Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Is PLAF theopneustos, god-breathed?


So_crates
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Raf said:

I'm amused by our brief interaction here, and while I think it opens up a fascinating discussion, it is one that is off-topic here. Agree?

Raf,

When I started the thread I wasn't sure if I posted it in the right place. If you feel it serves GSC better in Doctrinal, by all means move it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prov 20:11, in four versions:

King James Version
Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.

Darby Bible Translation
Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.

World English Bible
Even a child makes himself known by his doings, whether his work is pure, and whether it is right.

Young's Literal Translation
Even by his actions a youth maketh himself known, Whether his work be pure or upright.

Ā 

Even a child... how much more an adult, no matter how much the adult dissembles.Ā  Eventually his real self will "out."

It's one's own actions that makes one's own heart known.Ā  It's obvious; people can see what one does.Ā  It's one's "doings" that are the fruit in someone's life, the fruit and product of all that he believes in his heart.
Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raf said:

I'm amused by our brief interaction here, and while I think it opens up a fascinating discussion, it is one that is off-topic here. Agree?

Not sure if this was aimed only at Chockfull or at all the posters on this thread.

I'm amused (and sorrowful) at the whole lot of these recent threads.Ā  They are actually very interesting.Ā  I am well impressed by some of the posts here, by the discussion in general.Ā  T-Bone, So_crates and Chockfull in particular all make good points, good theological points.Ā  I hope some might think my own contributions worthwhile too.Ā 

It's not VPW-bashing - nor is it Mike-bashing.Ā  It is idea- and heresy-bashing.Ā  Doctrinal would be a good place for this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Raf. I think I'd agree with you to some extent about "God-breathed," though for different reasons.Ā 

Some of the Bible is (without limitation of categories) record keeping; some is collections of sayings or common sense or wisdom; some is history; and some is visionary.Ā  The last category might be "God-breathed" or God-inspired.Ā  These threads intertwine throughout all the books of the Bible.Ā  I do not believe every word is "God-breathed."Ā  I do think that the principal ideas that the words convey are (often) Godly, when they aren't being factual reportage.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Twinky said:

And Raf. I think I'd agree with you to some extent about "God-breathed," though for different reasons.Ā 

Some of the Bible is (without limitation of categories) record keeping; some is collections of sayings or common sense or wisdom; some is history; and some is visionary.Ā  The last category might be "God-breathed" or God-inspired.Ā  These threads intertwine throughout all the books of the Bible.Ā  I do not believe every word is "God-breathed."Ā  I do think that the principal ideas that the words convey are (often) Godly, when they aren't being factual reportage.

Where I am at on the theopneustos topic is in a place where I can appreciate scripture as inspiration coming from God without having to get all wrapped up in what Jesus confronted in the scribes.Ā  Ā Filling in Bullinger's "alsos" and marking them in our Bibles - scribe behavior.Ā  VP instilled such complete cr@p in our mentalities with respect to the scripture it is not funny.Ā  A collection of writings by different authors does not "fit like a hand in a glove".Ā  Ā It doesn't have to.Ā  It's not supposed to.Ā  Yet all of those authors were inspired to write by God and you would have to believe their personal prayer life and others living examples would have been inspiration for them writing things down.

2 Tim 3:16 to me just says hey enjoy reading the Bible at your leisure - it will be good for you.Ā Ā 

God breathed - I mean how many different ways can you take that besides the scribe way?Ā  Ā  What happens when I breathe?Ā  I can't see it, but I feel it and it is part of my life force.Ā  If I breathe on a cold window pane I can see my breath freeze up for an instant before fading.Ā  Ā Why did we accept some false prophet's vision of marking every single connecting word in the Bible as what this means?Ā  If you are considering the figures of speech involving personification - attributing human characteristics to God, why does it not make more sense to think of God breathed as simple fleeting inspiration, like a breath on a cold window pane?

No, VP not only did not produce any God-breathed works, the works he produced led people away from understanding the very words God breathed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's almost amusing how often Mike accuses me of saying he "WORSHIPS" vpw, yet can't pull up a verse showing me doing exactly that- while claiming once again (and falsely) that HE is being misrepresented.Ā  If Mike can't even read what's written in my humble posts, why should I take him seriously in his claims he's superior to everyone here in reading divine revelation?

Ā 

Mike, don't be shocked when your criteria for determinng vpw was some top athlete and genius don't match anyone else living.Ā  Genius can be determined technically with an IQ score, or demonstrated with PhDs, discoveries, patents, and so on.Ā  Assembling a class from materials composed of the work of others is not considered in the same "weight class" as those. For that matter, any top saleman, with the right timing and right audience, could reach a LOT of people.Ā  In the case of vpw, he "sold" the class to the hippies, and THEY sold it to everyone else.Ā  BTW, it didn't exactly get "all over the world." If it did, his name and the class' name would be "household names."Ā Ā  If I say "Woody, Mia and Frank were at that party", a lot of people wouldn't even need the last names of the people to know who I meant.Ā  In countries outside the US.Ā  pfal never impacted the culture of any country or even its cultural memory. The Furby has more name recognition.Ā  But in any case, that determines the success in advertising and sales, not "GENIUS."

Ā 

Furthermore, saying a high school basketball player who never made it onto any college varsity team, professional team, or regional competition (let alone national or international) is really inflating their accomplishment.Ā  That would mean, fairly, that those who WERE in college varsity were SUPER-Athletes, in the top portion of the top 1%. And those who made it pro would be athletes so far above humanity that we should all offer them burnt offerings.Ā Ā Ā 

A FAIR and HONEST criteria for determining athletic skill is one that is objective and rewards evenly for accomplishments.Ā  The simplest way, the fairest way, was to just check what the highest level of participation was of everyone. The professionals and Olympic athletes at the top, college below them, high school below them, peewee and little league below them.Ā  That having been said, it's easy to see the difference between THAT and "I think Basketball is a lot harder than other sports because I wasn't good at it."Ā  Naturally, it's only an incredible coincidence that the one sport that gets the special exemption for demonstrating the top tier of talent disproportionately is the one sport vpw participated in, such that even a high school only participation puts him in the top 1%. Surely that's not tilting the table specifically for him. Surely that's not being unfair...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Twinky said:

Prov 20:11, in four versions:

King James Version
Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.

Darby Bible Translation
Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.

World English Bible
Even a child makes himself known by his doings, whether his work is pure, and whether it is right.

Young's Literal Translation
Even by his actions a youth maketh himself known, Whether his work be pure or upright.

Ā 

Even a child... how much more an adult, no matter how much the adult dissembles.Ā  Eventually his real self will "out."

It's one's own actions that makes one's own heart known.Ā  It's obvious; people can see what one does.Ā  It's one's "doings" that are the fruit in someone's life, the fruit and product of all that he believes in his heart.
Ā 

Thanks, Twinky. Ā That was helpful.

Ā 

Probably no one registered it, but I started this subtopic by saying I wasnā€™t sure, and that I was still working on this.

Ā 

From your response here, it looks like you DID get it. You got what I was trying to communicate. The idea of the location of the ā€œfruits to be examinedā€ was being missed, over and over. Rocky got it too.

Ā 

Rocky refuted me on common sense. You refuted me with scripture.

Ā 

I actually heard both of you and respect what you contributed. Iā€™m not settled totally, though. For the children, their lives are much more transparent to adults. The inability to see within someone elseā€™sĀ  life that I brought up in my analysis does not show up as well for children.Ā Ā  Iā€™ve even heard that to know some of the secrets of the parentsā€™ hearts, we look at the childrenā€™s behaviors. I imagine there are plenty of exceptions to that, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth: My first comment was directed specifically at Chockfull. The rest at everyone else (including chockfull).

I do believe this thread is doctrinal. In the old days it would have been moved. But no one's complaining, so why bother? I shouldn't have brought it up. I'm happy with the thread here. It is About the Way as well, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raf said:

For what it's worth: My first comment was directed specifically at Chockfull. The rest at everyone else (including chockfull).

I do believe this thread is doctrinal. In the old days it would have been moved. But no one's complaining, so why bother? I shouldn't have brought it up. I'm happy with the thread here. It is About the Way as well, after all.

Raf,

Ten years ago it was my impression that moving things to Doctrinal was largely motivated by the desire to protect recent refugees from TWI from confusion as they flock to the About the Way forum.

This is the same reason (I think) why I have attempted to, and some posters have preferred that, I stay on one thread.

I have a large amount of sympathy for this boardā€™s mission to help TWI people that are attempting to totally break away, so I try to cooperate.

Iā€™ve been self examining my slightly hidden reasons for recently coming back here, but FOR SURE none of them include trying to make trouble. I would be totally happy confining myself in Doctrinal if thatā€™s what the majority would prefer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Raf said:

No one's asking for that.Ā 

Right now the people posting on this thread ARE the majority of GSC, for all practical purposes. (I exaggerate, but only slightly).

But isn't it the READERS of the whole About the Way FORUM that considerations should be made for?

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, WordWolf said:

Mike, don't be shocked when your criteria for determinng vpw was some top athlete and genius don't match anyone else living.Ā  Genius can be determined technically with an IQ score, or demonstrated with PhDs, discoveries, patents, and so on.

I'm NOT shocked, AND I don't remember ever being interested in making such a determination.Ā  The best I can remember of the context is it was my own subjective determination, and I well knew I wasn't going to foist it upon anyone else. I have no idea why exactly I wrote it, so I'm sure it wasn't important to me except in the heat of the moment.

...

A FAIR and HONEST criteria for determining athletic skill is one that is objective and rewards evenly for accomplishments.Ā 

How about a SUBJECTIVE and HONEST criteria?Ā 

Either way it's a triviality and has nothing to do with my message.

Ā 

Ā 

Ā 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Mike said:

Mike, don't be shocked when your criteria for determinng vpw was some top athlete and genius don't match anyone else living.Ā  Genius can be determined technically with an IQ score, or demonstrated with PhDs, discoveries, patents, and so on.

I'm NOT shocked, AND I don't remember ever being interested in making such a determination.Ā  The best I can remember of the context is it was my own subjective determination, and I well knew I wasn't going to foist it upon anyone else. I have no idea why exactly I wrote it, so I'm sure it wasn't important to me except in the heat of the moment.

...

A FAIR and HONEST criteria for determining athletic skill is one that is objective and rewards evenly for accomplishments.Ā 

How about a SUBJECTIVE and HONEST criteria?Ā 

Either way it's a triviality and has nothing to do with my message.

Really? Don't continue in the role of pinball, Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rocky said:

Really? Don't continue in the role of pinball, Mike.

Either way it's a triviality and has nothing to do with my message.

And I'm not that familiar with the lyrics to know what you mean.

Ā 

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mike said:

Either way it's a triviality and has nothing to do with my message.

And I'm not that familiar with the lyrics to know what you mean.

Ā 

It illustrates Ephesians 4:14 in terms of this thread. The lyrics are all included in the 20th post on page 10 on this topic.

It's not a triviality. It's what's keeping you from developing your thesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, just so you know, VPW even said himself that his writings were fallible. Here you go ....

PFAL book page 83: "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts, but the Scriptures--they are God-breathed."

Ā 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, penworks said:

Mike, just so you know, VPW even said himself that his writings were fallible. Here you go ....

PFAL book page 83: "Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts, but the Scriptures--they are God-breathed."

Ā 

I mentioned this PFAL book quote earlier in the thread but I pointed out a different aspect of it ā€“ at least what it seems to suggest to me (see my quote below) ā€“ that at least some of wierwilleā€™s writings were God-breathedĀ  - since he omits the phrase ā€œnot all that _ _ _ _ _ said will necessarily be God-breathedā€ in reference to the works Ā of other authors ā€“ it looks like he is representing himself as a cut above the restā€¦I dunnoā€¦looked to me like another one of wierwilleā€™s subtle suggestions that he was someone great

On 1/3/2018 at 8:49 PM, T-Bone said:

Interesting thread Ā So_crates ! Ā Is PFAL god-breathed?

I believe wierwille very subtly suggested just that in the PFAL book. On page 83 of the PFAL book in the chapter ā€œThat Man May Be Perfectā€ wierwille states:

ā€œā€¦Letā€™s see this from John 5:39. ā€œSearch the Scripturesā€¦ā€ It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwilleā€™s writings or the writings of a denomination. No it says, ā€œSearch the scripturesā€¦ā€ because all Scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures ā€“ they are God-breathed.ā€

wierwille makes several insinuations here. First off, he suggests that not ALL that wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; that implies SOME of it isā€¦secondly wierwille is not as generous with conferring the God-breathed status on others. For example - he does NOT say ā€œnot all what Calvin said was necessarily God-breathed, nor all that Luther saidā€¦& etc.ā€ Rather he simply states ā€œnot what Calvin said, nor Lutherā€¦ā€which suggests that none of their writings are God-breathed whereas at least some of wierwilleā€™s writings are God-breathed.

Another treacherous aspect of wierwilleā€™s statement is the lack of specificityā€¦WHAT parts of his writings ARE God-breathed? Perhaps it might have helped if he issued a red letter edition of the PFAL books ā€“ like Bibles with the words of Christ in redā€¦This way when students needed a shot of the god-breathed wierwille ā€“ they could just go their red letter edition of a PFAL book and find exactly the passage of wierwille that was god-breathed.

Now letā€™s see what a little wierwille-style-vagary does to II Timothy 3:16 using the NIV:

Not all of Scripture is God-breathed but what part is God-breathed ā€“ is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

Nawā€¦I donā€™t like itā€¦Iā€™m really gonna have to apply myself to find the god-breathed stuff.:biglaugh:

:offtopic:

As an aside on the term ā€œGod-breathedā€ in general: Iā€™ve mentioned in a previous post that how I understand ā€œGod-breathedā€ May differ from how some other folks see it - but I will say this the phrase does seem to place a unique status on scripture as perhaps having the supreme authority for the Christian faith.

Not to stray too far off topic - but I did get into there being more than one way to interpret scripture in ā€œConcerning the Bibleā€ a doctrinal thread by yours truly a former fundamentalist - and some Christians might find a quote from CS Lewis in my post quite startling to say the least...

But I think a much more often used term by wierwille as well as other preachers is the term ā€œrightly divided ā€œ which often is used to convey the idea that they have correctly interpreted the passage.Ā 

ā€œRightly dividedā€ is another unique phrase in scripture which fascinates me - and what little Iā€™ve looked into the Greek and some commentaries on it - it may say more about being competent and honest in handling the scriptures rather than it being a claim youā€™ve cornered the market on truth.

Edited by T-Bone
formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, T-Bone said:

I mentioned this PFAL book quote earlier in the thread but I pointed out a different aspect of it ā€“ at least what it seems to suggest to me (see my quote below) ā€“ that at least some of wierwilleā€™s writings were God-breathedĀ  - since he omits the phrase ā€œnot all that _ _ _ _ _ said will necessarily be God-breathedā€ in reference to the works Ā of other authors ā€“ it looks like he is representing himself as a cut above the restā€¦I dunnoā€¦looked to me like another one of wierwilleā€™s subtle suggestions that he was someone great

Ā 

I would add the qualifier that Wierwille likely BELIEVED that at least some of his writings were God-breathed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Another treacherous aspect of wierwilleā€™s statement is the lack of specificityā€¦WHAT parts of his writings ARE God-breathed?

I would say the parts where he is quoting scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rocky said:

I would add the qualifier that Wierwille likely BELIEVED that at least some of his writings were God-breathed...

Rocky,

Youā€™re the closest, but you still missed one important point.

As you point out correctly, ā€œNot all that Wierwille writesā€¦ā€ is equivalent to ā€œSome of what Wierwille writesā€¦ā€

The point you omitted Ā revolves around Ā the word ā€œnecessarily.ā€

BTW, this passage on p.83 of PFAL was debated hotly and endlessly 10 years ago. Most GS posters back then Ā chose the side opposite of yours, Rocky. And no one ever saw ā€œnecessarily.ā€

I ran this passage past two of VPWā€™s major editors. One was one an editor that worked with VPW on the PFAL book, one for the Way Mag for 10 years . They both agreed that p. 83 is a very strong ā€œthus saith the Lordā€ statement by VPW, and they both saw that the word ā€œnecessarilyā€ is crucial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, Mike. I'm from Ohio (like Wierwille) and haveĀ  used this idiom my whole life. In Ohio, we add "necessarily" to introduce an element of vagueness. Its meaning is quite different than what you think it is. Its something along the lines of "maybe yes, maybe no" or "Maybe. Maybe not."

Ā 

I'll rephrase that passage using non-Ohio vernacular.

"Is all that Wierwile writes God breathed? Maybe yes, maybe no."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • modcat5 changed the title to Is PLAF theopneustos, god-breathed?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...