troubledwine

Rafael, Along these lines of Holy Spirit vs holy spirit, dechomai lambano etc... --- donald dicks come to the conclusion that nowhere in Wierwille's writings does he ever state the rule he uses to make his distinctions esp in holy spirit field. That means that we cannot examine his criteria. He explicitly points out how many times wierwille changed his mind on certain verses esp in rev chapter 3. And he even altered his supposed rules and broke them on several occasions. He goes on to say, having looked at his changes of mind in subsequent editions of Receiving the Holy spirit today and in some cases back and forth between capital H and lower case h which means all the difference in the world, he finds it hard to believe that Wierwille was "taught of God" when it came to making these distinctions. Now we go back to a reoccuring theme in my posts which is IF you are going to make these kind of changes then do they not need to put out a paper or article discussing WHY they have made the changes? How can you change a verse from the giver to the gift and not think it is important enough to put out a letter or something explaining the change in theology?

This breathing in to receive holy spirit and the subsequest reversal of the order of verses in Acts 2 is an error. I bring this up here because it was taught in the foundational class PFAL but is printed in Receiving the holy spirit today. Here is the research taken from this website: http://www.caic.org.au/biblebase/way/inhaling.htm ------------------------------------------------------ INHALING THE SPIRIT or "What Was That Sound?" by Douglas V. Morton The Way International strives to teach of its members how they may "receive the holy spirit into manifestation" the act of believing and in-breathing. Victor Paul Wierwille, The Way's late founder, taught that opening one's mouth and breathing in deeply is an act of belief that God honors by bestowing the Holy Spirit upon the believer. (1) (Literature from The Way International always refers to the Holy Spirit in all lower-case letters. Most Christian literature capitalizes Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit is deity.) New converts are taught a four-point method to help them receive, in a way they can sense, the Holy Spirit. First, the convert is told to become quiet and relaxed. Next, the convert is told to rest his head back "and breathe in deeply." (2) He is told that the "word 'inspiration' also means 'in-breathing." (3) The third step requires the convert to pray: "Father, I now receive the holy spirit, the power from on high, which you made available through Jesus Christ." (4) Finally, the convert is told to willfully move his lips, tongue and throat, making the sounds that are considered to be "Speaking-In-Tongues." The person doing this is told he is forming words that the spirit wants him to speak. (5) Michael Gudorf, a writer for The Way International, says that one of the main reasons why born-again Christians are ignorant of the importance of speaking in tongues shortly after the new birth is that they have "a wrong interpretation of John 20:22." (6) Gudorf contends that the verse has been misunderstood because it has been mistranslated in most English texts. (7) He also believes that if the true meaning of John 20:22 is balanced with the remoter context of Genesis 2:7 and Acts 2:1-4, the student of scripture would be able to rightly divide and understand how this all relates to speaking in tongues. (8) Traditional Christian scholarship has almost unanimously trans- lated John 20:22 similarly to the way it is recorded in the King James Version. (9) The KJV is as follows: And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." The Way contests this translation and offers one it believes is more accurate. The difference between The Way's version and the traditional one can be seen by taking a look at Wierwille's elaboration on this verse in his book Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. And when he had said this, he breathed on (en, in; He breathed in) them, (delete), and saith unto them, "Receive (lambano) ye the Holy Ghost (pneuma hagion)." (10) Scholars will not contest Wierwille's argument that the word "them" is not a part of the original text. The attestation of manuscripts using this word is very weak indeed. (11) However, just because the word is not present in the Greek text does not mean that we can not read it in our English text. What one needs to remember is that the reader of the Greek text is expected to supply the word "them" to the text when reading it. This is not uncommon in scripture and is known as ellipsis - when a word or words are omitted but are supposed to be supplied by the reader. (12) In Mark 6:5 the word (etherapeusen), meaning "he healed," is used without a direct object. The reader is expected to supply the word "them" (those who were sick) to the text. Matthew 8:25 tells the story of the disciples and Jesus on the stormy sea. The text says the disciples "having come (to him; i.e. Jesus) they awoke him saying, 'Lord, Save.'" The reader is expected to insert two missing words in the text. First, he is expected to know that the disciples came "to him" (Jesus) and second, he is expected to know that the Lord was to save "us" (the disciples). These are just two texts where one can see the use of a implied words. An in-depth study of the Old and New Testaments will reveal many more instances where ellipses were used. (13) It should be no problem for the reader to insert the word "them" into the text of John 20:22, even though it is not present in the Greek text. Wierwille's deletion of this word is unfounded and unwarranted. The only reason Wierwille omits the word is because it helps support his translation of the Greek word enephusasen (meaning, "he breathed") in this verse. Wierwille's translation of the Greek verb (enephusasen) is important in his misinterpretation of the text. Wierwille translates this Greek verb as "he breathed in." He seems to believe that by placing the word "en" (Greek preposition meaning "in") as a prefix to the Greek word phusao (meaning: "to puff") (14) that it must mean a type of inhaling on Jesus' part. According to Wierwille, Jesus was showing his disciples what they were to do on the day of Pentecost. Jesus' 'breathing in' was a type of demonstration that showed them what they were to do at the proper moment. They were to "breathe in heavily." (15) Can the word enephusasen be translated as "to breathe in" or "inhale"? Wierwille would certainly have the reader believe so. However, the evidence does not support this translation. The New Testament can offer no help because it is found only in John 20:22. The verb used in this text is an aorist, active, indicative, third-person, singular form of the Greek word emphusao. While it is not used in any other place in the New Testament, it is used 11 times in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. (16) In each case, the word carries with it the meaning of "to blow upon" and not "to breathe in" or "inhale". The classic example of the use of this word is recorded in Genesis 2:7 in the Septuagint. God formed man from the dust of the ground and "breathed upon (enephusesen) his face the breath of life." A quick glance at various Greek lexicons also helps in understanding the meaning of this word. Liddell-Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon gives the basic meaning of the word as "blow in". (17) Bauer, Arndt, Ginrich and Danker's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature gives the meaning of the word as "breathe on". (18) Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament gives the meaning as "to blow" or "breathe on". (19) Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament gives the meaning as "to breathe upon" or "over". (20) Even E.W. Bullinger's Lexicon, which is used by The Way, gives the meaning of the word as "to breathe upon, blow upon." (21) The unanimous evidence, therefore, shows that the word means to "blow upon" or "breathe upon." Jesus was not inhaling in John 20:22. He was not showing his disciples what they were to do on the day of Pentecost. He actually breathed upon them and said "receive the Holy Spirit." When Pentecost came, the loud sound heard by the people was not the disciples breathing hard, following the example of Jesus, but the Spirit of God coming upon them. In light of the above evidence, Wierwille's teaching of "in-breathing" to receive the Holy Spirit is meaningless. Nowhere does scripture indicate that we receive spiritual power through breathing in, even if it is connected with believing. The Apostle Paul writes concerning receiving the Spirit: "Did you receive (lambano) the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?" The Holy Spirit is received by hearing the message of the Gospel and believing it. Any other way is considered "a work of the law" and against the Gospel. The validity of speaking in tongues is not being questioned here. What is being questioned and rejected is Wierwille's mechanistic and unscriptural teaching concerning receiving the Spirit and speaking in tongues. The Way is certainly not a group from which one would want to learn about this special gift or ability. Its inability to understand this phenomena of scripture makes it a poor instructor in this and other teachings. ------------------------------------------------------ I always wondered why the need for the reversals of the scriptures. It's simple really -- what better sign than "the breath of life" to indicate the pouring forth of the new spiritual life -- the rushing mighty wind that filled all the house where they were sitting. Why all of this advanced theology? Because Wierwille spent too much time with pentecostal preachers and faith healers and all the other nonsense. This is where the scriptures were squeezed to lead people to speak in tongues out loud. It seems like many a thing taught in PFAL was towards that end -- hence the verses out of context -- the squeezing of dechomai and lambano into too narrow of definitons etc... edited to clarify --- I am all for manifestations --- just not for twisting scripture [This message was edited by troubledwine on January 18, 2003 at 8:43.]

Hi P-Mosh, It is interesting isn't it -- this lack of dyanmic. It's interesting you bring this up because I started a thread called what constitutes a denomination -- thinking of these very things.

This line in particular: If I know your sect, I anticipate your argument. I hear a preacher announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of his church. Do I not know that he is pledged to himself to not look but at one side. -- the permitted side, not as a man but as a parish minister? he is a retained attorney, This is how I have felt lately. Have any of you heard the latest STS teachings? Oh, they read from the Bible and hit a few points here and there but it is definitely not meaty. It seems that TWI is content to parrot VPW teachings practically verbatim. How does this parroting lead people to know Christ??? Where is the Christ in this outfit??? Absent Christ doesn't even begin to describe their position. he is for all practical purposes NON-EXISTENT. This goes back to a reoccurring theme in my posts namely that TWI seems to be on track to reduce Christianity to a set of habits without the real and dynamic relationship with God. Is not the overtone of all that comes from HQ that God just works in a plan, and mostly in the leadership only? What kind of spiritual aristocracy is this? Is God that small that he doesn't care to fill those who hunger and thirst? Isn't this the veil that was torn in twain? ARe we committed to sewing it back together???? Why does the word say to WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING??? Is it not because a major part of this life is to do just that? Is it not to think and to reason and search and discover and live and share what you have learned? I am not saying there are not gift ministries. I have found more openess here in discussing the deep things of the Word and life than I get after a fellowship. The don't ask don't tell atmosphere is quite pervasive. Let's not talk about anything that would ruffle anyone's feathers. That line in self reliance that says "I ought to go upright and vital and to speak the rude truth in all its ways." speaks volumes. Please feel free to comment on your take on this. I would appreciate any insights you might offer as to your experience now and zen....

In reading Emerson's essay I couldn't help but notice one particular section that struck home. Having been with TWI for so long now and struggling to understand the differences between legalism / grace and supporting a leader / vs. being aware of false brethren this is quite revealing. I have also struggled mightily with the feeling of guilt that comes when you DARE to question and DARE to think for yourself and to DOUBLE CHECK what the word really says. I was able to find some courage in reading this and want to share it. Does this ring a chord with you too? "The objection to conforming to usages that have become dead t oyou is, that it scatters your force. It loses your time and blurs the impression of your character. If you maintain a dead church, contribute to a dead Bible-society, vote with a great party either for the government or against it, spread your table like base housekeepers, - under all these screens I have difficulty to detect the precise man you are. And of course, so much force is withdrawn from your proper life. But do your work, and I shall know you. do your work, and you shall reinforce yourself. A man must consider what a blindman's-buff is this game of conformtiy. If I know your sect, I anticipate your argument. I hear a preacher announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of his church. Do I not know that he is pledged to himself to not look but at one side. -- the permitted side, not as a man but as a parish minister? he is a retained attorney, and these airs of the bench are the emptiest affectation. Well, most men have bound their eyes with one or another handkerchief, and attached themselves to some one of the communities of opinion. this conformity makes them not false in a few particulars, authors of a few lies, but false in all particulars. Their every truth is not quite true. their two is not the real two, their four not the real four; so that every word they say chagrins us, and we know not where to begin to set them right. Meantime, nature is not slow to equip us in the prison-uniform of the party to which we adhere. We come to wear one cut of face and figure, and acquire by degrees the gentlest assinine expression. There is a mortifying experience in particular, which does not fail to wreak itself also in the general history; I mean "the foolish face of praise," the forced smile which we put on in company where we do not feel at ease in answer to conversation which does not interest us."

wayfer not -- check out your private topics section -- I emailed you there....

Hmmm, why I am still in now? That is a good question. I do not want to make a decision based on anger (although spiritual anger is not wrong) or on being hasty (although we should run to keep his commandments). I have seen many people (like you have seen) that just get mad or reproved and that is why they leave. That route isn't for me. The route that I aspire to take is the route that proves all things and holds fast the good. I too am questioning how much good can come by staying. The very sad reality I am faced with, is - is this ministry willing to go against what Dr Weirwille taught if he was wrong? If the answer to that question is no - then all that is left is propping up a denomination (if in fact he was wrong on certain issues.) It seems unimaginable that a ministry FOUNDED on a man who stopped going to his church to seek the truth could fall into that situation. But if so - so be it, it wouldn't be the first time or the last. Take this ministry year for an example. This year is all about the walk of believing but we are going through the collaterals. What heals peoples hearts of hurt and wrongs is teaching the word not reminiscing about the good old days. How can you teach the walk of believing without teaching what walk means? How can you teach the walk of believing without teaching what energizes it? And how can you teach what energizes it without teaching without getting into god loved us first and HIS goodness leads us to repentance? -- not VPW's and not our cutesy version of our history. That doesn't lead me to do ..... But besides the doctrinal issues which I have not addressed- the one GLARING ommission in this ministry is the lack of teaching about Christ. We either cannot or do not teach him from the Word. For crying out loud it is Christ that makes KNOWN GOD. I have been listening and reading all the materials and just listening for anything that would teach me about Christ from the scriptures. IT ISN'T THERE. And I beg WayGB's pardon when I say one teaching on Christ as a youth is NOT ENOUGH SPIRITUAL MEAT for me. God wrote a whole book where Christ is the subject. Apparently this is secret knowledge only reserved for the spiritual aristocracy. And I know what the WayGB will think when and if they read this. This is where this poster is headed ... to worshipping Christ and the trinity... blah blah blah... Well to that I say - b*ll..... I will never believe in the trinity or worship christ. The apostle Paul said that he wanted to know the love of christ which passeth knowledge and to be filled with all the fulness of God. If you read the epistles you will see that to know Christ is to know God (of course.) And this ministry is found wanting in this area. Now, to leave or not leave is an issue that must be decided but I am approaching this from the angle of I will study and prove all things and I will hold fast that which is good and wherever that leads is where I am heading. On a practical level I suspect that the fork in the road is not far but I am not rushing it right now.

Boy, it is a hard situation. If you haven't read the Subtlety of Spiritual Abuse i would HIGHLY recommend it. you won't be able to put it down -- it is that informative. I know that God will fill those who hunger and thirst we can both bank on it.

wow, that pretty much sums it up doesn't it. Thanks for sharing that -- I realize you didn't have to. On one of my posts I talked about it not making sense to me that if you are going to teach something different you have to go back and correct the doctrinal and practical error so that people's brains get cleaned out but they do not seem to want to carry out that part of the Word. What do you call it when an organization keeps you from doing the word??? An IDOL... If you or I were a part of a organization that kept us from doing the word what would they tell us??? to leave it right? It's interesting how there seems to be a double standard for what they do verses what we're supposed to do. It's like that poster's message -- in theory there is no difference between doctrine and practice but in practice there is....

Ahhh, I tried that with Radar O'reilly and she didn't even bother to respond to my second email in which I laid my guts on the floor (she asked for the same thing) - so that is the last time I fall for that. I've given up on gaining approval for information. Give it or don't give it. Being on a need to know basis is how most of us are swimming in crap up to our necks right now. I know you can relate. If you want to know about me just click on my name and go under recent posts. You can read all about my views. But just to snip in the bud the "WayGB overtone" this is a forum on My Story on a thread started by you - so I didn't think I was to out of line to ask why did you have a change of heart. I am wrestling with these very same things and just wanted to know. I thought and still do that that took courage. It must have taken just as much if not more to leave.

Wayfer Not--- your tag line said ex-staffer doesn't work over 37 hours a week now. I guessed wrong that you were in Ohio. Sorry about my tone -- I didn't take the time to tell you where I am coming from and I'm coming across wrong. allow me to start over please. I still go and my interest in your story is that you went to the special and you had a lot of questions (questions which I still have) and then you went back. From your last two posts you seemed to indicate you were going to try to make a difference so to speak. But yet, in just a few weeks you decided against that. Because I am an innie, (like many others here) I wondered what made you change your mind? Did you try and it didn't work? Did you just see that no one was open to change? Your experience is valued and you have made a decision many of us are facing even as we speak. I was just wondering what you experienced so that I (and other innies) can get some sense of what to expect when we make our move. Here are those posts just for reference: Thanks; that was very sweet of you to say. I think you are a very caring individual. As a matter of fact, I would trust my heart more to you than I would some top leadership. I just wished (oh, oh, not THAT word) that more people would have stayed and stood up against the bull. I do realize that lcm made that impossible with his unrelenting demand for loyalty, but today I really believe that those who really care can make a difference in the future of TWI. I know that many of you question the plagerisms, sexual improprieties, and the doctrines taught, but there is one common bond that got us all to TWI--LOVE for God and His Word. It can happen again like the way it was when we first got involved. Any church or splinter group will have some of the same problems, but it is the love of God in the people that makes it all worthwhile. I know some of you have found very wonderful churches to attend, and if it makes you happy, then I am happy for you. I just remember that common bond we all had together, and it was great. I gotta get back to work again, so I will tell you more about what was taught at the ACS later. Ex-Staffer Doesn't Work Over 37 Hours Now posted December 02, 2002 14:05 December 02, 2002 14:05 My Very Last Post -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, guys, I regret posting my enthusiasm. Sounds like you all just want to bath in your past hurts. I am truly sorry for the bs you all had to put up with. There were a lot of wrongs. I though I could make a difference. I think that you want to continue to have someone to blame, and that is the current BOD because lcm doesn't show his ugly face to be blamed. I think your accusations against the BOD are unsubstantiated. I am done with this website. I will not read it anymore either. Ex-Staffer Doesn't Work Over 37 Hours Now

Wayfer not -- what I don't understand is you said you went to Dallas and that you had such a good time with the people there that all your issues didn't matter because after all the people are what matter. So you went back to Ohio, and within three weeks or so you left the ministry altogether. In fact, you seemed to be upset that people asked you what you learned at the special. I guess what I wonder is what did you learn at the special and secondly what made you change your mind once you got back?

Jain Convention -- can you elaborate on your post a little more -- are you speculating or???

Talking about faith in the old testament brings up this whole 5 different types of faith from PFAL. The faith of Jesus Christ was never adequately explained to me. Donald Dicks thesis continues on about faith and covers that topic. Here is the link - thanks to whoever posted this earlier in the thread - you can save this file on your computer or print it out it is quite interesting. I wanted to type this out and get it on here so we can get it in discussion: http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/w17.html Thesis cont... The second horn of Wierwille's argument is that the faith needed for salvation is not our faith but, instead, the "faith of Jesus Christ." He says, "When the man of body and sould hears the Word of God and believes what he hears, Romans 10:9 and 10, he receives the "faith of Jesus Christ" and righteousness." He then argues from four verses, Galatians 3:22, Romans 3:22, Galatians 2:16 and Galatians 2:20 all of which read, in the King James Version, "by the faith of Jesus Christ." He argues that it is the faith OF Jesus Christ. The question that must be asked at this point is whether this is an accurate understanding of Koine Greek language. The answer is no. Wierwille seems to have a very superficial knowledge of the Biblical languages. what he is noting is the genitive case of the words "faith" (pisteos) and "Jesus Christ". Generally, the genitive case is understood to show definition and description, including possesion, this the translation " of Jesus Christ." However, a deeper knowledge and study of the Koine Greek used by the New Testament writers reveals that there are at least eight types of genitives. This particular portion of scripture is an "objective genitive" in which case "the noun in the genitive RECEIVES the action, being thus related as OBJECT to the verbal idea contained in the noun modified. Jesus Christ is the "noun in the genitive" and He is the object of the "verbal idea" which is "having faith." Thus, the passage should be understood as "having faith in Jesus Christ." Dr A. T. Robertson concurs with this translation and acknowledges that each of the four above mentioned passages contain the objective genitive. These phrases are not to be understood as a subjective genitive which is "when the noun in the genitive PRODUCES the action being therefore related AS SUBJECT to the verbal idea of the noun modified." It would make no sense to interpret these passages as subjective genitives since throughout the new testament we are told to put our trust (belief or faith) in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. A perfect example of this command is Galatians 3:26 which says "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." We are children of God by faith in (en) Christ Jesus. Of course, Wierwille doesn't mention this verse even though it is only four verses away from one of his proof texts. The idea that these passages are not subjective genitive is also supported by Greek scholar Dr W Robertson Nicoll. concerning Romans 3:22 he says, "It is the constant teaching of Paul thatt we are justified (not by sharing Jesus' faith in God, as some interpreters would take it here, but) by believing in that manifestation and offer of God's righteousness which are made in the propitiatory death of Jesus" Three other passages which support the objective genitive rendering and which use wording of specific interest are Col 1:4, 2:5 and I Thess 1:8. Collosians 1:4 reads "...you faith in Christ Jesus ..." (pistis humon en Christo Iesou) Col 1:25 reads "... your faith in Christ" (eis Christon pisteos humon). I thess 1:8 reads "... your faith to God-ward (he pistis humon he pros ton theon). Each passage indicates daith "in" or "toward" or in the direction of Christ of God, thus showing that Christ of GOd is the object of the faith and not the subject or producer of the faith. These passages, in addition to the ones Wierwille uses, state that is is our faith IN Jesus Christ that saves us and not the "faith OF Jesus Christ." Let's review how Wierwille builds his case. It is importnat to ntoe how he builds his arguments because each point of his argument is always contingent on the other points. Concerning soteriology, Wierwille's case is built around three major points, 1) faith is a spiritual element, 2) at one time in history there was no faith, and 3) salvation is based on the faith of Jesus Christ. If one of these premises fail, then they all fail and the entire case or argument becomes invalid

I have been looking over VPW messing with the verses on pentecost and also the whole Jesus breathed on them and said receive holy spirit. I found some interesting research on this at http://www.caic.org.au/biblebase/way/inhaling.htm he is a brief excerpt: Can the word enephusasen be translated as "to breathe in" or "inhale"? Wierwille would certainly have the reader believe so. However, the evidence does not support this translation. The New Testament can offer no help because it is found only in John 20:22. The verb used in this text is an aorist, active, indicative, third-person, singular form of the Greek word emphusao. While it is not used in any other place in the New Testament, it is used 11 times in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. (16) In each case, the word carries with it the meaning of "to blow upon" and not "to breathe in" or "inhale". The classic example of the use of this word is recorded in Genesis 2:7 in the Septuagint. God formed man from the dust of the ground and "breathed upon (enephusesen) his face the breath of life." This would seem to indicate this might be a pfal error as well

Since we are on the before faith came subject I thought I would point out some interesting research from Donald Dicks MAster's of Theology Thesis paper that someone posted a link to in another thread here on GS. This is totally interesting although long it is worth consideration: Wierwille writes: "Before going further, let us clarify the difference between the two words "faith" and "believing". These two words are not synonymous though the King James and other translations have used them interchangeably. Fait his an inner spiritual development, while believing is an action fo the human mind. The natural man of boday and soul can believe; but the natural man cannot have faith." It is both interesting and important to note HOW he builds his argument at this point. Wierwille makes his distinction between "faith" and "believing" prior to any examination of passages of scripture. He uses this same a priori approach elsewhere in his writings. this approach, however, biases his reader prior to any examination of the Biblical evidence. Before we examine his perceived Biblical evidence, let's critique his present claim that the words "faith" and "believing" are not synonmous. In reality, faith (pistis) is a noun and believing (pisteuo) is a verb, yet both come from the same Greek root word. Wierwille inadvertantly acknowledges this commonality by declaring that the paddages which read "by faith" in Hebrew 11 are a mistranslation and should read "by believing." What he fails to acknowledge is that the Greek term pistei (by faith) is simply the singular dative form of pistis (faith) and not pisteuo (believe). If he were consistent, Weirwille would also have to distinguish between the terms love (agape) and loving (agapao), repentance (metanoia) and repenting (metanoeo) and belief (pistis) and believing (pisteuo), for each of these pairs of nouns and verbs have a common root word meaning in Greek. Of course, Wierwille makes no effort to distinguish between these verbs from their respective nouns. Therefore, he gets no support from the definition of their terms. Also, hi statement that "faith is a spiritual element" stems from his dualism of knowledge (his law of logic) because natural man cannot understand spiritual matters. We have already seen in chapter four, though, that his "law of logic" is fallacious and unbiblical. To build one's argument on a faulty premise is like building one's house on shifting sand. Wierwille then argues that the faith needed for salvation is not the faith of the individual, but instead the "faith of Jesus Christ." His argument is two fold. First appealing to a phrase in Galatians 3:23 which says "before faith came...," Weirwille argues that "there must have been a time when faith did not exist." Wierwille's understanding of this passage reveals a shallow study of the Greek text. The term faith (pistin) in this phrase is preceded by the definite article, the (the greek word ten). This indicates not faith in general, but a particular faith. It indicates the faith of the Christian religion whose object of trust is Jesus Christ. Greek scholar Dr. W. Robertson Nicoll explains. {ten pistin}. The article, though ignored in our versions, is essential to the sense. By the coming of THE faith is menat the historic fact of the Christian religion, the spread of the gospel on earth. The term has the same objective sense *** in Galatians 1:23, 3:25, Acts 6:7 and romans 3:30, where also a clear distinction is drawn between (pisteos), faith in the abstract, and (tes pisteos), THE faith of christ. Obviously faith did not come with Christ, it was the most conspicuous virtue of the Jewish church, and Abraham was but the first of many splendid examples of it.} (back to thesis) Also, Greek grammarian Dr. A.T. Robertson concurs. "Before faith came is (pro tou elthein ten pistin). "Before the coming (second aorist active infinitive of erchomai, the definite event) as to the Faith" (note article, meaning the faith in verse 22 made possible by the historic coming of Christ the Redeemer), the faith in Christ as Saviour (verse 22)." (Back to thesis) - Hence, both greek scholars agree that, by the language used, Paul is referring not to faith in the abstract, but instead to the faith of the Christian religion whose object of faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the first horn of Wierwille's argument is invalid." Just thought I would type that up for your review. I'll post it in the doctrinal section as well.

Someone said it was because they wanted to buy a home??? [This message was edited by Kit Sober on October 19, 2003 at 22:11.]

Part of what they hang the doctrine on is also Moses being put in the river as a baby. It is ok to lie to the king... (that is quite a section to use to teach that). They also have alluded to this when teaching that David feigned that he was crazy. And they may have mentioned in the section where one of the patriarchs says that his wife is his sister - which is somewhat contradictary because they also taught that it wasn't lying in another area because she really was his sister. One section that I have been thinking over is the one where the king numbered the people before going to war. This was apparently a great sin because it was using sense knowledge to decide on whether to go to war or not. Although I cannot remember if it is taught I speculate that one of their primary doctrines is that we need to do that because Joshua sent spies into the promised land. Therefore, since we are in the promised land we need to send spies out to see what we are up against. Well if so, I would say that is somewhat of a stretch. The word teaches who goes to war without counting the cost. You cannot plan a battle strategy without knowing the terrain, physical location of your enemy and many other factors. To say we are doing spiritual battle because we know the locations of spin off groups is absurd. By that logic, you would have a list of 100,000's of churches that do not agree with your doctrine. When threads like this make mention of these details it reminds of that counting the people. Now, JC did ask his disciples whom do men say I am? But that was far from lying. Lastly, this is suggested or taught when they bring up "protecting the Christ line". Although I do not have the biblical answer as to whether people did recieve revelation from God to lie to protect the Christ line I can say for sure that even if that were true - I cannot fathom how anyone could make the leap to lying while doing the work of the ministry. This brings me back to the thread I started on 5 senses discerning of spirits and other twistings of the scripture.