Raphael - Thanks for starting this thread to help elucidate spiritually boosted researchers who have set their hearts on meekly mastering PFAL! I think I understand the purpose of your rules, that is, to point out demonstrably false statements in writings of VPW that at least one person adamantly believes to be God-breathed. If I'm wrong, let me know.
On a certain other thread I set forward a word-by-word dissection of a passage taken from pages 217 and 218 of PFAL (9th printing, 1985) where Wierwille taught that Romans 9:3 through 11:12 are addressed to Israel while Romans 11:13 through at least 11:22 are addressed to Gentiles who are "not born again". I pointed out four specific places where Wierwille contradicted what's actually written in the Word, and two specific places where he contradicted what he himself had actually written in other parts of PFAL.
Zixar, a poster whose contributions I highly enjoy and profit from (a fellow gamer to boot!), conceded that I might be right concerning the fact that Romans 9:3-11:12 are addressed to "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints". However, he wasn't convinced that Romans 11:13-23 are also addressed to Christians. After all, Romans 11:13 clearly says, "For I speak to you Gentiles..."
I can demonstrate Wierwille's error in writing that the relevant passage is addressed to unsaved Gentiles, but I wanted to bring the discussion over to this thread, because, to speak plainly, I've said all I want to say to the originator of that other thread. I'm still following it, and I admire what other posters are putting up there, but the other things I might say to the original meek master have been said by others more aptly than I could have put it.
So... who are the Gentiles of Romans 11:13?
On page 208 (PFAL, 1985 printing) Wierwille wrote,
"How many groups of people can different segments of The Word be addressed to? In I Corinthians 10:32 God discloses His system of classification.
"I Corinthians 10:32:
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.
God lists Judean, Gentile, the Church of God - three catagories. Galatians 3:28 says that a person is either a Judean or a Gentile until he becomes born again of God's Spirit at which time he joins the Church of God. The entire Bible is addressed to one or the other of these three groups."
He opened with the question "How many groups of people can different segments of The Word be addressed to?" which he answered with "The entire Bible is addressed to one or the other of these three groups." Wierwille limits the number of groups to *three*. Is that biblically accurate?
In one sense, yes, because anybody addressed by any part of the Bible would have to belong to one or more of those three groups. In another sense, no, because there are multitudes of groups and individuals within each of those three catagories.
Some parts of the gospels are addressed to Pharisees. Are the Pharisees a group? Yes they are. Are they Judeans? Yes they are? Are all Judeans Pharisees? No. Pharisees constitute a distinct subgroup within "Judeans".
Ephesians 5:22-24 are addressed to "wives", a subgroup within the "Church of God". In the same way, Ephesians 5:25-33 are addressed to "husbands, Ephesians 6:1-3 are addressed to "children", 6:4 is addressed to "fathers", 6:5-8 to servants and Ephesians 6:9 to masters.
So we see that the *complete* answer to "how many groups of people can different segments of The Word be addressed to?" is "as many groups of people as the different segments address." It isn't just limited to three, and we have to determine which particular group is being addressed by the internal evidence of the passage.
Wierwille taught that Paul was using the word "Gentiles" in Romans 11:13 to mean Gentiles who had not been saved. Is that the way Paul used the word in Romans?
Romans 16:3 "Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 "Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles."
What are we to make of Paul's statement in verse 4? Are these "churches of the Gentiles" the political assemblies of all the cities in the Graeco-Roman world? I think not. Why should they give thanks to Priscilla and Aquila? These "churches of the Gentiles" were Christian churches whose congregations were predominantly made up of people who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds. In Romans Paul sometimes uses the word "Gentiles" to refer to a subgroup of the Church of God, believers who came to Christ from Gentile backgrounds.
Romans 1:13 says "Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren [fellow believers], that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other [the rest of the] Gentiles." I can't say I completely understand this verse, but Paul's use of the word "Gentiles" doesn't seem to fall into Wierwille's simplistic catagory.
If we wanted to boil the book of Romans down to its "punch-line", Romans 12:3 would be a good candidate for the position,
Romans 12:3 "For I say through the grace given unto me,to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."
Apparently there was some dissension between Judean believers and Gentile believers at Rome. The Jusean believers were thinking more highly of themselves than they ought, and the Gentile believers were also thinking more highly of themselves than they ought. Look at the structure:
Romans 1:15 through 2:16 discusses the shortcomings of Gentiles in general. Then comes Romans 2:17 through 28, wherein Paul specifically addressed those who called themselves Judeans, and took them down a notch or two.
Romans 9:1-11:12 discusses the shortcomings of Israel in general. Then comes Romans 11:13-36, wherein Paul specifically addressed "Gentiles", and took *them* down a notch or two.
That these "Gentiles" were Christians becomes apparent in the section.
Romans 11:17 "And if some of the branches [unbelieving Israel] be broken off, and thou [believing Gentiles], being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them [believing Israel] and with them partakest of the root [God's promises to Israel] and fatness of the olive tree;
18 "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 "Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:"
Notice that these Gentiles stand by faith. They were Christians from Gentile backgrounds.
Romans 11:21 "For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he spare not thee.
22 "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell [unbelieving Israel], severity; but toward thee [believing Gentiles], goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
Wierwille brough up this whole topic to "reconcile an apparent contradiction" between this verse and Romans 8:37-39 which say nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. There is no contradiction. All the things listed in Romans 8 are things external to our selves. Nothing outside of me can separate me from the love of God... but... if I deliberately choose to walk away from God's goodness, then I can be cut off. That "cutting off" is not necessarily permanent. Let's read on.
Romans 11:23 "And they [unbelieving Israel], if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again."
If God can regraft Judeans who "abide not still in unbelief", he can regraft Christians who do not continue in His goodness, as long as they abide not still in unbelief.
Romans 11:30 "For as ye [the Gentiles of Romans 11:13] have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 "Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy."
The Gentiles of Romans 11:13 had obtained mercy. They were Christians from Gentile backgrounds.
I don't have any more time to post today. I'll be back tomorrow. I hope I've made this post intelligible.
Ahh..YES THEY DID. Everybodys situation is different. When your 17 years old,and hungering for answers and truth, and these people come around with some very sound knowledge and bibical truths, plus love and freindship which I sorely needed, you (I) wanted what they had to offer.
It's not physical restraint, no. That is what they always pulled out of there hat whenever they were accused of being a cult. BUT...
It IS called psychological manipulation. Extreme too.
These people had answers that were like gems to me.
There is no way I would have been welcome back at the fellowship, which I sorely needed, had I not taken that stupid class. And btw, it didn't end with foundational class. That was just the beginning of the whole program they wanted to put people through.
And if people out there honestly cannot see that there are psychological tactics that are used to manipulate people well... --> Okay, it's not ME whose the naive one here.
And excuse me.. the material on being saved on grace was worth the price? I didn't know God charged to hear about that.
And excuse me again but that Whole ministry was based on getting people to take that damn class! It wasn't about God's word. It was PFAL. That was what they were about.
and what arrogance to say that people are either mentally retarted or stupid for taking that class when they didn't want it. Yeah that's me. I was just plain stupid I guess. Well than they sure didn't hesitate to take advantage of my stupidity.
But again, I'm digressing from the purpose of this thread.
Sorry.
...It's hard to be humble when you own a Rottweiler...
[This message was edited by RottieGrrrl on January 06, 2003 at 14:25.]
[This message was edited by RottieGrrrl on January 06, 2003 at 14:28.]
One: Steve, on the one hand, I think you've pointed to some actual errors. On the other hand, you need to articulate them a bit more succinctly. :)--> If I have more time, I'll try to sum up your paragraphs into something that's a bit more self-evident. If you'd like to do it first, feel free.
Second: Come on, people, don't make me play threadcop! The issue of whether we should pay for the class or not is SO not the topic.
Neither is the issue of whether we were "forced" to take it. I think we can all agree that there was intense peer pressure to take the class, and that the spiritual nature of our participation made taking the class more compelling than other endeavors of life. But no one got strapped to a chair. Either way, it's not an actual error in PFAL, so can we get back to it? Please? Thanks.
This may or may not be a 2+2=5 error,but I could be wrong.....When VPW teaches the four steps to the fall of man,the first step that he teaches is that Eve "responded by considering",or that,to even respond or consider what the serpent said was the first wrong thing she did...Yet,when Jesus was tempted of the devil,He certainly considered what the devil had to say,and responded to him....He,unlike Eve,didn't omit,add,or change a word,in his response to the tempter....I remember people often using the 1st step to the fall of man theory as a basis for not questioning anything taught to them by VPW & Co......
I found some more info on ekklesia. It looks like it can be included as an actual error after all. It's pretty good but also pretty long and complicated. I'm trying to trim it down and summarize it.
I found some more info on ekklesia. It looks like it can be included as an actual error after all. It's pretty good but also pretty long and complicated. I'm trying to trim it down and summarize it.
Have at it.
Here's the basis of my question: What is the difference in meaning between "called out" and the actual definition of "ekklesia." I thought Wierwille's definition in the Green Book was pretty much the same as the article Plots quoted. So if you asked me to distinguish between Wierwille's meaning and the "true" meaning, in my own words, I couldn't do it. So what am I missing? Home that helps.
*****
Steve,
I think you can handle your observation the same way I handled the Kingdom of God/Heaven observation in my original post:
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the Gentiles in Romans 11:13 are unbelievers, not members of hte church of God.
In truth, the Gentiles of Romans 11:13 are Christian believers. Paul never speaks of the Church of God as distinct from Jews and Gentiles. He speaks of the Church of God as COMPOSED OF Jews and Gentiles. Some may consider this an error of interpretation, but the evidence for it is so clear, it belongs in the actual error category.
How's that?
*****
Simon,
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that Eve made a mistake by considering the question that the devil had propounded (p. 254).
In truth, "considering" is not a mistake. One MUST, logically, consider something before rejecting it. We do not know whether something is in keeping with God's Word unless we consider it. If God says "Do not eat peanut butter," and someone comes along and says "God didn't say you couldn't have peanut butter and jelly," you need to consider that before rejecting it. Granted, that consideration may be brief. But consideration alone is not a mistake.
Well done.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 07, 2003 at 6:42.]
Proverbs 18:13 "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him"
Is that succinct enough, Raphael? :-)
Sorry about the length of my post above. I had presented the material briefly on the other thread. Zixar questioned whether or not I had it right, so I spelled it out on this thread.
There are some errors so deeply embedded in the matrix of PFAL that it would take more words than there are in PFAL to expose the errors. For instance: the word translated "administration" in PFAL is never used in the Bible to indicate a period of time; Pentecost was *not* the "birthday" of the Church; the phrase "the new birth" never occurs in the Bible; Genesis 2:7 says "man = dust, dust(body) + breath(spirit) = living soul", not "man = body + soul + spirit"; Wierwille taught "your soul is that which makes you you", while Genesis 3:19 says "for dust thou art"; etc., etc. etc.
Some of the errors of PFAL are errors of omission. Wierwille did not teach the greatness of the gospel of the Kingdom of God, he did not teach that the grace we have received is a result of the New Testament. He did not teach the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
But I know expounding these things seemingly endlessly would not serve your purposes for this thread. Thank you again, Raphael, for your stand for the truth on this thread, and the others!
SteveL: Re-reading your post above, I think you make a good argument for your point. In fact, I can't immediately see a compelling counterpoint, in light of your analysis.
After being LOA from GS for a while, it's fun to catch up on all the discussions. Sorry I missed this one.
But I'm surprised nobody has mentioned one of the most obvious (to me anyway) documentable errors in PFAL, ie, that "the Word takes the place of the absent Christ."
I no longer have a copy of the PFAL syllabus, so I can't look it up. But I know it was definitely there. Comments, anyone?
We're distinguishing in this thread between "actual errors" and "doctrinal differences" (or, as I've called them previously, errors of interpretation). I think I understand what Wierwille was saying when he talked about Christ as being "absent." The Apostle Paul even said that while we are present in the body, we are absent from the Lord. How could we be absent from him if he is not absent from us? How are we to handle this statement?
Point is, you may feel it's error, and I may feel it's error, but it's a stretch to call it "actual error" as defined in this thread.
An actual error would be something like "Wierwille said Moses brought nine of each kind of animal on the ark, including great whales and fish."
Activity on this thread has pretty much stalled because...
a. Mike has vanished?
b. Raf gets too cocky whenever anyone else posts?
c. We've pretty much nailed all the 2+2=5 errors?
d. We have lives?
In any event, I'll compile the list and post it at some point. Many thanks to all for the contributions. If you want to send more, post it here or e-mail me privately.
Ooops, sorry, Raf, you're right. I guess that "error" would fall more into the interpretation category. I guess I was thinking more in terms of the contradiction between the "Christ in you" teaching and the "absence" thing.
I guess "contradictions in PFAL" might be a title for a different thread. ;)-->
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Steve Lortz
Raphael - Thanks for starting this thread to help elucidate spiritually boosted researchers who have set their hearts on meekly mastering PFAL! I think I understand the purpose of your rules, that is, to point out demonstrably false statements in writings of VPW that at least one person adamantly believes to be God-breathed. If I'm wrong, let me know.
On a certain other thread I set forward a word-by-word dissection of a passage taken from pages 217 and 218 of PFAL (9th printing, 1985) where Wierwille taught that Romans 9:3 through 11:12 are addressed to Israel while Romans 11:13 through at least 11:22 are addressed to Gentiles who are "not born again". I pointed out four specific places where Wierwille contradicted what's actually written in the Word, and two specific places where he contradicted what he himself had actually written in other parts of PFAL.
Zixar, a poster whose contributions I highly enjoy and profit from (a fellow gamer to boot!), conceded that I might be right concerning the fact that Romans 9:3-11:12 are addressed to "all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints". However, he wasn't convinced that Romans 11:13-23 are also addressed to Christians. After all, Romans 11:13 clearly says, "For I speak to you Gentiles..."
I can demonstrate Wierwille's error in writing that the relevant passage is addressed to unsaved Gentiles, but I wanted to bring the discussion over to this thread, because, to speak plainly, I've said all I want to say to the originator of that other thread. I'm still following it, and I admire what other posters are putting up there, but the other things I might say to the original meek master have been said by others more aptly than I could have put it.
So... who are the Gentiles of Romans 11:13?
On page 208 (PFAL, 1985 printing) Wierwille wrote,
"How many groups of people can different segments of The Word be addressed to? In I Corinthians 10:32 God discloses His system of classification.
"I Corinthians 10:32:
Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.
God lists Judean, Gentile, the Church of God - three catagories. Galatians 3:28 says that a person is either a Judean or a Gentile until he becomes born again of God's Spirit at which time he joins the Church of God. The entire Bible is addressed to one or the other of these three groups."
He opened with the question "How many groups of people can different segments of The Word be addressed to?" which he answered with "The entire Bible is addressed to one or the other of these three groups." Wierwille limits the number of groups to *three*. Is that biblically accurate?
In one sense, yes, because anybody addressed by any part of the Bible would have to belong to one or more of those three groups. In another sense, no, because there are multitudes of groups and individuals within each of those three catagories.
Some parts of the gospels are addressed to Pharisees. Are the Pharisees a group? Yes they are. Are they Judeans? Yes they are? Are all Judeans Pharisees? No. Pharisees constitute a distinct subgroup within "Judeans".
Ephesians 5:22-24 are addressed to "wives", a subgroup within the "Church of God". In the same way, Ephesians 5:25-33 are addressed to "husbands, Ephesians 6:1-3 are addressed to "children", 6:4 is addressed to "fathers", 6:5-8 to servants and Ephesians 6:9 to masters.
So we see that the *complete* answer to "how many groups of people can different segments of The Word be addressed to?" is "as many groups of people as the different segments address." It isn't just limited to three, and we have to determine which particular group is being addressed by the internal evidence of the passage.
Wierwille taught that Paul was using the word "Gentiles" in Romans 11:13 to mean Gentiles who had not been saved. Is that the way Paul used the word in Romans?
Romans 16:3 "Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus:
4 "Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles."
What are we to make of Paul's statement in verse 4? Are these "churches of the Gentiles" the political assemblies of all the cities in the Graeco-Roman world? I think not. Why should they give thanks to Priscilla and Aquila? These "churches of the Gentiles" were Christian churches whose congregations were predominantly made up of people who had come to Christ from Gentile backgrounds. In Romans Paul sometimes uses the word "Gentiles" to refer to a subgroup of the Church of God, believers who came to Christ from Gentile backgrounds.
Romans 1:13 says "Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren [fellow believers], that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other [the rest of the] Gentiles." I can't say I completely understand this verse, but Paul's use of the word "Gentiles" doesn't seem to fall into Wierwille's simplistic catagory.
If we wanted to boil the book of Romans down to its "punch-line", Romans 12:3 would be a good candidate for the position,
Romans 12:3 "For I say through the grace given unto me,to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith."
Apparently there was some dissension between Judean believers and Gentile believers at Rome. The Jusean believers were thinking more highly of themselves than they ought, and the Gentile believers were also thinking more highly of themselves than they ought. Look at the structure:
Romans 1:15 through 2:16 discusses the shortcomings of Gentiles in general. Then comes Romans 2:17 through 28, wherein Paul specifically addressed those who called themselves Judeans, and took them down a notch or two.
Romans 9:1-11:12 discusses the shortcomings of Israel in general. Then comes Romans 11:13-36, wherein Paul specifically addressed "Gentiles", and took *them* down a notch or two.
That these "Gentiles" were Christians becomes apparent in the section.
Romans 11:17 "And if some of the branches [unbelieving Israel] be broken off, and thou [believing Gentiles], being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them [believing Israel] and with them partakest of the root [God's promises to Israel] and fatness of the olive tree;
18 "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 "Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:"
Notice that these Gentiles stand by faith. They were Christians from Gentile backgrounds.
Romans 11:21 "For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he spare not thee.
22 "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell [unbelieving Israel], severity; but toward thee [believing Gentiles], goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."
Wierwille brough up this whole topic to "reconcile an apparent contradiction" between this verse and Romans 8:37-39 which say nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. There is no contradiction. All the things listed in Romans 8 are things external to our selves. Nothing outside of me can separate me from the love of God... but... if I deliberately choose to walk away from God's goodness, then I can be cut off. That "cutting off" is not necessarily permanent. Let's read on.
Romans 11:23 "And they [unbelieving Israel], if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again."
If God can regraft Judeans who "abide not still in unbelief", he can regraft Christians who do not continue in His goodness, as long as they abide not still in unbelief.
Romans 11:30 "For as ye [the Gentiles of Romans 11:13] have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 "Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy."
The Gentiles of Romans 11:13 had obtained mercy. They were Christians from Gentile backgrounds.
I don't have any more time to post today. I'll be back tomorrow. I hope I've made this post intelligible.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Ahh..YES THEY DID. Everybodys situation is different. When your 17 years old,and hungering for answers and truth, and these people come around with some very sound knowledge and bibical truths, plus love and freindship which I sorely needed, you (I) wanted what they had to offer.
It's not physical restraint, no. That is what they always pulled out of there hat whenever they were accused of being a cult. BUT...
It IS called psychological manipulation. Extreme too.
These people had answers that were like gems to me.
There is no way I would have been welcome back at the fellowship, which I sorely needed, had I not taken that stupid class. And btw, it didn't end with foundational class. That was just the beginning of the whole program they wanted to put people through.
And if people out there honestly cannot see that there are psychological tactics that are used to manipulate people well... --> Okay, it's not ME whose the naive one here.
And excuse me.. the material on being saved on grace was worth the price? I didn't know God charged to hear about that.
And excuse me again but that Whole ministry was based on getting people to take that damn class! It wasn't about God's word. It was PFAL. That was what they were about.
and what arrogance to say that people are either mentally retarted or stupid for taking that class when they didn't want it. Yeah that's me. I was just plain stupid I guess. Well than they sure didn't hesitate to take advantage of my stupidity.
But again, I'm digressing from the purpose of this thread.
Sorry.
...It's hard to be humble when you own a Rottweiler...
[This message was edited by RottieGrrrl on January 06, 2003 at 14:25.]
[This message was edited by RottieGrrrl on January 06, 2003 at 14:28.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Okay, two things.
One: Steve, on the one hand, I think you've pointed to some actual errors. On the other hand, you need to articulate them a bit more succinctly. :)--> If I have more time, I'll try to sum up your paragraphs into something that's a bit more self-evident. If you'd like to do it first, feel free.
Second: Come on, people, don't make me play threadcop! The issue of whether we should pay for the class or not is SO not the topic.
Neither is the issue of whether we were "forced" to take it. I think we can all agree that there was intense peer pressure to take the class, and that the spiritual nature of our participation made taking the class more compelling than other endeavors of life. But no one got strapped to a chair. Either way, it's not an actual error in PFAL, so can we get back to it? Please? Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Raf -
Ya want some cheese with that whine?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
Sorry Rafael. I will start a new thread sometime soon on this. ;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The thread has been started. POst away.
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Waaaaah Waah waaaaah waaaaaaaaah.
Sorry for whining.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
This may or may not be a 2+2=5 error,but I could be wrong.....When VPW teaches the four steps to the fall of man,the first step that he teaches is that Eve "responded by considering",or that,to even respond or consider what the serpent said was the first wrong thing she did...Yet,when Jesus was tempted of the devil,He certainly considered what the devil had to say,and responded to him....He,unlike Eve,didn't omit,add,or change a word,in his response to the tempter....I remember people often using the 1st step to the fall of man theory as a basis for not questioning anything taught to them by VPW & Co......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEnd
Rafael,
I found some more info on ekklesia. It looks like it can be included as an actual error after all. It's pretty good but also pretty long and complicated. I'm trying to trim it down and summarize it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
We interrupt this thread for an important announcement:
I am leaving. There is a fresh new thread where I'll explain why. Come and see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry P2
Your announcement isn't THAT important....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Wellllll. It's important to me and to the popcorn growers of America.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mighty convenient, leaving without addressing a single error in your God-breathed class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Have at it.
Here's the basis of my question: What is the difference in meaning between "called out" and the actual definition of "ekklesia." I thought Wierwille's definition in the Green Book was pretty much the same as the article Plots quoted. So if you asked me to distinguish between Wierwille's meaning and the "true" meaning, in my own words, I couldn't do it. So what am I missing? Home that helps.
*****
Steve,
I think you can handle your observation the same way I handled the Kingdom of God/Heaven observation in my original post:
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the Gentiles in Romans 11:13 are unbelievers, not members of hte church of God.
In truth, the Gentiles of Romans 11:13 are Christian believers. Paul never speaks of the Church of God as distinct from Jews and Gentiles. He speaks of the Church of God as COMPOSED OF Jews and Gentiles. Some may consider this an error of interpretation, but the evidence for it is so clear, it belongs in the actual error category.
How's that?
*****
Simon,
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that Eve made a mistake by considering the question that the devil had propounded (p. 254).
In truth, "considering" is not a mistake. One MUST, logically, consider something before rejecting it. We do not know whether something is in keeping with God's Word unless we consider it. If God says "Do not eat peanut butter," and someone comes along and says "God didn't say you couldn't have peanut butter and jelly," you need to consider that before rejecting it. Granted, that consideration may be brief. But consideration alone is not a mistake.
Well done.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 07, 2003 at 6:42.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Proverbs 18:13 "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him"
Is that succinct enough, Raphael? :-)
Sorry about the length of my post above. I had presented the material briefly on the other thread. Zixar questioned whether or not I had it right, so I spelled it out on this thread.
There are some errors so deeply embedded in the matrix of PFAL that it would take more words than there are in PFAL to expose the errors. For instance: the word translated "administration" in PFAL is never used in the Bible to indicate a period of time; Pentecost was *not* the "birthday" of the Church; the phrase "the new birth" never occurs in the Bible; Genesis 2:7 says "man = dust, dust(body) + breath(spirit) = living soul", not "man = body + soul + spirit"; Wierwille taught "your soul is that which makes you you", while Genesis 3:19 says "for dust thou art"; etc., etc. etc.
Some of the errors of PFAL are errors of omission. Wierwille did not teach the greatness of the gospel of the Kingdom of God, he did not teach that the grace we have received is a result of the New Testament. He did not teach the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
But I know expounding these things seemingly endlessly would not serve your purposes for this thread. Thank you again, Raphael, for your stand for the truth on this thread, and the others!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
SteveL: Re-reading your post above, I think you make a good argument for your point. In fact, I can't immediately see a compelling counterpoint, in light of your analysis.
Good show.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
After being LOA from GS for a while, it's fun to catch up on all the discussions. Sorry I missed this one.
But I'm surprised nobody has mentioned one of the most obvious (to me anyway) documentable errors in PFAL, ie, that "the Word takes the place of the absent Christ."
I no longer have a copy of the PFAL syllabus, so I can't look it up. But I know it was definitely there. Comments, anyone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
We're distinguishing in this thread between "actual errors" and "doctrinal differences" (or, as I've called them previously, errors of interpretation). I think I understand what Wierwille was saying when he talked about Christ as being "absent." The Apostle Paul even said that while we are present in the body, we are absent from the Lord. How could we be absent from him if he is not absent from us? How are we to handle this statement?
Point is, you may feel it's error, and I may feel it's error, but it's a stretch to call it "actual error" as defined in this thread.
An actual error would be something like "Wierwille said Moses brought nine of each kind of animal on the ark, including great whales and fish."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Activity on this thread has pretty much stalled because...
a. Mike has vanished?
b. Raf gets too cocky whenever anyone else posts?
c. We've pretty much nailed all the 2+2=5 errors?
d. We have lives?
In any event, I'll compile the list and post it at some point. Many thanks to all for the contributions. If you want to send more, post it here or e-mail me privately.
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Ooops, sorry, Raf, you're right. I guess that "error" would fall more into the interpretation category. I guess I was thinking more in terms of the contradiction between the "Christ in you" teaching and the "absence" thing.
I guess "contradictions in PFAL" might be a title for a different thread. ;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DamitJanet
Post a list sometime. I haven't had time to read everything on every post. I need to take the time that one needs to read a book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
But 2 + 2 does equal 5....
For sufficiently-large values of two... ;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
a. Mike has vanished?
Actually, I just saw him on one of the "I apologize to Mike" threads, explaining that he wasn't leaving, just not posting.
b. Raf gets too cocky whenever anyone else posts?
Us Circulation guys liked it when you reporter guys got cocky. It helped us get our bonuses because we sold more newspapers.
c. We've pretty much nailed all the 2+2=5 errors?
So soon?
d. We have lives?
I've been out of town
:D--> :D--> :D--> :D--> :D-->
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Please check me on this.
I'm certain you remember this from the class-was it in the books?
He said about Matthew 6:1-2, that those who did their alms before men had no reward.
As we so often pointed out (Rafael & I), the
verses say RIGHT THERE they HAD their reward!
It says their reward was to be seen of men!
That's what they wanted, & that's what they got.
Also, about Matthew 6:33, he points out-
correctly-that if you seek first the kingdom of
God and His righteousness, all those things
would be added unto you. Unable to let the
verses go without embellishing, he adds,
however,
that if you DON'T seek first the kingdom of God,
all these things will be SUBTRACTED from you!
WHO SAYS?
That's a gross overstatement! I would say it
the way I always thought it-even back then.
If you DON'T seek first the kingdom of God,
then you're on your own. Happy hunting!
I was reading Matthew today. Funny what you find
when you're not looking for it. :)-->
Rafael, give this thread a little time. I'm
sure some good stuff isn't here yet. :)-->
Eventually, you may want to rank them, & do a
countdown, from least significant to most, or
separate them into a list of short explanations
and long explanations. :)-->
(Most of my stuff is short explanations.:)--> )
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.