I remember a few discussions I had with folks back in my Wayfer days. The problems with these discussions looking back on them was that they were based on PFAL classes, and my youthful illusion of insight was in truth just putting together different concepts unwisely or I was only parroting PFAL material.
Plus as is not untrue in many groups, the conversation seemed to develop in a manner that tended to allow whatever we were into at the time. I remember coming back from a drinking party with one of my friends who said while we were considering whether or not what we were doing was good, "My mind is renewed."
Sigh...We had been drinking, she was driving, and I went along with it.
I know my views have changed for several reasons not the least of which is that I have managed to correct some of my old errors, plus I don't see PFAL as perfection anymore...not even close.
I know it's not a direct answer to your stated desire to simply clarify the old Way doctrines you are trying to remember.....
I think The Way's perverted idea of what Jesus Christ fulfilling the law really meant was just meant to allow us; but especially top leadership; to commit many sins without any consequences.
What you describe, albeit only partially seems to fit with my newer perspective.
I was always told we are to got beyond the law, which includes the law, so you gotta know the law to go beyond it. The law is still there, but the consequences for not doing it are not as great.
. . . no off to not boil a calf in it's mother's milk.
I was always told we are to got beyond the law, which includes the law, so you gotta know the law to go beyond it. The law is still there, but the consequences for not doing it are not as great.
. . . no off to not boil a calf in it's mother's milk.
I remember it like that too Bolshie,
But knowing now what Wierwille did to women is but one things that convinces me we were suckling on the poison pig.
For him, that concept is what he worked into peoples' hearts to get them to look past whatever nasty thing they might have had knowledge of.
Plus the fact that for him the church of Christ eventually resembled a Caananite sex cult temple, in part because we were no longer bound to the law, but could go beyond it.
But not according to how Paul said it was good to use the law....
1 Tim 1:(NKJV)
8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,
9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to The Way International...........breaking the law's morality is OK.
.........................According to Paul...........Breaking the law is contrary to sound doctrine.
In the old days I agreed with The Way International too.
(Added in editing)
Now that I think of it, no darn wonder it took a master builder to really teach it right.
Imagine having to teach a bunch of uncouth "strangers"(*Eph 2:19) which parts of the Law are things we should heed and which parts we don't need to follow to the letter.
No no,.... I don't think that's what she means, she wants the OT Verses (I'll find them tonight and post them - they exist) unless someone else does first.
First Samuel Chapter Eight (the whole chapter) is about how the people demanded Kings and got them - because the other nations had them . There are (i think) similar scriptures regarding both Israel getting Judges and the Law, but I don't remember them offhand and don't have a Bible in the lab here....
This is a bit of a deviation from your actual question. I recall Wierwille teaching that God created man because he yearned for fellowship. It sounds really cool and all but what the heck is that even supposed to mean?
And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written ; that thou mayest teach them.
This takes place right after the giving of the Ten Commandments and several chapters of other commandments in Ex 20-23 – called "the book of the covenant."
At this time the making of burnt offerings, peace offerings, etc was already well established (Ex 24:5ff and records in Genesis).
The OT believers had rituals for washing, for offering animal sacrifices as burnt offerings, sin offerings, peace offerings, etc, and these became enforced as "laws." These rituals and the "heart behind them" (sorry for the phrase) made those believers righteous.
Pharisees added a whole new lot of other "external" laws (which they strictly enforced) to make people "righteous" and look good, without in any way serving God or his people.
But remember: Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Abraham is around from Genesis 12. Romans spends a lot of time going into Abraham's righteousness and believing, which predates the exodus and the giving of the law by at least that 430 years.
Adam & Eve obviously didn't have "the law" – again, a lot of references in Romans about this.
Romans 4:3 KJV
For what saith the scripture ? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Galatians 3:6 KJV
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
James 2:23 KJV
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith , Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
God doesn't want us going through rituals (Heb 10:8). He just wants us to believe Him.
What has always really annoyed me (right from PFAL) is the way Wayfers always said, "Jesus Christ is the end of the law" therefore the Ten Commandments don't apply to us. (If you said, "the text says, end of the law for righteousness," you'd get the look that said, "You've added something to the Word!") Basically they tore up the "rule book." If they went further, they might add that our sonship rights said that we are righteous now because of what JC did. They forgot that the 10 Cs are rules for living rightly (righteously) along and for having correct personal relationships - and so all their personal relationships went to hell in a handbasket. They forgot what the essentials of "right living" might actually mean.
It makes sense to me that we aren't bound by "laws for righteousness" but it doesn't mean that we aren't bound by immutable laws of God as to how to live properly. Like this synthesis:
Luke 10:27
And he [Jesus] answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
Recommended Posts
cman
As I recall it was a king the people wanted which god didn't.
And they got King Saul.
as far as the commandments and why they were instituted,
the way has no idea
but that isn't your question....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi Shifra,
I remember a few discussions I had with folks back in my Wayfer days. The problems with these discussions looking back on them was that they were based on PFAL classes, and my youthful illusion of insight was in truth just putting together different concepts unwisely or I was only parroting PFAL material.
Plus as is not untrue in many groups, the conversation seemed to develop in a manner that tended to allow whatever we were into at the time. I remember coming back from a drinking party with one of my friends who said while we were considering whether or not what we were doing was good, "My mind is renewed."
Sigh...We had been drinking, she was driving, and I went along with it.
I know my views have changed for several reasons not the least of which is that I have managed to correct some of my old errors, plus I don't see PFAL as perfection anymore...not even close.
I know it's not a direct answer to your stated desire to simply clarify the old Way doctrines you are trying to remember.....
I think The Way's perverted idea of what Jesus Christ fulfilling the law really meant was just meant to allow us; but especially top leadership; to commit many sins without any consequences.
What you describe, albeit only partially seems to fit with my newer perspective.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I was always told we are to got beyond the law, which includes the law, so you gotta know the law to go beyond it. The law is still there, but the consequences for not doing it are not as great.
. . . no off to not boil a calf in it's mother's milk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I remember it like that too Bolshie,
But knowing now what Wierwille did to women is but one things that convinces me we were suckling on the poison pig.
For him, that concept is what he worked into peoples' hearts to get them to look past whatever nasty thing they might have had knowledge of.
Plus the fact that for him the church of Christ eventually resembled a Caananite sex cult temple, in part because we were no longer bound to the law, but could go beyond it.
But not according to how Paul said it was good to use the law....
1 Tim 1:(NKJV)
8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully,
9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to The Way International...........breaking the law's morality is OK.
.........................According to Paul...........Breaking the law is contrary to sound doctrine.
In the old days I agreed with The Way International too.
(Added in editing)
Now that I think of it, no darn wonder it took a master builder to really teach it right.
Imagine having to teach a bunch of uncouth "strangers"(*Eph 2:19) which parts of the Law are things we should heed and which parts we don't need to follow to the letter.
I'm guessing it might have felt like this....
:o 
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
No no,.... I don't think that's what she means, she wants the OT Verses (I'll find them tonight and post them - they exist) unless someone else does first.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
ok
See you guys later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
First Samuel Chapter Eight (the whole chapter) is about how the people demanded Kings and got them - because the other nations had them . There are (i think) similar scriptures regarding both Israel getting Judges and the Law, but I don't remember them offhand and don't have a Bible in the lab here....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Why not? (just kidding, bad joke) :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It's a valid question IMO, you may need it when dis-cern-ing of spurts
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
All of this material is covered in the "foundational" class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
WARNING!
This is a bit of a deviation from your actual question. I recall Wierwille teaching that God created man because he yearned for fellowship. It sounds really cool and all but what the heck is that even supposed to mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
These are some of the laws:
This takes place right after the giving of the Ten Commandments and several chapters of other commandments in Ex 20-23 – called "the book of the covenant."
At this time the making of burnt offerings, peace offerings, etc was already well established (Ex 24:5ff and records in Genesis).
The OT believers had rituals for washing, for offering animal sacrifices as burnt offerings, sin offerings, peace offerings, etc, and these became enforced as "laws." These rituals and the "heart behind them" (sorry for the phrase) made those believers righteous.
Pharisees added a whole new lot of other "external" laws (which they strictly enforced) to make people "righteous" and look good, without in any way serving God or his people.
But remember: Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Abraham is around from Genesis 12. Romans spends a lot of time going into Abraham's righteousness and believing, which predates the exodus and the giving of the law by at least that 430 years.
Adam & Eve obviously didn't have "the law" – again, a lot of references in Romans about this.
God doesn't want us going through rituals (Heb 10:8). He just wants us to believe Him.
What has always really annoyed me (right from PFAL) is the way Wayfers always said, "Jesus Christ is the end of the law" therefore the Ten Commandments don't apply to us. (If you said, "the text says, end of the law for righteousness," you'd get the look that said, "You've added something to the Word!") Basically they tore up the "rule book." If they went further, they might add that our sonship rights said that we are righteous now because of what JC did. They forgot that the 10 Cs are rules for living rightly (righteously) along and for having correct personal relationships - and so all their personal relationships went to hell in a handbasket. They forgot what the essentials of "right living" might actually mean.
It makes sense to me that we aren't bound by "laws for righteousness" but it doesn't mean that we aren't bound by immutable laws of God as to how to live properly. Like this synthesis:
Do that, and all the rest follows.
Edited by TwinkyLink 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.