Why does Jeremiah 17:9a say the heart is deceitful above all [other deceitful] things? Just a few more verses...
Proverbs 12:15 "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."
Proverbs 16:2 "All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits."
Proverbs 21:2 "Every way of man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the heart."
The heart is deceitful above all things because everything that comes out of a person's own heart seems right and clean to that person. Why? Because the values reflected back to us from our hearts are the values we originally fed into them through our habitual thinking. My heart is so deceitful, it can convince me I am still serving the Lord, even when my heart itself is in gross disobedience to him!
And one of the features that make the heart sooooo deceitful is the fact that there ARE good things, even in a heart whose attitude is predominantly evil, and evil things in a heart that is predominantly good. I can't say every thought and intention of my heart is evil. Nor can I say every thought and intention is good. I cannot trust my heart... by itself... to sort out my evil intentions from my good! What a fix I find myself in!
That's as far as I can go for the next few days. Remember, our basic quest is to find out why Wierwille would read foreign meanings into Romans 9-11. I have to devote some time to homework for a statistics class I'm taking, but I'll be reading the thread, and posting brief responses from time to time. As Tim Gunn would say on Project Runway, "Work it, people, work it!"
now I have never heard heard that before but but I want you to know it was not my intense
if I was the person I sorry because think you as my friend
with love and a holy kiss Roy
I don't think Bob had any particular person in mind, Roy, when he wrote what he did. I certainly wouldn't associate your posts with "bashing". I think I would be hard pressed to find a kinder heart here at Greasespot than yours. Thank you for the example you set here of humility!
I don't know if you had any experience with Momentus, but the response you describe is very exaggerated by the Momentus training.
Love,
Steve
Not sure what you mean? If you have a moment, could you explain? If not. . . no worries.
It is funny you mention Momentus, I saw it mentioned on another thread. . . . I think by you. Being somewhat unfamiliar, but often hearing it mentioned, I Googled it. It took me to Factnet. I started reading this really great article, I was really moved. So, I was curious, and when I looked to see who wrote it. It was YOU!
I cannot applaud you enough for your courage in coming forth and sharing in such an intimate and important manner. I was so touched and filled with respect. Momentus sounds like hell. . . . . the absence of God.
Further, I'm tired of talking about his (im)practical application of it and it's smarmy results...please.
RE
When I read this Robert I thought, "Yep, that's what I did!"
I can respect your desire to move the discussion away from Wierwille and his "Smarmy results" and will do my best. But if for only good intentions I feel that I need to do so again I hope you will bear with me.
Here is some of the reasons that I do so...
#1 This place is full of ex-wayfers who still may even say that they are still recovering from Waybrain and I don't mind sharing my impression of The Way International's smarmy results. Just in case it proves to be helpful.
#2 Sometimes I'm just looking out for people getting caught up in the same old stuff, but then they say something that makes it plain that I needn't be sooo concerned. :) At the very least I hope misplaced concern is the worst thing I need to deal with.
#3 I'm still in the process of putting the pieces together for myself in terms of understanding how or why The Way International had it's place in terms of leading me to where my life is now, and of course that includes Wierwille in the picture.
Interestingly, in at least one of the verses dealing with this milk and meat stuff,... This concept is mentioned. Walk in love towards the Babes, ye meat-eaters.
And that prayer I gave at the end - a couple of posts back,... I'm quoting what Jesus said to God - He is the ultimate Big Brother, makin' sure not to step on the lil'uns.
Matthew 12:35 "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things."
Luke 6:43-46 "For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit... A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. And why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Not everybody has the same attitude of heart. Some people have predominantly good attitudes of heart. Some peoples' attitudes of heart are mainly evil. Why the difference? I submit that people who habitually discipline their minds to dwell on good things internalize those things, and learn good "by heart." The people who allow their thoughts to habitually dwell on evil things learn evil "by heart."
What's this business about "treasure"?
Matthew 6:21 "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
"Treasures" are things we attach value to. If we attach certain values to things, as a matter of habit, our hearts will attach the same values to those things. If we habitually rationalize twisting the words of the Word to make them say what we want, then our hearts will tell us that it is good and clean to twist the words of the Word. If we habitually rationalize drugging and raping young girls, then our hearts will tell us that it is good and clean to drug and rape young girls. If we habitually rationalize that we are serving the Lord when we do these things, then our hearts will tell us that we are still serving the Lord, even if we aren't.
More later. I'm gonna go spend time with one of my sisters that I haven't seen in a few months. We need to talk about what we're gonna do with our Mom.
Love,
Steve
Hi Steve,
I hope that between you, your sibling(s?), and your mom things work out ok.
The things about the conditioning of the heart you speak of brought up some considerations for me. They may or may not be "meaty" per say depending on the individual I suppose, but I think I have seen newer believers and the deceived choking on these verses a time or two, so I will bring them up with care......and from the "King James."
______________________
HEBREWS ch.6
4For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.
7For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8But that which beareth thorns and briers [is] rejected, and [is] nigh unto cursing; whose end [is] to be burned.
_________________________
HEBREWS ch.10
26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31[it is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
______________________
Now as these things apply to anybody who thinks they are serving God or not will probably be true in different gegrees to different individuals IMO.
But for those who learned and believed on Christ but then let somebody lead them into THINKING they are serving God but REALLY ARE SERVING a man who "Rapes young girls" and eventually their own lusts, I believe these verses apply absolutely and 100%.
And in my experience they in true wayfer fashion still think it is a simple matter of living in the Wierwille delusion of Godliness.
_____________________
Another scripture, Mt 6....
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great [is] that darkness!
______________________
Personally, I think the utmost care must be used in handling these verses because they were turned against me by somebody who I truly believe is worthy of this judgment and it hurt me and my life a lot.
Plus I have witnessed newer believers become fearfully paralyzed in there walk and seemingly very deeply in their minds by the weight of the judment these verses refer to.
Plus I have witnessed heavy handed preachers move the "preachies" to places that were not only not good, but IMO totally worthless.
Plus, because of the many warnings such as the verse...."Judge not lest ye be judged." I believe the consequences for mishandling these things is bad, bad, and BAD all the way around.
BTW, Jerome and Augustine did, IMHO, turn the understanding of what Paul wrote on it’s proverbial ear. Allegorizing and “spiritualizing” what is plain and logical in Scripture will do that. Now, some of you Catholics out there can start with the Bob-bashing.
RE
Hi Robert,
I've talked to some Catholics who are far away from this knee-jerk reaction right here at GSC even.
The little bit of Augustine that I have read seems excessive in terms of allegory for my taste, and several educated Catholics I have talked with seem more than willing to share that they think so too, except that IMO they say so after reading much more of his writings than I have.
The thing that is soo impressive about some of these people and their contemporaries to me is that their writings were HUGE in terms of the long-term impact they have had on world history. They too have a historical context that we can not ignore IMO.
(edited to effect an improvement in my grammar and spelling.)
I've talked to some Catholics who are far away from this knee-jerk reaction right here at GSC even.
The little bit of Augustine that I have read seems excessive in terms of allegory for my taste, and several educated Catholics I have talked with seem more than willing to share that they think so too, except that IMO they say so after reading much more of his writings than I have.
The thing that is soo impressive about some of these people and their contemporaries to me is that their writings were HUGE in terms of the long-term impact they have had on world history. They too have a historical context that we can not ignore IMO.
Hey, Jeff,
I also agree that those who wrote in the time just after the apostles (and other Christian writers) had unique historical contexts. AND they had tremendous impacts on not only their contemporaries, but us today. The question will always be whether that affect is good or bad. I'd say both, but in terms of actual "understanding" of the Scriptures I would say mostly bad. That, of course, would be and another thread entirely.
There's an old saying that I heard here at GSC from someone a long time ago.
If everyone thinks alike then no one is thinking at all.
Not that agreeing and thinking alike is wrong, but on everything, I think this saying to be very true.
To leave one's own ideas for a moment, and think, live, other ideas seriously is a special quality I believe. One that can unite more then thinking alike or the 'one mind' some were taught it to be.
To leave one's own ideas for a moment, and think, live, other ideas seriously is a special quality I believe. One that can unite more then thinking alike or the 'one mind' some were taught it to be.
Paul, I think, had this special quality. He had to learn how to think like a Stoic gentile to state his gospel in terms they could understand.
The homework is going pretty well. I learned how to make histograms manually about thirty years ago. The hard part is learning how to do it using MS Excel. I know some of you young pups and those of you who use Excel on the job will think I'm awfully backward, but my neuron pathways were set back in the days of sliderules!
I also agree that those who wrote in the time just after the apostles (and other Christian writers) had unique historical contexts. AND they had tremendous impacts on not only their contemporaries, but us today. The question will always be whether that affect is good or bad. I'd say both, but in terms of actual "understanding" of the Scriptures I would say mostly bad. That, of course, would be and another thread entirely.
RE
I'm just glad we can evaluate this stuff for ourselves Robert. I think one of the precious things here is that we can form our own opinions and think for ourselves. In my experience group think runs 180% counter to this and in most cases the ones with the most influence somehow manage to sell themselves as promoting liberty.
Whether extreemly bad group think as in The Way International IMO, or in a church with much less damage being done the group think thing can be annoying but perhaps necessary to some extent w/in any group.
As to the scriptures, sure, maybe another thread.... this is not a bad place to give one a try after all.
Why does Jeremiah 17:9a say the heart is deceitful above all [other deceitful] things? Just a few more verses...
Proverbs 12:15 "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."
Proverbs 16:2 "All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits."
Proverbs 21:2 "Every way of man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the heart."
The heart is deceitful above all things because everything that comes out of a person's own heart seems right and clean to that person. Why? Because the values reflected back to us from our hearts are the values we originally fed into them through our habitual thinking. My heart is so deceitful, it can convince me I am still serving the Lord, even when my heart itself is in gross disobedience to him!
And one of the features that make the heart sooooo deceitful is the fact that there ARE good things, even in a heart whose attitude is predominantly evil, and evil things in a heart that is predominantly good. I can't say every thought and intention of my heart is evil. Nor can I say every thought and intention is good. I cannot trust my heart... by itself... to sort out my evil intentions from my good! What a fix I find myself in!
That's as far as I can go for the next few days. Remember, our basic quest is to find out why Wierwille would read foreign meanings into Romans 9-11. I have to devote some time to homework for a statistics class I'm taking, but I'll be reading the thread, and posting brief responses from time to time. As Tim Gunn would say on Project Runway, "Work it, people, work it!"
Love,
Steve
The Heart is sort of like the individual's "FILTER", through which we allow our opinion and conscience to be our guides?
Heb 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Well that two edged sword verse,... ...the phrase first shows up historically in 1526 as William Tyndale translated the New Testament epistles, specifically Hebrews 4: 12 where the sharpness of the blade is being emphasised. A hundred years later Robert Boyle [1627-1691] was born, and in [1661] stated in his Some Considerations Touching the Style of Holy Scriptures, that "two-edg'd Weapons" ... "are as well applicable to the service of Falsehood, as of Truth." Since that time we've been taught the latter meaning - cuts both ways. Funny how words/phrases change.
So our deceitful heart has thoughts and intents,... and it can Burn...
Luke 24:32
And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
For all of us, there was that time. That burnring is a joyful thing usually only associated with Family or the love of someone close. Like those men on the road to Emmaus, excitedly recounting how they had felt while Jesus Christ shared with them. That's the point of good exegesis or eisegesis to make the word real and alive for the hearer.
But watch out for that heart,... it IS deceitful above all things! Guard your heart!
The Heart is sort of like the individual's "FILTER", through which we allow our opinion and conscience to be our guides?
Heb 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Well that two edged sword verse,... ...the phrase first shows up historically in 1526 as William Tyndale translated the New Testament epistles, specifically Hebrews 4: 12 where the sharpness of the blade is being emphasised. A hundred years later Robert Boyle [1627-1691] was born, and in [1661] stated in his Some Considerations Touching the Style of Holy Scriptures, that "two-edg'd Weapons" ... "are as well applicable to the service of Falsehood, as of Truth." Since that time we've been taught the latter meaning - cuts both ways. Funny how words/phrases change.
So our deceitful heart has thoughts and intents,... and it can Burn...
Luke 24:32
And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
For all of us, there was that time. That burnring is a joyful thing usually only associated with Family or the love of someone close. Like those men on the road to Emmaus, excitedly recounting how they had felt while Jesus Christ shared with them. That's the point of good exegesis or eisegesis to make the word real and alive for the hearer.
But watch out for that heart,... it IS deceitful above all things! Guard your heart!
You hit the nail on the head, Gen-2! I wrote, "I can't say every thought and intention of my heart is evil. Neither can I say that every thought and intention is good. I cannot trust my heart... by itself... to sort out my evil intentions from my good! What a fix I find myself in!"
The solution to my problem IS in Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is quick [ALIVE] and powerful [ABLE TO DO THINGS]... and is a discerner [kritikos CRITIC] of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
The living Word critcizes the thoughts and intents of our hearts. The living Word tells us which of the things coming out of our hearts are okay, and which are abominations, even though they all seem to be equally right and clean in our own eyes!
But... just what do I think the living Word is?
Is the living Word cramming my mind with a freight-load of retemories in King James English without having the slightest clue as to what they really mean?
Is the living Word some leader reaming my a$$ with the words "renew your mind" foaming out of his mouth between sprays of spittle?
Is the living Word ME, telling everybody else what's good for them?
No, no and double no!
I think the Word lives where the words written in the Word agree with the things the Spirit of God is working in a person's mind and heart.
Three places in the Bible we are told, "in the mouth [singular] of two or three witnesses [plural] shall a matter be established" (Deuteronomy 19:15b, Matthew 18:16b and II Corinthians 13:1b). The mouths of multiple witnesses become singular where they agree.
I think the primary witness that God gives us of Himself are the things He works in us subjectively through His Spirit. I think that is the basis of the individual relations that He so enjoys with each of us. I think that is how He directs our attention to the things He would have us to change in our walks. I think that's how He lets us know the things He wants us to do. The unique things He has so carefully trained each of us and equipped each of us to do.
I think the written Word is a secondary, objective witness He has given us so that we can check the things we think He might be telling us by way of Spirit.
I think the Word lives as a person exercises judgment, as he or she compares and contrasts what's coming to him by way of Spirit with what's coming to him by way of the written Word. If we magnify the written Word and ignore the Spirit, we fall into Phariseeism and legalism, as TWI did. If we magnify the Spirit and ignore the written Word, we fall into emotionalism and spiritualism as CES did with personal prophecy. To strike the balance between legalism and license, that is, to walk in the Spirit, requires that a person be equally humble to the written Word and the Spirit working within him where they agree. That's when the living Word can criticize the thoughts and intents of our hearts.
David knew as much, "Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." (Psalm 139:23&24)
I posed a question in the original post of this thread: Why would Wierwille preach so adamantly the importance of getting "to whom addressed" correct, and at the same time, so totally screw up the passage he used as an example?
We've seen why and how the heart is deceitful above all things, and we've seen that the problem this presernts can be overcome by submitting the thoughts and intents of our hearts to the criticism of the living Word.
But we've come only about half way. Why would a person want to submit the things that seem sooo right... sooo clean... sooo wonderful... to ANYBODY'S criticism?
One of the most glaring examples, in my opinion, of Wierwille preaching exegesis while at the same time practicing and teaching eisegesis occurred in PFAL when Wierwille did the section on "we have to get 'to whom addressed' correct." Wierwille chose Romans 9-11 to illustrate how important it is to realize who a section of scripture is addressed to, teaching that Romans 9:1 through 11:12 is addressed, not to Christians, but to Jews, and that Romans 11:13 through 11:36 is addressed, again, not to Christians, but to Gentiles.
Closely reading Romans 9:1-11:12 demonstrates that the passage is NOT addressed TO the Jews. It is ABOUT the Jews, but NOT addressed TO them. Likewise, carefully reading all of Romans 11:13-36 shows that the "you Gentiles" of Romans 11:13 are NOT unregenerate Gentiles, but rather the Christians in Rome who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds.
Why would Wierwille preach so adamantly the importance of getting "to whom addressed" correct, and at the same time, so totally screw up the passage he used as an example? The implications are enormous, both for the license he allowed himself to sin, and all the rest of his theology
_________________________________________
Short Answer:
Because Wierwille, while being a convincing communicator of fatherly and grandfatherly concern for people and well versed in homiletics was at heart an abusive and controlling sociopath!?
For me, I get more mileage out of asking why I didn't see this earlier.
I’m of the opinion that it was here at this point in Romans that Wierwille was just flat out wrong. It happens all the time. Yes, I will not disagree with your assessment that he was an abusive sociopath and that his control issues stemmed in part from his wrong “division” of the Scriptures, but I’ve seen similar things happen when men or women get power and then get ultimately corrupted thereby (Lord Acton (John Emerich Dalberg-Acton wrote, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton (April 5, 1887), "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.")
Now, as to why this was not obvious to you (or me, BTW) sooner, anyone can guess. Wierwille was not an eisegete all the time. Here he was screwed up.
Steve,
You made quite a leap with your expression that the “living Word” was the thing that was inferred in Hebrew 4:12. I quite disagree (though, interestingly enough I agree with your conclusions – “To strike the balance between legalism and license, that is, to walk in the Spirit, requires that a person be equally humble to the written Word and the Spirit working within him where they agree.). Since the heart is possibly deceived in many instances (not all mind you, but certainly in the Jeremiah instance, eh?…BTW, I don’t think that his statement is “doctrinal” in every situation, at any time, forever and ever amen.) one should not trust in it’s ideas or motives without some direction and descretion. Direction from the so-called “spirit” are also somewhat subjective (though a necessary thing because the written word does not give directions in every instance, in every situation, forever and ever, amen, either, eh?). I would therefore trust the general directions given by the written word first (now this takes some doing and a brain…we are not first century believers having letters written to us (we’re not Israelites either, taking directions from the Torah…and all things in between). But the “application” of prinicipal is possible. I mean how hard is “I would that ye all spake in tongues” (assuming that you and the rest of the readers of this particular thread are not all now cessationalists). That would be, ahem, another thread.
Other things are harder and require a fuller disclosure such as you are trying to do with VP’s idiocy in Romans.
BTW, I still think that getting “to whom something is addressed” in the Bible is pretty damn important. Just sayin’.
Why would Wierwille preach so adamantly the importance of getting "to whom addressed" correct, and at the same time, so totally screw up the passage he used as an example?
Short Answer:
Because Wierwille, while being a convincing communicator of fatherly and grandfatherly concern for people and well versed in homiletics was at heart an abusive and controlling sociopath!?
For me, I get more mileage out of asking why I didn't see this earlier.
You're right, Jeff. He was at heart abusive and controlling. I don't know if I would say he was a sociopath, since I'm not a psychiatrist, though some of his actions would certainly seem to fit that diagnosis. But if his alcoholism was self-medication to deaden the remorse he felt, that would point away from sociopathy. He also went to great lengths to rationalize his behavior, to himself even, and I don't think a true sociopath would do that.
After our branch was excommunicated in 1987, a few of us got hold of a bootleg copy of PFAL. We tried to go through a session using the "pause" and "rewind" buttons asking three questions: "What exactly did he say?" "What does that mean?" and "How does that line up with the scripture that we know?" I don't think we made it through a full 30 minute session. PFAL is larded with things that just don't make any sense. The verses Wierwille used often meant very different things from what he was teaching. For a long time, the teaching he did on "to whom addressed" stood out to me, since Wierwille chose to use for an example a passage of scripture where he violated the very principle he was preaching! I could only conclude that Wierwille was just a deliberate con man.
In 1996 I was confronted with the deceitfulness of my own heart, and began to think that Wierwille also may have allowed himself to be deceived. As I studied things out, I realized that Wierwille, in PFAL, had removed from our consideration the one thing that could have guarded us against the deceitfulness of our own hearts.
What was that thing?
Well... on with the thread!
Wierwille taught that fear is believing in reverse, that the thing you fear is gonna getcha, that fear always encases, always enslaves, always binds, and that fear is always wrong. How do those things line up with objective reality?
Fear is an emotion. Emotions are feelings that move us, that prompt us to do things. Love prompts us to bond. Depression prompts us to shut down. Sorrow prompts to mourn. Joy prompts us to express elation. Anger prompts us to lash out. These are all good and necessary things to do, given the particular situation. I think God designed them into us so that we could live the kinds of lives He wants us to live. Fear is also a good and necessary response that God built into us.
Fear is the emotion that moves us to get into right relation with the object of our fear.
The right relation with a rattlesnake is outside of striking distance. The right relation with the IRS is to have our filings accurate and on time, and our taxes paid up (and soon to have health insurance also, it seems).
The fear of God is the feeling that moves us to get into right relation with God. The fear of God is the proper response to His majesty as expressed in creation: to the starry sky on a clear, dark night, to the intricacies of DNA, to the profound hunt for the "God" particle. The right relation with God is the frame of mind that says, "You are God, I am not. It means what you want it to say, not what I want it to mean. Not my will, but yours be done."
The fear of God is the emotion that moves us to submit the thoughts and intents of our hearts to the criticism of the living Word.
Wierwille did not keep the fear of God before his eyes (he did not pay habitual attention to the fear of God). He allowed other emotions, such as pride and lust and greed, to overwhelm the fear of God. He did everything he could, he rationalized, he drank, he sought the approval of crowds, he gave vent to his boundless sexual desires, all to deaden the fear of God.
The opposite of the fear of God is high-minded arrogance. A person who habitually ignores the fear of the Lord thinks more highly of himself than he ought to think.
This is how the NIV translates Psalm 36:1-4,
"1 An oracle is within my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked:
There is no fear of God before his eyes.
"2 For in his own eyes he flatters himself
Too much to detect or hate his sin.
"3 The words of his mouth are wicked and deceitful;
he has ceased to be wise and to do good.
"4 Even on his bed he plots evil; he commits himself to a sinful course
And doesn not reject what is wrong."
It doesn't say he was never wise. It doesn't say he never did good. It says he has CEASED to be wise and do good!
That's all I can post for now. I'll be back later.
From my perspective it is impossible to completely iron out everything about Wierwille's character. I believe the Lord will judge him and the rest of us according to the secret and hidden things about our hearts.
Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
But in the mean time it is an interesting consideration to wonder something like, "Gee...was Wierwille a corrupt man who built a ministry that allowed him to flourish relatively well hidden or did the ministry he build and the power he wielded corrupt him?" Earlier today I was considering that the verses I know about judgment focus on our words and our actions, but also God's revealing of the heart's intent.
__________________
Dear Steve,
Just for consideration, I agree that if Wierwille had to rationalize his behavior to himself that would tend to speak against him being a full blown sociopath. Like you, I am not fully versed in the definitions or the other possibilities.
But I think that if Wierwille used a particular form of self depreciating comment to jerk us around to the idea he had some form of conscience left in him that such actions would be a lock for a full blown sociopath. In other words, perhaps he wasn't rationalizing to himself at all, but simply using the appearance to set the hook deeper in his followers.
And his alcoholism didn't have anything to do with his tortured self-doubts IMO. His drinking probably started as something he liked how it felt but blossomed into alcoholism for reasons unrelated to his conscience.
And it seems sound that teaching that fear is bad can be a full blown deception if the fear is natural as in something like, "Get out of the way of that truck." but would that not also mean that PFAL from it's very inception by talking us out of whatever warnings we would have been better off to pay attention to was also building self-deception or even delusion into what for many people was the first and foremost introduction to The Way international?
So would not the high minded arrogance then also be a full blown delusion and an exacerbation of ANY mental instability or mental disorders involving control and/or manipulation?
And wouldn't the leaders most skilled at control/manipulation think they are the cream rising to the top but in fact be something that would resemble a Baby Ruth bar floating to the top of a swimming pool? <_<
It's 2:00 am and I can't sleep. My mind isn't racing, or even revving, so I know it's not symptomatic of a mood swing into hypomania. I decided to get up and write. LizzyBuzz can't sleep either, but she's laying in the bed rubbing the belly of one of the cats. I'm sixty now, and maybe I'm just getting too old to handle caffeine.
Do you guys (and gals, too, I don't want to be unconsciously sexist here) watch Mythbusters? I think they set a great pattern for Bible scholars. When they test a hypothesis (myth) they have several possible outcomes: "Confirmed", "Plausible", "Plausible But Not Probable" and "Busted". Our stats prof says those outcomes are related to what he calls the "Hypothesis", "Null-Hypothesis" and "Alternate Hypothesis", but I still haven't figured out exactly what he means when he says that. Sometimes, when I'm tracking through the Word trying to detect the differences between what I think I know and what I actually DO know, I feel like I'm one of the Mythbusters. I think I'm more like Adam Savage than I am like Jamie Hyneman.
Bob - Thank you for citing your source for "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." You did it in a very exegetical manner. We have to use the APA (American Psychological Association) style manual when writing for the classes I'm taking, and the APA is veeeeeery picky about citations and references, so I'm much more aware of them than I formerly was. I used the quote, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics" in a paper I wrote for stats class last week. I tracked it down to an article Mark Twain wrote, but he attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli, and NOBODY knows where it really came from.
In your post of 2:01 pm yesterday, Bob, you wrote "Wierwille was not an eisegete all the time. Here he screwed up." I agree. Most of what Wierwille preached was true, and a lot of what he taught was also. When a friend of mine put a green card in front of my face and asked "Which of these benefits would you like to receive?" I picked the one about "separating truth from error." I forget exactly how it was worded. Well, I learned a lot about separating truth from error in PFAL, but I've also learned a heck of a lot more about doing it since I left TWI, and EVEN MORE after leaving CES/STFI.
One of the things I think Wierwille was very right in preaching was that the integrity of the Word is always at stake, even though he hashed it to pieces with his practice and his teaching. The idea that the Word has integrity resonated with me and still does. My Pop was a newspaperman, and he's the one who taught me words can have integrity, by the way he lived his life. I remember sitting in the news room one day, as a boy, when some people came in and threatened to firebomb our house if Pop ran a story they didn't like. Pop stood up from his chair behind his typewriter and said, "You go ahead and do that! Every person in this room heard what you just said, and if my house burns down, guess who the cops are gonna come lookin' for!"
My little eyes got big and round, and I thought "The truth is worth an awful lot to Pop!" There WERE times when we went to bed with a bunch of blankets stacked beside a bath-tub full of water, and when we got older, my brother and I kept a pistol in the side room.
One time I asked Pop, just for form's sake, if he wanted to take the class, and he said "You can't teach an old dog new tricks." I was soooo relieved then, and even more relieved after TWI began falling apart. When I was an anti-Trustee firebrand, preaching against them in the woods at ROA '87, I kept Pop informed of what I was doing. I like to think he was proud of me, but at that time he was still recovering from a massive stroke. At least I got all the relatives I talked into taking PFAL back out again, and a few good old friends to boot.
As I said, the idea that the Word has integrity (wholeness) resonates with me, more so than the idea that the Word is inerrant. One of the first things I do when I teach seventh-graders how to exercise judgment is to make them go to their dictionaries and compare and contrast the definitions of "objective" and "subjective." Something that is subjective depends on the mind. Things that are objective are independent of the mind.
I then teach them that I believe what is objective is real because it has integrity, meaning it is whole, and it is persistent, while my subjective experience of that reality is only partial and discontinuous. That's one of the reasons I am more inclined toward Stoic cosmology than to neo-Platonic cosmology, which says that subjective experience is real and the objective cosmos accessible to our senses is illusory. Stoic ethics make me gag, though.
I teach the seventh-graders objective reality has integrity (wholeness) because the God who created it has integrity (wholeness). In logic, the touchstone for the value of a proposition is whether or not it accords with objective reality. I teach the students that objective reality is true, because its Creator is true.
I don't believe it's possible to reconstruct the original autographs. I don't think it would do us much good if we could. But I DO believe a person can connect with the integrity of the written Word, and in so doing, learn to understand, accept, and revel in a proper relationship with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
I hear LizzyBuzz snoring now. I think I'll go back in, put my CPAP mask on, and see if I can fall asleep!
You made quite a leap with your expression that the “living Word” was the thing that was inferred in Hebrew 4:12.
I agree, it was a leap for me to call the critic of the thoughts and intents of our hearts the "living Word", but I think it was a highly plausible leap, since the first line of the verse is "the word is quick', which means "the Word is alive."
Sanctification was never directly a big issue in TWI, but it has been important to the denominations that sprang out of the Wesleyan holiness movement of the late 1800s. That set of denominations includes those of the Pentecostal variety which heavily influenced Wierwille in other areas of his theology. Many of those denominations teach that sanctification, which they view as a second work of grace, and often equate with receiving the Holy Spirit, comes at sometime later than water baptism. They think a person becomes holy all at once, and they have a dickens of a time dealing with how a person can still sin after they've spoken in tongues.
Wierwille solved this problem by saying that sin doesn't matter anymore; it has all been covered by grace, and the problem is no longer sin, but sin consciousness. Instead of teaching us to look to the Spirit for guidance in using the words of the Word to overcome our sins (the fruit of the thoughts and intents of our hearts), Wierwille taught us we should just ignore our sins. I think God brings our sins to our attention by way of His Spirit.
Even though I am definitely not trinitarian, I am coming to think it's appropriate to capitalize the word "Spirit" in some contexts, for reasons I will have to start a new thread to explain.
God brings our attention to our sins by way of the living Word in order for us to deal with them and stop sinning. That way, God can bring us to sanctification in such a manner that we present our sanctification to Him as a deliberate service of love instead of a robotic reflex.
It's a gradual process. God doesn't expect us to fix everything all at once. He knows the pace and order that's best for each of us as individuals, and He can give us custom-tailored guidance when we allow the Spirit and the Word to work together as what I have chosen to call the "living Word".
Not that every sin is subtle and requires being "convicted by the Holy Ghost" to recognize. The fact that adultery is wrong is blatant to almost everybody, Christian or otherwise.
I think the things we don't get fixed by the time we die will be fixed in the trash-fire of the age, our baptism of fire.
Why would Wierwille preach so adamantly the importance of getting "to whom addressed" correct, and at the same time, so totally screw up the passage he used as an example? The implications are enormous, both for the license he allowed himself to sin, and all the rest of his theology.
If I remember PFAL correctly, Wierwille built up to the section on "to whom addressed" in the following way: He had just taught on Romans 8, concluding with verses 35-39,
"35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
"36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long: we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
"37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquesrors through him that loved us.
"38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
"39 Nor heighth, nor dept, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Wierwille then had us turn to Romans 11 and read verse 22, "Behold therefore the goodness and the severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
He pointed out these verses as an apparent contradiction in the Word of God and asked how we could resolve it. Then Wierwille raised the question of "to whom addressed" and delimited the possibilities by referring to I Corinthians 10:32, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God."
He drew our attention to the word "Gentiles" in Romans 11:13 and said that verse 22 was obviously addressed to Gentiles, not to Christians. He also taught that Romans 9:1 through 11:12 were addressed to the Jews.
I think I've got the line of reasoning correct, though I may be off in some of the details after all these years.
This is a very tight argument. It's not like Wierwille said to himself, "I'm gonna teach on 'to whom addressed.' What passage should I use for an example?" and he just happened to chose Romans 9-11. Especially since Romans 9-11 is addressed, not to "Jews and Gentiles", but to Christians at Rome who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds.
When I was still being disabused of my faith in Wierwille's "research", I thought he was a clever con-man, and had carefully constructed this piece of misdirection. Now, I don't think Wierwille put it together at all. I think it's more likely that he simply plagiarized it, possibly from B.G. Leonard, and found it very useful for his own purposes.
As far as the "apparent contradiction" is concerned, Romans 8 DOES say there isn't anything outside of ourselves that can separate us from the love of God that's in Christ Jesus, but it doesn't say we can't turn around and walk away from it because we've trusted in men, made flesh our arm, and turned our hearts away from the Lord. I don't think Christians can lose their salvation, because of I Corinthians 3:15, but DO NOT believe that grace is a license for those who are "spiritually mature" to sin. There are consequences.
Romans 9:1 "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
Now, I don't think Wierwille put it together at all. I think it's more likely that he simply plagiarized it, possibly from B.G. Leonard, and found it very useful for his own purposes.
It was from Bullinger. Wierwille was retelling a portion of Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible,although Bullinger's argument was more capably framed.
It has been many years since I read How to Enjoy the Bible, but I recall that reading it revealed Wierwille had pulled a number of PFAL teachings -- and even a number of his PFAL anecdotes -- from it.
It has been many years since I read How to Enjoy the Bible, but I recall that reading it revealed Wierwille had pulled a number of PFAL teachings -- and even a number of his PFAL anecdotes -- from it.
Thanks for posting the link, Cynic, and refreshing and informing my recollections. You've made this thread much more interesting than I had anticipated by stirring Bullinger into the mix of exegesis and eisegesis.
Apparently Wierwille was reading Romans 9-11 through the lens of Bullinger's ultradispensationalism. It's odd enough, in a class on reading what's actually written in the Bible, for the instructor to teach one thing and ignore what's actually written.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
39
90
45
29
Popular Days
Mar 24
34
Mar 25
28
Apr 10
24
Mar 23
21
Top Posters In This Topic
year2027 39 posts
Steve Lortz 90 posts
geisha779 45 posts
roberterasmus 29 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2010
34 posts
Mar 25 2010
28 posts
Apr 10 2010
24 posts
Mar 23 2010
21 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
Hebrews 4:12 .. . . to whom is it written? It was written to the Jews who had intellectually agreed to the gospel, the facts about Jesus, the authority and power of the 1st century church, but were no
geisha779
Hey Gen-2 I am curious what people think strong meat really is? :) Perhaps it is. . . to the measure of the stature of the fullness in Christ. . . . and not some super-duper special x-ray ability,
cman
Excuse me there Bob, but your post has a narrow view. I will not use the word you used to describe a perspective. Other words come to mind. But, you are, as all, entitled to your own works.
Steve Lortz
So...
where were we?
Oh, yeah...
Why does Jeremiah 17:9a say the heart is deceitful above all [other deceitful] things? Just a few more verses...
Proverbs 12:15 "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."
Proverbs 16:2 "All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits."
Proverbs 21:2 "Every way of man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the heart."
The heart is deceitful above all things because everything that comes out of a person's own heart seems right and clean to that person. Why? Because the values reflected back to us from our hearts are the values we originally fed into them through our habitual thinking. My heart is so deceitful, it can convince me I am still serving the Lord, even when my heart itself is in gross disobedience to him!
And one of the features that make the heart sooooo deceitful is the fact that there ARE good things, even in a heart whose attitude is predominantly evil, and evil things in a heart that is predominantly good. I can't say every thought and intention of my heart is evil. Nor can I say every thought and intention is good. I cannot trust my heart... by itself... to sort out my evil intentions from my good! What a fix I find myself in!
That's as far as I can go for the next few days. Remember, our basic quest is to find out why Wierwille would read foreign meanings into Romans 9-11. I have to devote some time to homework for a statistics class I'm taking, but I'll be reading the thread, and posting brief responses from time to time. As Tim Gunn would say on Project Runway, "Work it, people, work it!"
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I don't think Bob had any particular person in mind, Roy, when he wrote what he did. I certainly wouldn't associate your posts with "bashing". I think I would be hard pressed to find a kinder heart here at Greasespot than yours. Thank you for the example you set here of humility!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Not sure what you mean? If you have a moment, could you explain? If not. . . no worries.
It is funny you mention Momentus, I saw it mentioned on another thread. . . . I think by you. Being somewhat unfamiliar, but often hearing it mentioned, I Googled it. It took me to Factnet. I started reading this really great article, I was really moved. So, I was curious, and when I looked to see who wrote it. It was YOU!
I cannot applaud you enough for your courage in coming forth and sharing in such an intimate and important manner. I was so touched and filled with respect. Momentus sounds like hell. . . . . the absence of God.
Why would anyone promote it? There is a question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
When I read this Robert I thought, "Yep, that's what I did!"
I can respect your desire to move the discussion away from Wierwille and his "Smarmy results" and will do my best. But if for only good intentions I feel that I need to do so again I hope you will bear with me.
Here is some of the reasons that I do so...
#1 This place is full of ex-wayfers who still may even say that they are still recovering from Waybrain and I don't mind sharing my impression of The Way International's smarmy results. Just in case it proves to be helpful.
#2 Sometimes I'm just looking out for people getting caught up in the same old stuff, but then they say something that makes it plain that I needn't be sooo concerned. :) At the very least I hope misplaced concern is the worst thing I need to deal with.
#3 I'm still in the process of putting the pieces together for myself in terms of understanding how or why The Way International had it's place in terms of leading me to where my life is now, and of course that includes Wierwille in the picture.
Hi Steve,
I hope that between you, your sibling(s?), and your mom things work out ok.
The things about the conditioning of the heart you speak of brought up some considerations for me. They may or may not be "meaty" per say depending on the individual I suppose, but I think I have seen newer believers and the deceived choking on these verses a time or two, so I will bring them up with care......and from the "King James."
______________________
HEBREWS ch.6
4For [it is] impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.
7For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8But that which beareth thorns and briers [is] rejected, and [is] nigh unto cursing; whose end [is] to be burned.
_________________________
HEBREWS ch.10
26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31[it is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
______________________
Now as these things apply to anybody who thinks they are serving God or not will probably be true in different gegrees to different individuals IMO.
But for those who learned and believed on Christ but then let somebody lead them into THINKING they are serving God but REALLY ARE SERVING a man who "Rapes young girls" and eventually their own lusts, I believe these verses apply absolutely and 100%.
And in my experience they in true wayfer fashion still think it is a simple matter of living in the Wierwille delusion of Godliness.
_____________________
Another scripture, Mt 6....
21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great [is] that darkness!
______________________
Personally, I think the utmost care must be used in handling these verses because they were turned against me by somebody who I truly believe is worthy of this judgment and it hurt me and my life a lot.
Plus I have witnessed newer believers become fearfully paralyzed in there walk and seemingly very deeply in their minds by the weight of the judment these verses refer to.
Plus I have witnessed heavy handed preachers move the "preachies" to places that were not only not good, but IMO totally worthless.
Plus, because of the many warnings such as the verse...."Judge not lest ye be judged." I believe the consequences for mishandling these things is bad, bad, and BAD all the way around.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi Robert,
I've talked to some Catholics who are far away from this knee-jerk reaction right here at GSC even.
The little bit of Augustine that I have read seems excessive in terms of allegory for my taste, and several educated Catholics I have talked with seem more than willing to share that they think so too, except that IMO they say so after reading much more of his writings than I have.
The thing that is soo impressive about some of these people and their contemporaries to me is that their writings were HUGE in terms of the long-term impact they have had on world history. They too have a historical context that we can not ignore IMO.
(edited to effect an improvement in my grammar and spelling.)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Steve
thank you for so nice words
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Hey, Jeff,
I also agree that those who wrote in the time just after the apostles (and other Christian writers) had unique historical contexts. AND they had tremendous impacts on not only their contemporaries, but us today. The question will always be whether that affect is good or bad. I'd say both, but in terms of actual "understanding" of the Scriptures I would say mostly bad. That, of course, would be and another thread entirely.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
There's an old saying that I heard here at GSC from someone a long time ago.
Not that agreeing and thinking alike is wrong, but on everything, I think this saying to be very true.
To leave one's own ideas for a moment, and think, live, other ideas seriously is a special quality I believe. One that can unite more then thinking alike or the 'one mind' some were taught it to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Paul, I think, had this special quality. He had to learn how to think like a Stoic gentile to state his gospel in terms they could understand.
The homework is going pretty well. I learned how to make histograms manually about thirty years ago. The hard part is learning how to do it using MS Excel. I know some of you young pups and those of you who use Excel on the job will think I'm awfully backward, but my neuron pathways were set back in the days of sliderules!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I'm just glad we can evaluate this stuff for ourselves Robert. I think one of the precious things here is that we can form our own opinions and think for ourselves. In my experience group think runs 180% counter to this and in most cases the ones with the most influence somehow manage to sell themselves as promoting liberty.
Whether extreemly bad group think as in The Way International IMO, or in a church with much less damage being done the group think thing can be annoying but perhaps necessary to some extent w/in any group.
As to the scriptures, sure, maybe another thread.... this is not a bad place to give one a try after all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
The Heart is sort of like the individual's "FILTER", through which we allow our opinion and conscience to be our guides?
Heb 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Well that two edged sword verse,... ...the phrase first shows up historically in 1526 as William Tyndale translated the New Testament epistles, specifically Hebrews 4: 12 where the sharpness of the blade is being emphasised. A hundred years later Robert Boyle [1627-1691] was born, and in [1661] stated in his Some Considerations Touching the Style of Holy Scriptures, that "two-edg'd Weapons" ... "are as well applicable to the service of Falsehood, as of Truth." Since that time we've been taught the latter meaning - cuts both ways. Funny how words/phrases change.
So our deceitful heart has thoughts and intents,... and it can Burn...
Luke 24:32
And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
For all of us, there was that time. That burnring is a joyful thing usually only associated with Family or the love of someone close. Like those men on the road to Emmaus, excitedly recounting how they had felt while Jesus Christ shared with them. That's the point of good exegesis or eisegesis to make the word real and alive for the hearer.
But watch out for that heart,... it IS deceitful above all things! Guard your heart!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
You hit the nail on the head, Gen-2! I wrote, "I can't say every thought and intention of my heart is evil. Neither can I say that every thought and intention is good. I cannot trust my heart... by itself... to sort out my evil intentions from my good! What a fix I find myself in!"
The solution to my problem IS in Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is quick [ALIVE] and powerful [ABLE TO DO THINGS]... and is a discerner [kritikos CRITIC] of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
The living Word critcizes the thoughts and intents of our hearts. The living Word tells us which of the things coming out of our hearts are okay, and which are abominations, even though they all seem to be equally right and clean in our own eyes!
But... just what do I think the living Word is?
Is the living Word cramming my mind with a freight-load of retemories in King James English without having the slightest clue as to what they really mean?
Is the living Word some leader reaming my a$$ with the words "renew your mind" foaming out of his mouth between sprays of spittle?
Is the living Word ME, telling everybody else what's good for them?
No, no and double no!
I think the Word lives where the words written in the Word agree with the things the Spirit of God is working in a person's mind and heart.
Three places in the Bible we are told, "in the mouth [singular] of two or three witnesses [plural] shall a matter be established" (Deuteronomy 19:15b, Matthew 18:16b and II Corinthians 13:1b). The mouths of multiple witnesses become singular where they agree.
I think the primary witness that God gives us of Himself are the things He works in us subjectively through His Spirit. I think that is the basis of the individual relations that He so enjoys with each of us. I think that is how He directs our attention to the things He would have us to change in our walks. I think that's how He lets us know the things He wants us to do. The unique things He has so carefully trained each of us and equipped each of us to do.
I think the written Word is a secondary, objective witness He has given us so that we can check the things we think He might be telling us by way of Spirit.
I think the Word lives as a person exercises judgment, as he or she compares and contrasts what's coming to him by way of Spirit with what's coming to him by way of the written Word. If we magnify the written Word and ignore the Spirit, we fall into Phariseeism and legalism, as TWI did. If we magnify the Spirit and ignore the written Word, we fall into emotionalism and spiritualism as CES did with personal prophecy. To strike the balance between legalism and license, that is, to walk in the Spirit, requires that a person be equally humble to the written Word and the Spirit working within him where they agree. That's when the living Word can criticize the thoughts and intents of our hearts.
David knew as much, "Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." (Psalm 139:23&24)
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I posed a question in the original post of this thread: Why would Wierwille preach so adamantly the importance of getting "to whom addressed" correct, and at the same time, so totally screw up the passage he used as an example?
We've seen why and how the heart is deceitful above all things, and we've seen that the problem this presernts can be overcome by submitting the thoughts and intents of our hearts to the criticism of the living Word.
But we've come only about half way. Why would a person want to submit the things that seem sooo right... sooo clean... sooo wonderful... to ANYBODY'S criticism?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I copied this from your first post Steve:
One of the most glaring examples, in my opinion, of Wierwille preaching exegesis while at the same time practicing and teaching eisegesis occurred in PFAL when Wierwille did the section on "we have to get 'to whom addressed' correct." Wierwille chose Romans 9-11 to illustrate how important it is to realize who a section of scripture is addressed to, teaching that Romans 9:1 through 11:12 is addressed, not to Christians, but to Jews, and that Romans 11:13 through 11:36 is addressed, again, not to Christians, but to Gentiles.
Closely reading Romans 9:1-11:12 demonstrates that the passage is NOT addressed TO the Jews. It is ABOUT the Jews, but NOT addressed TO them. Likewise, carefully reading all of Romans 11:13-36 shows that the "you Gentiles" of Romans 11:13 are NOT unregenerate Gentiles, but rather the Christians in Rome who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds.
Why would Wierwille preach so adamantly the importance of getting "to whom addressed" correct, and at the same time, so totally screw up the passage he used as an example? The implications are enormous, both for the license he allowed himself to sin, and all the rest of his theology
_________________________________________
Short Answer:
Because Wierwille, while being a convincing communicator of fatherly and grandfatherly concern for people and well versed in homiletics was at heart an abusive and controlling sociopath!?
For me, I get more mileage out of asking why I didn't see this earlier.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Hmmm, Jeff,
I’m of the opinion that it was here at this point in Romans that Wierwille was just flat out wrong. It happens all the time. Yes, I will not disagree with your assessment that he was an abusive sociopath and that his control issues stemmed in part from his wrong “division” of the Scriptures, but I’ve seen similar things happen when men or women get power and then get ultimately corrupted thereby (Lord Acton (John Emerich Dalberg-Acton wrote, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton (April 5, 1887), "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.")
Now, as to why this was not obvious to you (or me, BTW) sooner, anyone can guess. Wierwille was not an eisegete all the time. Here he was screwed up.
Steve,
You made quite a leap with your expression that the “living Word” was the thing that was inferred in Hebrew 4:12. I quite disagree (though, interestingly enough I agree with your conclusions – “To strike the balance between legalism and license, that is, to walk in the Spirit, requires that a person be equally humble to the written Word and the Spirit working within him where they agree.). Since the heart is possibly deceived in many instances (not all mind you, but certainly in the Jeremiah instance, eh?…BTW, I don’t think that his statement is “doctrinal” in every situation, at any time, forever and ever amen.) one should not trust in it’s ideas or motives without some direction and descretion. Direction from the so-called “spirit” are also somewhat subjective (though a necessary thing because the written word does not give directions in every instance, in every situation, forever and ever, amen, either, eh?). I would therefore trust the general directions given by the written word first (now this takes some doing and a brain…we are not first century believers having letters written to us (we’re not Israelites either, taking directions from the Torah…and all things in between). But the “application” of prinicipal is possible. I mean how hard is “I would that ye all spake in tongues” (assuming that you and the rest of the readers of this particular thread are not all now cessationalists). That would be, ahem, another thread.
Other things are harder and require a fuller disclosure such as you are trying to do with VP’s idiocy in Romans.
BTW, I still think that getting “to whom something is addressed” in the Bible is pretty damn important. Just sayin’.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
You're right, Jeff. He was at heart abusive and controlling. I don't know if I would say he was a sociopath, since I'm not a psychiatrist, though some of his actions would certainly seem to fit that diagnosis. But if his alcoholism was self-medication to deaden the remorse he felt, that would point away from sociopathy. He also went to great lengths to rationalize his behavior, to himself even, and I don't think a true sociopath would do that.
After our branch was excommunicated in 1987, a few of us got hold of a bootleg copy of PFAL. We tried to go through a session using the "pause" and "rewind" buttons asking three questions: "What exactly did he say?" "What does that mean?" and "How does that line up with the scripture that we know?" I don't think we made it through a full 30 minute session. PFAL is larded with things that just don't make any sense. The verses Wierwille used often meant very different things from what he was teaching. For a long time, the teaching he did on "to whom addressed" stood out to me, since Wierwille chose to use for an example a passage of scripture where he violated the very principle he was preaching! I could only conclude that Wierwille was just a deliberate con man.
In 1996 I was confronted with the deceitfulness of my own heart, and began to think that Wierwille also may have allowed himself to be deceived. As I studied things out, I realized that Wierwille, in PFAL, had removed from our consideration the one thing that could have guarded us against the deceitfulness of our own hearts.
What was that thing?
Well... on with the thread!
Wierwille taught that fear is believing in reverse, that the thing you fear is gonna getcha, that fear always encases, always enslaves, always binds, and that fear is always wrong. How do those things line up with objective reality?
Fear is an emotion. Emotions are feelings that move us, that prompt us to do things. Love prompts us to bond. Depression prompts us to shut down. Sorrow prompts to mourn. Joy prompts us to express elation. Anger prompts us to lash out. These are all good and necessary things to do, given the particular situation. I think God designed them into us so that we could live the kinds of lives He wants us to live. Fear is also a good and necessary response that God built into us.
Fear is the emotion that moves us to get into right relation with the object of our fear.
The right relation with a rattlesnake is outside of striking distance. The right relation with the IRS is to have our filings accurate and on time, and our taxes paid up (and soon to have health insurance also, it seems).
The fear of God is the feeling that moves us to get into right relation with God. The fear of God is the proper response to His majesty as expressed in creation: to the starry sky on a clear, dark night, to the intricacies of DNA, to the profound hunt for the "God" particle. The right relation with God is the frame of mind that says, "You are God, I am not. It means what you want it to say, not what I want it to mean. Not my will, but yours be done."
The fear of God is the emotion that moves us to submit the thoughts and intents of our hearts to the criticism of the living Word.
Wierwille did not keep the fear of God before his eyes (he did not pay habitual attention to the fear of God). He allowed other emotions, such as pride and lust and greed, to overwhelm the fear of God. He did everything he could, he rationalized, he drank, he sought the approval of crowds, he gave vent to his boundless sexual desires, all to deaden the fear of God.
The opposite of the fear of God is high-minded arrogance. A person who habitually ignores the fear of the Lord thinks more highly of himself than he ought to think.
This is how the NIV translates Psalm 36:1-4,
"1 An oracle is within my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked:
There is no fear of God before his eyes.
"2 For in his own eyes he flatters himself
Too much to detect or hate his sin.
"3 The words of his mouth are wicked and deceitful;
he has ceased to be wise and to do good.
"4 Even on his bed he plots evil; he commits himself to a sinful course
And doesn not reject what is wrong."
It doesn't say he was never wise. It doesn't say he never did good. It says he has CEASED to be wise and do good!
That's all I can post for now. I'll be back later.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear Roberterasmus,
Good points too me I believe.
From my perspective it is impossible to completely iron out everything about Wierwille's character. I believe the Lord will judge him and the rest of us according to the secret and hidden things about our hearts.
New International Version (©1984)
1Co 4:5
Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
But in the mean time it is an interesting consideration to wonder something like, "Gee...was Wierwille a corrupt man who built a ministry that allowed him to flourish relatively well hidden or did the ministry he build and the power he wielded corrupt him?" Earlier today I was considering that the verses I know about judgment focus on our words and our actions, but also God's revealing of the heart's intent.
__________________
Dear Steve,
Just for consideration, I agree that if Wierwille had to rationalize his behavior to himself that would tend to speak against him being a full blown sociopath. Like you, I am not fully versed in the definitions or the other possibilities.
But I think that if Wierwille used a particular form of self depreciating comment to jerk us around to the idea he had some form of conscience left in him that such actions would be a lock for a full blown sociopath. In other words, perhaps he wasn't rationalizing to himself at all, but simply using the appearance to set the hook deeper in his followers.
And his alcoholism didn't have anything to do with his tortured self-doubts IMO. His drinking probably started as something he liked how it felt but blossomed into alcoholism for reasons unrelated to his conscience.
And it seems sound that teaching that fear is bad can be a full blown deception if the fear is natural as in something like, "Get out of the way of that truck." but would that not also mean that PFAL from it's very inception by talking us out of whatever warnings we would have been better off to pay attention to was also building self-deception or even delusion into what for many people was the first and foremost introduction to The Way international?
So would not the high minded arrogance then also be a full blown delusion and an exacerbation of ANY mental instability or mental disorders involving control and/or manipulation?
And wouldn't the leaders most skilled at control/manipulation think they are the cream rising to the top but in fact be something that would resemble a Baby Ruth bar floating to the top of a swimming pool? <_<
HHHhhmmmm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
It's 2:00 am and I can't sleep. My mind isn't racing, or even revving, so I know it's not symptomatic of a mood swing into hypomania. I decided to get up and write. LizzyBuzz can't sleep either, but she's laying in the bed rubbing the belly of one of the cats. I'm sixty now, and maybe I'm just getting too old to handle caffeine.
Do you guys (and gals, too, I don't want to be unconsciously sexist here) watch Mythbusters? I think they set a great pattern for Bible scholars. When they test a hypothesis (myth) they have several possible outcomes: "Confirmed", "Plausible", "Plausible But Not Probable" and "Busted". Our stats prof says those outcomes are related to what he calls the "Hypothesis", "Null-Hypothesis" and "Alternate Hypothesis", but I still haven't figured out exactly what he means when he says that. Sometimes, when I'm tracking through the Word trying to detect the differences between what I think I know and what I actually DO know, I feel like I'm one of the Mythbusters. I think I'm more like Adam Savage than I am like Jamie Hyneman.
Bob - Thank you for citing your source for "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." You did it in a very exegetical manner. We have to use the APA (American Psychological Association) style manual when writing for the classes I'm taking, and the APA is veeeeeery picky about citations and references, so I'm much more aware of them than I formerly was. I used the quote, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics" in a paper I wrote for stats class last week. I tracked it down to an article Mark Twain wrote, but he attributed it to Benjamin Disraeli, and NOBODY knows where it really came from.
In your post of 2:01 pm yesterday, Bob, you wrote "Wierwille was not an eisegete all the time. Here he screwed up." I agree. Most of what Wierwille preached was true, and a lot of what he taught was also. When a friend of mine put a green card in front of my face and asked "Which of these benefits would you like to receive?" I picked the one about "separating truth from error." I forget exactly how it was worded. Well, I learned a lot about separating truth from error in PFAL, but I've also learned a heck of a lot more about doing it since I left TWI, and EVEN MORE after leaving CES/STFI.
One of the things I think Wierwille was very right in preaching was that the integrity of the Word is always at stake, even though he hashed it to pieces with his practice and his teaching. The idea that the Word has integrity resonated with me and still does. My Pop was a newspaperman, and he's the one who taught me words can have integrity, by the way he lived his life. I remember sitting in the news room one day, as a boy, when some people came in and threatened to firebomb our house if Pop ran a story they didn't like. Pop stood up from his chair behind his typewriter and said, "You go ahead and do that! Every person in this room heard what you just said, and if my house burns down, guess who the cops are gonna come lookin' for!"
My little eyes got big and round, and I thought "The truth is worth an awful lot to Pop!" There WERE times when we went to bed with a bunch of blankets stacked beside a bath-tub full of water, and when we got older, my brother and I kept a pistol in the side room.
One time I asked Pop, just for form's sake, if he wanted to take the class, and he said "You can't teach an old dog new tricks." I was soooo relieved then, and even more relieved after TWI began falling apart. When I was an anti-Trustee firebrand, preaching against them in the woods at ROA '87, I kept Pop informed of what I was doing. I like to think he was proud of me, but at that time he was still recovering from a massive stroke. At least I got all the relatives I talked into taking PFAL back out again, and a few good old friends to boot.
As I said, the idea that the Word has integrity (wholeness) resonates with me, more so than the idea that the Word is inerrant. One of the first things I do when I teach seventh-graders how to exercise judgment is to make them go to their dictionaries and compare and contrast the definitions of "objective" and "subjective." Something that is subjective depends on the mind. Things that are objective are independent of the mind.
I then teach them that I believe what is objective is real because it has integrity, meaning it is whole, and it is persistent, while my subjective experience of that reality is only partial and discontinuous. That's one of the reasons I am more inclined toward Stoic cosmology than to neo-Platonic cosmology, which says that subjective experience is real and the objective cosmos accessible to our senses is illusory. Stoic ethics make me gag, though.
I teach the seventh-graders objective reality has integrity (wholeness) because the God who created it has integrity (wholeness). In logic, the touchstone for the value of a proposition is whether or not it accords with objective reality. I teach the students that objective reality is true, because its Creator is true.
I don't believe it's possible to reconstruct the original autographs. I don't think it would do us much good if we could. But I DO believe a person can connect with the integrity of the written Word, and in so doing, learn to understand, accept, and revel in a proper relationship with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
I hear LizzyBuzz snoring now. I think I'll go back in, put my CPAP mask on, and see if I can fall asleep!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I agree, it was a leap for me to call the critic of the thoughts and intents of our hearts the "living Word", but I think it was a highly plausible leap, since the first line of the verse is "the word is quick', which means "the Word is alive."
Sanctification was never directly a big issue in TWI, but it has been important to the denominations that sprang out of the Wesleyan holiness movement of the late 1800s. That set of denominations includes those of the Pentecostal variety which heavily influenced Wierwille in other areas of his theology. Many of those denominations teach that sanctification, which they view as a second work of grace, and often equate with receiving the Holy Spirit, comes at sometime later than water baptism. They think a person becomes holy all at once, and they have a dickens of a time dealing with how a person can still sin after they've spoken in tongues.
Wierwille solved this problem by saying that sin doesn't matter anymore; it has all been covered by grace, and the problem is no longer sin, but sin consciousness. Instead of teaching us to look to the Spirit for guidance in using the words of the Word to overcome our sins (the fruit of the thoughts and intents of our hearts), Wierwille taught us we should just ignore our sins. I think God brings our sins to our attention by way of His Spirit.
Even though I am definitely not trinitarian, I am coming to think it's appropriate to capitalize the word "Spirit" in some contexts, for reasons I will have to start a new thread to explain.
God brings our attention to our sins by way of the living Word in order for us to deal with them and stop sinning. That way, God can bring us to sanctification in such a manner that we present our sanctification to Him as a deliberate service of love instead of a robotic reflex.
It's a gradual process. God doesn't expect us to fix everything all at once. He knows the pace and order that's best for each of us as individuals, and He can give us custom-tailored guidance when we allow the Spirit and the Word to work together as what I have chosen to call the "living Word".
Not that every sin is subtle and requires being "convicted by the Holy Ghost" to recognize. The fact that adultery is wrong is blatant to almost everybody, Christian or otherwise.
I think the things we don't get fixed by the time we die will be fixed in the trash-fire of the age, our baptism of fire.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
If I remember PFAL correctly, Wierwille built up to the section on "to whom addressed" in the following way: He had just taught on Romans 8, concluding with verses 35-39,
"35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
"36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long: we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
"37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquesrors through him that loved us.
"38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
"39 Nor heighth, nor dept, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Wierwille then had us turn to Romans 11 and read verse 22, "Behold therefore the goodness and the severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
He pointed out these verses as an apparent contradiction in the Word of God and asked how we could resolve it. Then Wierwille raised the question of "to whom addressed" and delimited the possibilities by referring to I Corinthians 10:32, "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God."
He drew our attention to the word "Gentiles" in Romans 11:13 and said that verse 22 was obviously addressed to Gentiles, not to Christians. He also taught that Romans 9:1 through 11:12 were addressed to the Jews.
I think I've got the line of reasoning correct, though I may be off in some of the details after all these years.
This is a very tight argument. It's not like Wierwille said to himself, "I'm gonna teach on 'to whom addressed.' What passage should I use for an example?" and he just happened to chose Romans 9-11. Especially since Romans 9-11 is addressed, not to "Jews and Gentiles", but to Christians at Rome who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds.
When I was still being disabused of my faith in Wierwille's "research", I thought he was a clever con-man, and had carefully constructed this piece of misdirection. Now, I don't think Wierwille put it together at all. I think it's more likely that he simply plagiarized it, possibly from B.G. Leonard, and found it very useful for his own purposes.
As far as the "apparent contradiction" is concerned, Romans 8 DOES say there isn't anything outside of ourselves that can separate us from the love of God that's in Christ Jesus, but it doesn't say we can't turn around and walk away from it because we've trusted in men, made flesh our arm, and turned our hearts away from the Lord. I don't think Christians can lose their salvation, because of I Corinthians 3:15, but DO NOT believe that grace is a license for those who are "spiritually mature" to sin. There are consequences.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Steve
Have ever read 9:1 has part of 8:39,40-44
Romans 9:1 "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
the Flesh is the only thing
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
the school books are never agreed on in school
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
It was from Bullinger. Wierwille was retelling a portion of Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible,although Bullinger's argument was more capably framed.
(See http://philologos.org/__eb-htetb/132.htm )
It has been many years since I read How to Enjoy the Bible, but I recall that reading it revealed Wierwille had pulled a number of PFAL teachings -- and even a number of his PFAL anecdotes -- from it.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks for posting the link, Cynic, and refreshing and informing my recollections. You've made this thread much more interesting than I had anticipated by stirring Bullinger into the mix of exegesis and eisegesis.
Apparently Wierwille was reading Romans 9-11 through the lens of Bullinger's ultradispensationalism. It's odd enough, in a class on reading what's actually written in the Bible, for the instructor to teach one thing and ignore what's actually written.
More later...
Love,
Steve
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.