the audacity to root for those dreaded Redskins. They came to a different conclusion about which NFL team to root for.
It's pretty easy to spot the venom gushing out of the fangs of some of these posters. VPW did this. VPW did that. VPW was the cause of this. VPW was the cause of that. For most people who left TWI, the problems they encountered were related to their attitudes about leaving and how long they maintained those attitudes.
I mean, I was upset. Yes, at one point, I felt angry and betrayed. I was mad at Craig. Then, I was mad at John Lynn for stirring up everything. Then I was mad at Craig for having to have John stir up everything. But, I began to view the problems that happened within TWI the same as when problems happened on the WOW field. I viewed the situation as another bump in the road, and that God would see me through this situation.
I left TWI but I did not leave truth behind. I did not let anger cloud my heart to the truth. I took Dale Sides' classes. I went to a charismatic church. I went to CES fellowships. I went to fellowships that became a part of CFFM. I ran the gamut of different options. When another ex-Wayer and I went to the charismatic church, we would offer positive things to one another about the church. I liked their care groups (home meetings). I liked their worship time when the band was playing and everyone was waving their hands in the air. I felt TWI was way too rigid in their appreciation of our savior, Jesus Christ. I took the class offered by the church. In 1990, I was very open to new things. The harder I tried to find flaws in the doctrines of Jesus Christ is not God and Are the Dead Alive Now, the harder it was to dismiss those doctrines. Then when the church found out about our Way involvment, they were endlessly trying to convince us that we had to believe in the "deity of Jesus Christ". Time to see ya later.
Later, I went to a Baptist Church for about 1 year. I listened to whatever was taught by the Baptist minister, Rev. Terry Crowley. I would compare it to what I read in the Bible. Some was right and some was wrong. But I didn't go creating a forum so that I could vent my rage against the man just because he wasn't perfect. I just got bored with the Baptist Church. I told you already that part of my reaction to the worship time at the charismatic church was a belief that TWI was too rigid in the way they worshipped God. So, one could see how I would think the Baptist Church boring.
I tried 3 different churches. I tried the gamut of ex-Way groups. I do feel a closeness both to CES and to CFFM. I know there are a few differences doctrinally, but I don't think there is that much difference spiritually. I believe people in both groups have their heads on straight, love God, and endeavor, to the best of their abilities, to serve God.
I wouldn't expect you to write about where Crowley was right and where he was wrong, for two reasons. One: he is not the leader of the Baptists. He's a low man on the totem pole, and writing about his accuracy would be like writing about the accuracy of the average "twig" coordinator. Two: Crowley didn't set out to craft a unique subset of believers who would exalt him as the man of God for our time, and use and abuse the Bible in the process. Wierwille did, to devastating effect.
For the past few years it's been my belief that Wierwille did some pretty bad things, and if I am going to value the things I was taught, it has to be independent of that man. I will not defend him, nor will I dismiss the things he taught merely because he taught them. However, if I determine that he was wrong about something, and the available evidence leads me to conclude his reason for being wrong was deliberate and self-serving, then I'm going to say it, and why not? Wierwille was wrong about tithing, and wrong in a way that profitted him greatly. I believe it was deliberate (the guy who taught "to whom addressed" couldn't possibly keep missing the point that "the church" is never given the tithe as a minimum standard). His failure to address adultery in the Christian Family and Sex class was self-serving.
Honest Christians disagree about dispensationalism/administrations. I don't think it's right to accuse people of disagreeing with that doctrine just because they "hate" Wierwille (and if you didn't make that accusation, you sure as sugar implied it).
Let's talk about the thread title: I think you need to know that the subject of dispensationalism has come up on this board a number of times. You should also know (and I'm sure you do) that not all dispensationalists agree on the nature and timing of the dispensations. In fact, Wierwille is, if I am not mistaken, the ONLY one who referred to them as administrations rather than dispensations. It's also odd that he sets the "Christ Administration" as a separate dispensation (others teach that it fell under the law, closing it out).
Point is, Wierwille's particular brand of dispensationalism was unique: whether it's wacky is a statement of opinion, and I think you've read far more into the title of this thread than the substance of the posts that followed.
BFD, I think the money/greed issue isn't addressed by the personal income of VPW although I get the impression there are people look at it that way. And remember, compensation can include things that don't appear in the gross income on a tax return. Beyond that however there's actually a different slant on that topic that I believe is important.
Whether it's believed or not, if you follow the path of VPW from the time he felt God spoke to him and told him He'd teach him if VPW taught it and follow how he set his ministry up with PFAL there is a contradiction that's hard to miss, I think. Keep in mind too that the PFAL of tape and film that most grads took was only filmed in 1967 and culminated all of his previous teaching formats into that one product. So when you look to the periods of the ministry's growth in California he'd only had it in the can for a year or so.
That product and the 2 intermediate and advanced classes formed the core of his teaching ministry. Granted there was a great deal more teachings he did, books, etc. literally 1000's of presentations in one form or another over the years. But they're the core of what he believed he had to offer in his teaching ministry.
Those classes were marketed and sold for money, different amounts over the years, fees, contributions, donations whatever you want to call them. But the process for reaching out with the teaching he said God gave and was giving him was to sell it in the form of classes and other materials. If you didn't pay you didn't get the teaching.
Regardless of the reasons behind the donation structure it never varied for the mass of classes run.
I see a problem with that. Personally I never expected that the PFAL series would remain being a sold class forever. But it did. If you look at the Way tree structure and the Way Corps and Ambassador programs they were constantly tooled and retooled - by VPW for many years - to make people more adept at selling and running PFAL classes. The very definition of "WOW" was a twig in every community in the world - of instructed PFAL grads. By VPW's own actions it became the single point of entry to the "household" of true believers and the only way to fully receive the "accuracy of the Word".
After 15 years out it sounds silly, but it's not hard to remember that without the PFAL class under your belt it was impossible to be considered an instructed "believer" in the Way and participate in many activities. They all required you to be a PFAL grad, for the most part. Those that didn't provided the opportunity to enroll.
The fact that many people still felt that being a "grad" actually served a larger purpose by helping you was, IMO, largely lost on the emphasis on the work of promoting and promulgating PFAL. The means to the end became the end itself.
The Way Corps is often criticized for being hard hearted, pushy ,egotistical and single minded. Where do we think that came from? Attitude, like water, flows downhill. Granted you're going to get some mult-level marketing fans and jerks but how do you get bunches of people who want to "help people" and "learn the Word" and "build something positive" one year and within 4-5 years have a bunch of people ready to ream you out for not being at a meeting 15 minutes early and telling you just don't care about God, do you you slacker!!!???
Personally I think a lot of the problems and unbalanced behavior that grew in the Way over the years - while VPW was alive and at the helm - was the result of focusing on the work, not the end result.
My point about the money is that PFAL sold something that wasn't his to sell - God's Word. The collection of specific amounts of money as a donation, a charge by any other word, for "God's Word" was wrong IMO. Per Jesus, you can't mix money and the things of God up like that even if you think it's for a good reason. It's a fine line and once it's crossed I believe the "hose" dries up. Look at any of the big money pumping religious machines and you see the same thing - a lot of talk and preening and swelling memberships and lots of problems. I believe sooner or later it catches up with you and when it's in your own lifetime, that's sooner.
While all of these organizations will have people who will say God works in their lives and there's good things happening, it's tainted at the center. Everyone struggling to believe more, to know more, to give more, to do this or that more, gotta get to this conference that meeting, get that tape, get this tape,and all the time I see it as people pulling a cart filled with one diamond and a 1,000 pounds of rocks. Get rid of the rocks and the cart wouldn't be an issue. You can carry a diamond in your pocket.
This is off the "Wacky" topic, but hey. We're here. : ) I don't care that much about that part of the discussion, so forgive me. I'm also not a part of any ex-Way groups of any kind and never have been, so I don't know much about them either.
-edited to add more scinitallating comments and at the behest of my inner word nanny to correct typos! : )
In one of your posts on this page you mention how it is wrong to assume what someone's motives are, referring to VPW. Yet you are regularly doing that to others here. You are assuming that the motivation of several of the posters here is a hatred of VPW, TWI et al.
You then deride those who disagree with you as "clearly unable to understand administrations", or "really don't understand the bible at all".
Posters bring up points of disagreement; you don't address those points, but tell the posters to "address their anger issues", accuse them of believing what they do due to a blindness brought on my unthinking anti-Wierwillism and repeat the same analogies ad infinitum.
You pat yourself on the back for parting ways with Wierwille on several points, illustrating that you are an independent thinker, and rip other posters for disagreeing on others.
Pick some points that other posters have made and discuss them, why doncha?
Let's start with the so-called Law Administration:
When did it begin? Probably with the giving of "The Law" to Moses, wouldn't you say? But that "Law" was given piecemeal over a period of forty years according to "The Law" itself.
Didn't God deal differently with Israel during the forty years in the wilderness? During the time of Joshua? The time of the Judges? The Kingship? The Captivity? Did you know the rules for observing the passover were different in several of those time periods?
And what about non-Jews during the time between the giving of the Law and the ministry of Jesus? They weren't under the Law, were they? So what administration were they under?
What about what Wierwille called "The Appearing Administration? Is God really dealing with anyone the same before the thousand-year binding of Satan and after?
By the way, I have always tended to think that the bible teaches some form of dispensationalism, but am re-thinking that opinion in light of other information...just "for your learning" ;)-->
quote:I am very thankful for the Word that was taught me by Dr. Wierwille and other TWI leaders.
What word and which leaders?
What word? What planet are you from? The Word of God. From your words, it certainly sounds like the Word of God is a very foreign concept to you.
There is some disagreement here at GSC about just what Wierwille ("doctor" purposely omitted) was teaching and just how much of it was "The Word of God". You're saying that the Word of God is a foreign concept to def59? Do you even read his posts? def & I frequently disagree and can get kind of snippy with each other...but "The Word of God" as a foreign concept? What planet are you from?
quote:Leaders such as...[many examples given here] but whoever you are following (yourself!!!) isn't doing a very good job of leading you.
Why, because def comes up with a different conclusion than you do?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
34
19
37
Popular Days
Dec 10
26
Dec 9
20
Dec 21
13
Dec 22
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Biblefan Dave 23 posts
Vertical Limit 34 posts
Oakspear 19 posts
Steve Lortz 37 posts
Popular Days
Dec 10 2004
26 posts
Dec 9 2004
20 posts
Dec 21 2004
13 posts
Dec 22 2004
12 posts
Steve Lortz
A few comments:
Vertical Limit - I may not agree 100% with some of the things you wrote in your post of 12/08/04, 07:25, but I do agree with your last paragraph,
Oakspear - You asked, "In your "non-administrative" view of the bible, do you believe that there are some parts of the bible that aren't 'written to us'?"
I wouldn't characterize my view of the Bible as "non-administrative". There ARE administrations in the Bible, they just aren't periods of time. There was the administration of Joseph over Potiphar's household. There was the administration of Joseph over the prison. There was the administration of Joseph over Egypt. All of these were foreshadowings of Jesus Christ's administration over creation, instituted by God the Father when Jesus Was glorified after his resurrection. There was also the administration of Paul over the knowledge that God had extended grace to believing Gentiles, as Gentiles. I would call my view "anti-dispensational".
When Wierwille called his scheme "administrations" he was just slapping a different label on Darby's can of dispensationalism. Wierwille by-passed Bullinger's ultra-dispensationalism because Bullinger believed the manifestations of holy spirit evident on Pentescost went out with the revelation of "the mystery" to Paul when he was in prison in Acts 28.
"Do you believe that there are some parts of the bible that aren't 'written to us'?"
The truth is, Oakspear, I don't believe there are ANY parts of the Bible written directly TO us.
It appears to me that every scrap of the Bible was written with a specific purpose in mind TO specific people at the time of the writing. For instance, I think Samuel and Kings were composed during the reign of Solomon with a view to establishing the legitimacy of his authority. In the process, they foretell the coming of a son of David who will also be a son of God, to whose kingdom there will be no end.
Was it written TO me? No.
Is it necessary for me to know what's written in Samuel and Kings in order to be saved? No.
Do I gain, by knowing what's written in Samuel and Kings, a fuller understanding of what Paul meant when he wrote about who Jesus Christ is, and the nature of his lordship? Yes.
Was the book of Hebrews written TO me? No, it was written to believers who had come to Christ from Jewish backgrounds.
Do I need to know what's written in Hebrews in order to be saved? No.
Do I gain, by knowing the book of Hebrews, a fuller understanding of how Jesus Christ mediated the New Testament originally promised to Israel in Jeremiah 31? Yes, I do.
Was the book of Ephesians written to me? No. It was written to a group of believers who lived in Ephesus around the middle of the first century, who additionally, had been personally ministered to by Paul.
Do I need to know what's in Ephesians in order to be saved? No.
Do I gain a fuller understanding that I, as a Gentile born and bred, can still get in on the benefits of the New Testament God promised to Israel? Yes, I do.
Was the book of Romans written to me? No. It was written to a group of believers who lived in Rome around the middle of the first-century.
I can learn a lot from reading Romans about what Paul thought, because he had to explain more things to them. He had never taught them in person before his writing.
And no, I don't need to know what's written in Romans in order to be saved. The fundamental promise of Christian salvation is Joel 2:32a.
Is the book of Revelation written TO me? No. It was written to seven groups of believers who lived in Asia Minor near the end of the first-century. One of those groups was living at Ephesus. Some of the older people at Ephesus, sitting there listening to John's messenger read Revelation, may have been able to remember sitting there as youths, listening to Tychicus read Paul's letter to them. Both Ephesians and Revelation may have been written to the SAME INDIVIDUAL believiers!
Do I need to know what's in Revelation in order to be saved? No.
By knowing Revelation, do I learn about the rewards Jesus offers to those who remain faithful in the midst of tribulation, and the "rewards" he offers to those those who oppose him? Yes, I do.
As for you list of "administrations", Oakspear:
You list a "Post-diluvian Administration -After the flood" immediately after a "Antediluvian Administration - pre-flood", yet we know the flood itself lasted for at least a year. Shouldn't we include a "Mid-diluvian Administration - during the flood"? We know the "rules of life" had to change. Somebody had to be responsible for shovelling all that poop.
Shouldn't your "Gettin' Their Butts Kicked by the Gentiles Administration" be divided into a series of 40 year "administrations" alternating between the rules of life being set by judges and the rules of life being set by various tribes of oppressors, concluding with the "Samuel's Sons Administration"?
In your "Petrine Administration" you wrote, "still following the law", and in your "Pauline Administration" you wrote , "out with the law". Yet you don't have any "Law Administration" listed. How can we know the extent of the "Law Administration" if you don't indicate when it began?
You have the "Christ on Earth Administration" immediately following the "Post Captivity Administration", but Luke 16:16a says "The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]..." and in John 3:30 John the Baptist says "He [Jesus Christ] must increase, but I must decrease."
Shouldn't there be a "John the Baptist Administration" in there somewhere? :-D
Hey, dmiller, what does that do for your numerological gematria? & again :-D
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Steve:
Your explanation of what was written to whom, etc makes a lot of sense. I always thought it was a "wrong dividing" to ignore the "...who are at Ephesus", or Corinth or wherever in the salutation section of each epistle.
Thanks for your insight into adding different "administrations"
Anyway, as I'm sure that you understood, the Oakspearian Administrations illustrate just how arbitrary the scheme is. Bullinger picked seven because it fit into his framework of number in scripture, and Wierwille picked up on it, although he changed them around a little.
Although many of them are in fun, there are just as many differences in the way God dealt with people within some of the TWI administrations as between them.
What do you think of that, Biblefan Dave?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
"For our learning" is the same Greek word translated "doctrine" almost everywhere else in the NT. Wierwille failed to mention that when he selective negated the things he didn't like in the OT and the Gospels.
I see Biblefan Dave still seems buys in to that Wierwillian theological twist. Too bad.
Dave writes concerning Diepensationalism:
And where would that be? Which Epsitle and what Bible mentions an "administration of grace". Not the King James. Not the NIV. Not the ASV. The words "administration of grace" do not appear in any Bible that I am aware of.
Paul does however write in Epehsians 3:2:
Eph 3:2 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Is this talking about an "Administration" as defined by Wierwille/Bullinger/et al - as in a period of time? No. In the context read verses 7 & 8:
Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles).
To pull a time framed "administration of grace" out of these verses is absurd and sloppy interpretation and is not reading it in the context.
Dave said elsewhere:
Huh? What "actual words" are you taking about.After posting a diatribe of TWI Doctrine and Wierwillian theology, Dave then writes:
LOL! Hey Dave have you ever closed your PFAL Book and your TWI materials are actually read anything else? I kinda doubt it. Maybe you should unclutter your mind of strict adherance to Wierwille's teachings and study the works of some true Christian scholars.
You are making a false presumption that folks who disagree with TWI doctrines do so becasue of resentment and anger. Not so.
You see some of us have actually studied outside of PFAL and TWI materials and have through objective study found them seriously flawed and wanting - broken cisters that can hold little water.
So get off of the anger and resentmet horsepucky - ok ? It doesn't cut it around here,
Oh, and welcome to Greasespot!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Before you go jumping down Biblefandave's throat too badly, remember where we once were. In the same boat you know?!
I see where he is thinking and considering what has been said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Don't think that business about the same boat doesn't give me a
chill.
Just because I was younger and stupider once, and didn't watch
my back, doesn't mean I'm blase about it....
Perhaps he is thinking and considering, perhaps not.
Me, I'm not sure coddling him while he learns those hard lessons
will make them easier-perhaps he will decide he doesn't need
to confront his OWN suppositions that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
I don't think I'm coddling him. Or that anyone is too hard on him. But it could get that way quick. Then it's just another big fight instead of a discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Many of the early copies of Ephesians omit the words "at Ephesus." This could mean that it was addressed to all who are saints, or that the letter was circulated to several cities. Either way, a broader group than just the Christians at Ephesus are addressed.
On the other hand, all the manuscripts of the other epistles contain the names of the cities they were sent to.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
I think some of these posters here are so wrapped up in their hatred of the TWI, it's impossible for them to understand truth.
Hatred, bitterness, resentments, and animosity do no one any good. They cloud your judgment.
When I left TWI, the Word did not leave me. I for one am extremely thankful for the 12 years I spent in TWI. When I was 18 years, I told God that things had to get better or I would kill myself on my 19th birthday. On my 19th birthday, I was sitting in the 2nd week of the PFAL.
I am very thankful for the Word that was taught me by Dr. Wierwille and other TWI leaders.
When I left, I re-examined many of the things I was taught. Did you get that, I re-examined. Some of you are so anti-Way you may never understand or believe truth again. I re-examined doctrines, whereas so of you go out of your way, to the farthest extremes possible, to try and find fault with everything taught in TWI.
Some of you clearly will never understand administrations but you are determined to prove it wrong, even though it is right. There is no hope for you knowing truth when your whole agenda is trying to put down Dr. Wierwille, when he isn't alive to defend himself. Even the ridiculous name for this forum shows immediately how some people are approaching this subject. And in case you didn't know it, there were many people before VPW who taught about administrations, including Bullinger. So, those of you propounding this anti-Way, anti-Wierwille have chosen probably the most idiotic, egotistical, self-centered, non-rewarding agenda possible.
As far as Way materials. I actually don't own any Way literature or other materials. As far as Way doctrines are concerned. Jesus Christ is not God was what TWI taught. And they were absolutely 100% right about. The stupid trinity doctrine is a paganistic pile of crap, with no biblical basis whatsoever.
As far as Way doctrine, I do not believe believing = receiving, I believe believing influences receiving. And God knows my needs so I don't have to have my needs and wants parallel. God can give me things before I know they are available.
The Cry of Triumph was not a cry of triumph but taken from Psalms 22 where the psalmist, David, was examining the course of events that he had experienced. There was a feeling of being forsaken by David. Later, David, in Psalm 23, tells of how great things had become. Jesus, on the cross, reminded people that things may seems bad now, but they will get better later on.
As for the Lay of Abundance and Power, I never took the class. Adultery is wrong, always has been wrong, and always will be wrong. Adultery is sin, period, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
As the the "absent Christ", my Christ has never been absent from my life.
Yes, I believe in devil spirits. I believe spirits affect homosexuals. I believe spirits affect adulterers. I believe that LCM would have been too influenced y his own spirits to spot the spirits affecting anyone else. We are supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner. LCM acted with hatred toward gays, therefore that hatred resonated toward anyone he merely suspected was gay.
10% tithing applied to the law administration, not the church. Giving of abundance applies to the church.
VPW did a great job when he showed 4 crucified with Christ. I absolutely believe that 4 others were crucified with him. What were they crucified on, stakes or crosses? I don't know. They used both items during that time period. The Bible uses the word "cross". A cross would have to be sawed or shaped would be take more preparation but make it lighter than a round pole or stake. A round pole is less work but harder to carry. If one merely intends to kill someone, less preparation would seem to be more likely. If one wants to make a spectacle of it, then a cross would be more likely. In otherwords, I don't know, and I really don't think it makes any difference if I do know.
What day was Jesus crucified on? I don't know. I have seen credible arguments made for both Wednesday and Friday. I actually think the argument for Thursday made more sense than Wednesday or Friday. So, I don't know what day he was crucified, and knowing the particular day won't affect or influence my life whatsoever.
That's enough for now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
George,
That's an excellent point. In the Marcionite NT (circ. 130 CE) Ephesians in that canon was titled "To the Laodiceans", not to be confused with the later, brief apocryphal letter of the same title.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
More on Way doctrine:
If speaking in tongues is speaking to God, wouldn't the interpretation be addressed to God also, not God speaking to man. That would be prophecy, thus what people that was interpretation was not but instead it was prophecy.
Too much focus on physical details leads to too little focus on spiritual matters.
The more abundant life is the new birth, not material possessions or wealth.
There is a difference between wealth and prosperity. III Jn 3 is God's desire for people, not necessarily a promise. God wants us to be prosperous and in good health, as our soul prospers. Hey, if we focus too much on hatred, our soul will not prosper.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Dave,
Have you aligned with CES? If you haven't, sounds like you'd be mostly at home there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Mike, move over, there's a new sheriff in town...
"Bible"Dave -- you sure have ALL the answers, doncha??? I guess GAWWDD hasta carve out a new spot, cuz you sure must KNOW IT ALL!!
You could NOT POSSIBLY learn anything, since you are 100% sure on everything as you yourself say....
waddajoke........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
like I said, Mike, this guy is out for your job...he read your manual on dodge, distract and discredit and memorized it....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Biblefan Dave,
In all fairness, not everyone who has arrived to a perspective or conclusion or even a doctrine differing from the sphere of yours or Wierwille's or Bullinger's or Lynn's or anyone elses has done so out of a motivation of hatred, bitterness or spite.
Seems I recall once upon a time many folks in the Way giving testimonies which contrasted and compared their previous religious and spiritual ideas to their newly acquired ideas and understanding picked up in the Way; i.e., "I used to be a Roman Catholic but now I believe this", or, "I used to be a Liberal but now I believe that", etc. But now, years later, any of us who have continued in their "quest for truth" - whether with another group or independently - find it perfectly healthy and constructive to compare and contrast anything we newly learn against what we previously believed or were taught and experienced, including anything which came to us via Wierwille or Bullinger.
Please do not mistake this experiential, sifting comparative/contrastive learning process as necessarily a manifestation of bitterness or hatred against a particular group or teacher. I do not think this is the case with each individual here.
Just because someone believes Christ to be God -or the Bible not to be wholly perfectly perfect - or they have a different take on "administrations" - doesn't necessarily mean they do so out of hatred or bitterness.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Forgive me, Dan, but I thought this needed to be restated, in bold, capital letters, if I had the time or patience to work on that:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
Dan,
I am not claiming people are acting out of bitterness or hatred just because they disagree. I happen to live in a city where there is a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center. AA and NA are very big here. I have become friends with a number of people involved in the 12-step programs. I have gone to AA & NA meetings to see what it's all about. I find the people in these groups very spiritual, very kind, very understand, yet they disagree with me on many subjects. First of all, my "Way mentality" still tells me that if I limit myself to 2 drinks at a time, I will never have to humbly tell these friends that I am one of them. Second, my personal belief is that any "higher power" other than the one true God is idolatry.
But, if we examine this situation logically, the title for this forum is "Wierwille's Wacky Dispensationalism". Plenty of Bible researchers and teachers before VPW believed in dispensations or administrations. People before Bullinger believed in them. Yet, the creator of this forum characterized VPW and though this was clearly VPW's idea. There is certainly a Biblical basis for dispensations or administrations. Adam and Eve before the original sin, Adam and Eve kicked out of the Garden. Before the law was given, after the law was given. Under law, then under grace. So, attributing this doctrine to Wierwille was wrong because the OT and NT authors presented the idea. Plenty of theologicians have taught the idea. Bullinger taught the idea. So did VPW.
Why did the creator of this forum determine that it was "wacky". The creator of this forum and so others who have similarly "wacky" anti-Way mentalities reacted to the problems within TWI by deciding that everything about TWI was bad. Their decision that administrations were wrong was not based upon scriptural evidence but by how they reacted to the downfall of TWI.
In life, there are plenty of things that can anger us. I don't like standing in lines. But if I believed that anyone who made me stand in line was of the devil, my thinking would be pretty screwed up. I would be reacting to situations and personally blaming individuals who were doing the best they could do at the time.
I have heard people accuse VPW of being in it for the money. I saw some of VPW's tax returns. I think the most he made, at the time I saw the returns, was around $43,000. If I remember correctly, his salary was actually around $60,000 annually. He usually did not even collect his entire salary. And that's suppose to mean he was only in it for the money. That is people illogically and immorally attributing motives to someone to feel superior to that person or group.
I have been around plenty of people who had different viewpoints or conclusions. I moved to Maryland, my WOW year, from Oklahoma. Everyone I knew in Oklahoma, believer-wise, was a Cowboys fan. I moved to Maryland and, to my surprise, believers in Maryland actually had the audacity to root for those dreaded Redskins. They came to a different conclusion about which NFL team to root for.
It's pretty easy to spot the venom gushing out of the fangs of some of these posters. VPW did this. VPW did that. VPW was the cause of this. VPW was the cause of that. For most people who left TWI, the problems they encountered were related to their attitudes about leaving and how long they maintained those attitudes.
I mean, I was upset. Yes, at one point, I felt angry and betrayed. I was mad at Craig. Then, I was mad at John Lynn for stirring up everything. Then I was mad at Craig for having to have John stir up everything. But, I began to view the problems that happened within TWI the same as when problems happened on the WOW field. I viewed the situation as another bump in the road, and that God would see me through this situation.
I left TWI but I did not leave truth behind. I did not let anger cloud my heart to the truth. I took Dale Sides' classes. I went to a charismatic church. I went to CES fellowships. I went to fellowships that became a part of CFFM. I ran the gamut of different options. When another ex-Wayer and I went to the charismatic church, we would offer positive things to one another about the church. I liked their care groups (home meetings). I liked their worship time when the band was playing and everyone was waving their hands in the air. I felt TWI was way too rigid in their appreciation of our savior, Jesus Christ. I took the class offered by the church. In 1990, I was very open to new things. The harder I tried to find flaws in the doctrines of Jesus Christ is not God and Are the Dead Alive Now, the harder it was to dismiss those doctrines. Then when the church found out about our Way involvment, they were endlessly trying to convince us that we had to believe in the "deity of Jesus Christ". Time to see ya later.
Later, I went to a Baptist Church for about 1 year. I listened to whatever was taught by the Baptist minister, Rev. Terry Crowley. I would compare it to what I read in the Bible. Some was right and some was wrong. But I didn't go creating a forum so that I could vent my rage against the man just because he wasn't perfect. I just got bored with the Baptist Church. I told you already that part of my reaction to the worship time at the charismatic church was a belief that TWI was too rigid in the way they worshipped God. So, one could see how I would think the Baptist Church boring.
I tried 3 different churches. I tried the gamut of ex-Way groups. I do feel a closeness both to CES and to CFFM. I know there are a few differences doctrinally, but I don't think there is that much difference spiritually. I believe people in both groups have their heads on straight, love God, and endeavor, to the best of their abilities, to serve God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Dave,
I wouldn't expect you to write about where Crowley was right and where he was wrong, for two reasons. One: he is not the leader of the Baptists. He's a low man on the totem pole, and writing about his accuracy would be like writing about the accuracy of the average "twig" coordinator. Two: Crowley didn't set out to craft a unique subset of believers who would exalt him as the man of God for our time, and use and abuse the Bible in the process. Wierwille did, to devastating effect.
For the past few years it's been my belief that Wierwille did some pretty bad things, and if I am going to value the things I was taught, it has to be independent of that man. I will not defend him, nor will I dismiss the things he taught merely because he taught them. However, if I determine that he was wrong about something, and the available evidence leads me to conclude his reason for being wrong was deliberate and self-serving, then I'm going to say it, and why not? Wierwille was wrong about tithing, and wrong in a way that profitted him greatly. I believe it was deliberate (the guy who taught "to whom addressed" couldn't possibly keep missing the point that "the church" is never given the tithe as a minimum standard). His failure to address adultery in the Christian Family and Sex class was self-serving.
Honest Christians disagree about dispensationalism/administrations. I don't think it's right to accuse people of disagreeing with that doctrine just because they "hate" Wierwille (and if you didn't make that accusation, you sure as sugar implied it).
Let's talk about the thread title: I think you need to know that the subject of dispensationalism has come up on this board a number of times. You should also know (and I'm sure you do) that not all dispensationalists agree on the nature and timing of the dispensations. In fact, Wierwille is, if I am not mistaken, the ONLY one who referred to them as administrations rather than dispensations. It's also odd that he sets the "Christ Administration" as a separate dispensation (others teach that it fell under the law, closing it out).
Point is, Wierwille's particular brand of dispensationalism was unique: whether it's wacky is a statement of opinion, and I think you've read far more into the title of this thread than the substance of the posts that followed.
Interested in your thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
BFD, I think the money/greed issue isn't addressed by the personal income of VPW although I get the impression there are people look at it that way. And remember, compensation can include things that don't appear in the gross income on a tax return. Beyond that however there's actually a different slant on that topic that I believe is important.
Whether it's believed or not, if you follow the path of VPW from the time he felt God spoke to him and told him He'd teach him if VPW taught it and follow how he set his ministry up with PFAL there is a contradiction that's hard to miss, I think. Keep in mind too that the PFAL of tape and film that most grads took was only filmed in 1967 and culminated all of his previous teaching formats into that one product. So when you look to the periods of the ministry's growth in California he'd only had it in the can for a year or so.
That product and the 2 intermediate and advanced classes formed the core of his teaching ministry. Granted there was a great deal more teachings he did, books, etc. literally 1000's of presentations in one form or another over the years. But they're the core of what he believed he had to offer in his teaching ministry.
Those classes were marketed and sold for money, different amounts over the years, fees, contributions, donations whatever you want to call them. But the process for reaching out with the teaching he said God gave and was giving him was to sell it in the form of classes and other materials. If you didn't pay you didn't get the teaching.
Regardless of the reasons behind the donation structure it never varied for the mass of classes run.
I see a problem with that. Personally I never expected that the PFAL series would remain being a sold class forever. But it did. If you look at the Way tree structure and the Way Corps and Ambassador programs they were constantly tooled and retooled - by VPW for many years - to make people more adept at selling and running PFAL classes. The very definition of "WOW" was a twig in every community in the world - of instructed PFAL grads. By VPW's own actions it became the single point of entry to the "household" of true believers and the only way to fully receive the "accuracy of the Word".
After 15 years out it sounds silly, but it's not hard to remember that without the PFAL class under your belt it was impossible to be considered an instructed "believer" in the Way and participate in many activities. They all required you to be a PFAL grad, for the most part. Those that didn't provided the opportunity to enroll.
The fact that many people still felt that being a "grad" actually served a larger purpose by helping you was, IMO, largely lost on the emphasis on the work of promoting and promulgating PFAL. The means to the end became the end itself.
The Way Corps is often criticized for being hard hearted, pushy ,egotistical and single minded. Where do we think that came from? Attitude, like water, flows downhill. Granted you're going to get some mult-level marketing fans and jerks but how do you get bunches of people who want to "help people" and "learn the Word" and "build something positive" one year and within 4-5 years have a bunch of people ready to ream you out for not being at a meeting 15 minutes early and telling you just don't care about God, do you you slacker!!!???
Personally I think a lot of the problems and unbalanced behavior that grew in the Way over the years - while VPW was alive and at the helm - was the result of focusing on the work, not the end result.
My point about the money is that PFAL sold something that wasn't his to sell - God's Word. The collection of specific amounts of money as a donation, a charge by any other word, for "God's Word" was wrong IMO. Per Jesus, you can't mix money and the things of God up like that even if you think it's for a good reason. It's a fine line and once it's crossed I believe the "hose" dries up. Look at any of the big money pumping religious machines and you see the same thing - a lot of talk and preening and swelling memberships and lots of problems. I believe sooner or later it catches up with you and when it's in your own lifetime, that's sooner.
While all of these organizations will have people who will say God works in their lives and there's good things happening, it's tainted at the center. Everyone struggling to believe more, to know more, to give more, to do this or that more, gotta get to this conference that meeting, get that tape, get this tape,and all the time I see it as people pulling a cart filled with one diamond and a 1,000 pounds of rocks. Get rid of the rocks and the cart wouldn't be an issue. You can carry a diamond in your pocket.
This is off the "Wacky" topic, but hey. We're here. : ) I don't care that much about that part of the discussion, so forgive me. I'm also not a part of any ex-Way groups of any kind and never have been, so I don't know much about them either.
-edited to add more scinitallating comments and at the behest of my inner word nanny to correct typos! : )
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And please BFD,
Mr. Wierwille was not a Doctor.
He sure liked the title and loved the adoration of his fans, but he didn't fulfill the requirements to legitimately claim it.
OTOH, he was an extraordinarily gifted conman and grifter. I guess that makes up for it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
BFD:
In one of your posts on this page you mention how it is wrong to assume what someone's motives are, referring to VPW. Yet you are regularly doing that to others here. You are assuming that the motivation of several of the posters here is a hatred of VPW, TWI et al.
You then deride those who disagree with you as "clearly unable to understand administrations", or "really don't understand the bible at all".
Posters bring up points of disagreement; you don't address those points, but tell the posters to "address their anger issues", accuse them of believing what they do due to a blindness brought on my unthinking anti-Wierwillism and repeat the same analogies ad infinitum.
You pat yourself on the back for parting ways with Wierwille on several points, illustrating that you are an independent thinker, and rip other posters for disagreeing on others.
Pick some points that other posters have made and discuss them, why doncha?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Let's start with the so-called Law Administration:
When did it begin? Probably with the giving of "The Law" to Moses, wouldn't you say? But that "Law" was given piecemeal over a period of forty years according to "The Law" itself.
Didn't God deal differently with Israel during the forty years in the wilderness? During the time of Joshua? The time of the Judges? The Kingship? The Captivity? Did you know the rules for observing the passover were different in several of those time periods?
And what about non-Jews during the time between the giving of the Law and the ministry of Jesus? They weren't under the Law, were they? So what administration were they under?
What about what Wierwille called "The Appearing Administration? Is God really dealing with anyone the same before the thousand-year binding of Satan and after?
By the way, I have always tended to think that the bible teaches some form of dispensationalism, but am re-thinking that opinion in light of other information...just "for your learning"
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
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.