I think we should look at the sonship rights teaching as an error in communication. Personally, I've never felt that this was well thougt out. The word "right" means something you can demand or receive because of your citizenship or relationship. American citizens have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Children have a right to access to their parents' wealth, etc. These connotations all relate to things we may access at will by choice. Is this true of righteousness, sanctification, or justification?
Can you demand to be righteous? NO, God makes you righteous when you receive salvation, at which time He also sanctifies you (sets you apart from the world), justifies you (applies Jesus' payment to your sins), and redeems you (buys you from the Devil and places you in His kingdom).
My point is, none of these are benefits to be received on demand, like the right to speak your mind. They are spiritual gifts, given by faith. If you're already righteous, how can you demand righteousness? How can you "claim your sonship right"? It's actually a little nonsensical.
I think I understand what VP meant by this teaching. It was in the renewed mind section and he was talking about changing your self image, your thinking and habit patterns. We, as righteous, redeemed, justified, sanctified, sons of God have a right to peace of mind. We can claim it, receive peace by asking for it and rebuking anxiety and the sources therof.
If I understand this properly, and I'm not sure I do, this would work primarily in the area of spiritual oppression. If you are anxious, worried, depressed, or angry out of all proportion to the circumstances and are unable to reign these emotions in, there may be a spiritual (read 'demonic, satanic, or devilish) presence intensifying that emotion. In such a situation, you can claim peace; you can receive on demand freedom from that oppression, anxiety, anger whatever.
That's what I think VP was getting at. So if we wanted to fix this section, we might call it a case of poor communication, like the famous "throughly" teaching, or his circular definition of "made".
I don't think sanctification, righteousness, et al are "sonship rights", but the gift of sonship gives us the right to health, peace, and protection from harm.
Rafael - I'm happy to discuss my thinking with you, but it's my policy to keep the conversation public. I decided on this policy even before I became active on the internet, because I found that some religious leaders will say one thing in private, and a different thing in public. Reflecting on some of your own recent experiences may give you some insight into the wisdom of this policy. I'm looking forward to further dialogue with you!
1. In Jesus Christ is Not God, Wierwille writes (after quoting John 1:18):
quote:The next part of this verse reads "... the only begotten Son..." The Greek words are ho monogenes huios. Ho is the article bringing a special emphasis to his being the only begotten Son. Monogenes is a combination of the word monos which means "only" and genos which means "offspring," "nation," "race" or "family." (English derives the word "gene" directly from genos. Christ wasgenetically God's only Son). Literally, this word means "only offspring" or "only begotten." The usage of this Greek word in the New Testament is always found in the context of one and only one offspring.
p. 116 and 117
The emphases in that last sentence are mine.
Interestingly enough, that last sentence in flat-out wrong. In Hebrews 11, Isaac is called Abraham's "only begotten son," and we know for a fact that Abraham had more than one offspring.
Wierwille's definition of the word is correct, but he failed to note that the word monogenes can and is used in a figure of speech in Hebrews 11:17. That figurative usage is NOT in the sense of one and only one offspring. The usage in Hebrews 11:17 is one of uniqueness.
Hey, could it be that monos, meaning one, and genos, meaning "kind" (a definition Wierwille peculiarly omitted), were combined to form not only the literal term "only begotten," but the figurative term "unique," (ie, "one of a kind")?
The next one's easier.
2. In Jesus Christ is Not God, Wierwille writes:
quote:There was no pronounceable name for the true God, in contrast to pagan gods who were always called by name.
page 135.
Now, most of us can refute this one with our eyes closed. (There's a whole denomination devoted to an outrageous overemphasis of the correction of this error).
God's name was both pronounceable and pronounced. Frequently. The name appears so many times in the Old Testament that your Young's Concordance won't quote each line: it merely lists all the verses for most of four columns. I mean, we are literally talking about, what, a couple of thousand usages in the Old Testament? Would you believe the answer is close to 7,000?
The Hebrews pronounced this name. They did so frequently. Most people don't know that the term "thus saith the Lord" is not frequently found in the Bible. Nope. It's the name, not the word "Lord," which appears in those verses.
Yahweh is a proper name. It was pronounceable and pronounced, many times. The original pronunciation may be lost to us, but to write, as Wierwille did, that there was no pronounceable name for God reflects a REMARKABLE ignorance of the Biblical usage of God's proper name, Yahweh.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 16, 2003 at 13:41.]
In The Bible Tells Me So, Wierwille writes that Matthew 27:5 is a summary of Judas' life after the betrayal, and that it does not mean the things there happened in quick succession. He then writes that the term "hanged himself" refers to different types of suicide, and specifically says Judas impaled himself on a stake (mentioned in Acts 1). However, in Jesus Christ Our Passover Wierwille goes into detail about how "Judas hanged himself" really means that he went away choked with grief.
In truth, if Wierwille was right the first time, then the events did not happen in quick succession. If Wierwille was right the second time, then the events DID happen in quick succession. If Wierwille was right the first time, then "hanged himself" was a clear reference to Judas' death. If Wierwille was right the second time, "Hanged himself" was clearly NOT a reference to Judas' death.
One of the books has got to be wrong. They cannot both be right.
How do I handle this error? Simple. Further research into Matthew 27:5 led Wierwille to change his mind. Perfectly acceptable. None of us should lose any sleep over it...
UNLESS you hold that all of Wierwille's books are God-breathed and therefore free from error or contradiction. If that's your position, then the burden is on you to explain why and how Wierwille contradicted himself on these two occasions.
Or, it COULD be that the second one was written by a Research Department that had a clue what ethical research was, and he just slapped his name on their work.
Dr. Wierwille always wrote that the final contents of his books are his responsibility. Therefore, regardless of who was actually putting the words on the page, God told Wierwille that it was okay (just like God told Wierwille to trust, but not save, the old piece of literature that said Jesus was bar-mitzvahed a year too early for his own personal life, and 1370 years too early for history).
This thread certainly proves collective as well individual mastery of the PFAL. The "indisputable errors" expose the truth of PFAL for what it is... like the sun does not revolve around the earth and the earth is not the centre of the universe... or 2+2 does not equal 5. Very hard to deny such "indisputable errors" and still claim the world is flat.
Can ya imagine running an audio PFAL Class today:
"Good evening new students and grads and welcome to the PFAL Class. There are at least 31 undisputed errors in the class, but pay no attention to these and please hold your questions tillT the end of the class for by then you should have all your questions answered. This is your class flip chart emc... Roll em. And remember to listen with a purpose..."
This thread ROCKS !!!!!!!
Corona w/ lime please...
:D-->
"This is Truth that the world has not known since PFAL." from Long Lost Lines.
[This message was edited by TheSongRemainsTheSame on February 18, 2003 at 19:40.]
This may be stricken down as an error of interpretation, but I'd like to offer it anyway. We've already discussed the Actual Error of VP reversing the meaning of the biblical phrase "private interpretation". He shifted the emphasis from its Biblical meaning of how we got the Bible to how we interpret it. As is the case with many of PFAL's errors, this one leads to another.
The private interpretation error was used to set us up for the doctrine that underlies the controversial teachings "the Four Crucified", the Cry of Triumph, and Paul's thorn in the flesh; the creed that the Word of God interprets itself. All of these trademark Way doctrines were introduced as examples of how the Scripture interprets itself. The logic being that "...if you dare not interpret it.." or I dare not interpret it, then "...either there is no interpretation possible" or it has to interpret itself.
The doctrines above were all examples of how the Bible always interprets itself, either in the verse, in the context, or how it's been used before. The charts used in this session of the class read "All Scripture interprets itself". VP was adamant about this point. The problem is, it just ain't so. Not only can we find examples of Scripture that are not explained in the verse, context, or previous usage,(ie I Cor. 10:10) but there's a big hole in this system and it's called Orientalisms.
An Orientalism is a passage of Scripture that alludes to a custom or aspect of Biblical culture with which we are no longer familiar. Such passages are often misunderstood by modern western readers because we have no knowledge of the cultural background involved. For example, Romans 12:20 says
quote:Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
To modern western readers, the verse appears to say that being kind to your enemies will enrage them and that this is somehow a desirable thing.
According to the Orientalism books, this is a reference to an eastern custom in which someone had to go out early in the cold predawn morning and physicalaly light the streetlamps. The person would carry the coals of fire in a special headdress. The wearing of the headdress would warm the person and help insulate him against the cold. The meaning here has nothing to do with enraging an enemy, but deals with the warming and humbling effect of unconditional kindness and mercy.
Now where in the verse does it say anyting about streetlamps? Is there a special Biblical usage of the phrase "coals of fire"? No, the coals are actual coals. Does scripture buildup, or harmony with the related verses give us this info? No. Does the context mention the practice of lighting ancient municipal lamps and being warmed thereby? No. Where in the previous usage do we read about the streetlight custom? Nowhere, mon frere.
Sorry to belabor the point, but this is just one example of a whole category in God's Word that does not interpret itself. So I think, as long as we need secular history books to "rightly divide" these sections of Scripture, Wierwille's assertion that "All scripture interprets itself" should be counted as an Actual Error.
Re: Jerry's comments on "All Scripture Interprets Itself"
Not to mention all the times in the Scriptures themselves where they have to be interpreted for various people, such as; the class Ezra ran, the road to Emmaus, the Ethiopian eunoch, etc., etc.
Jerry: Ironically, I think this is just an interpretational error. See italicized comments below:
quote:Originally posted by Jbarrax:
_ All Scripture Interprets Itself_
This may be stricken down as an error of interpretation, but I'd like to offer it anyway. We've already discussed the Actual Error of VP reversing the meaning of the biblical phrase "private interpretation". He shifted the emphasis from its Biblical meaning of how we _got_ the Bible to how we interpret it. As is the case with many of PFAL's errors, this one leads to another.
=====>If it's an error, that is.
The private interpretation error was used to set us up for the doctrine that underlies the controversial teachings "the Four Crucified", the Cry of Triumph, and Paul's thorn in the flesh; the creed that the Word of God interprets itself. All of these trademark Way doctrines were introduced as examples of how the Scripture interprets itself. The logic being that "...if you dare not interpret it.." or I dare not interpret it, then "...either there is no interpretation possible" or it has to interpret itself.
=====>I'm not so sure this is a legitimate false dilemma. I think it's TheEvan who holds that the Bible doesn't self-interpret because interpretation can only come via divine revelation. (Forgive me, Evan, if that's not your view.) While there is some evidence to support this theory, ("1Co:2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.") I disagree with this view because it obviates the need for any written Word at all. It wasn't a first-century view--in Steve Lortz' example of the Ethiopian eunuch, the eunuch did say "except some MAN should guide me...", not "except the Lord reveal it to me..." Also, Steve's general contention that interpretations recorded in the Word negate its self-interpretation doesn't work because the interpretation of parables and the like is part of the self-interpretation. That's an awkward phrase, but what I was getting at is that certain bits that required explanations, got them for that very reason. Jesus had to explain the parables, the disciples were not getting revelation directly from God. (Well, not unless you're a trinitarian, I suppose...)
Still, God is not the author of confusion, and the things He has revealed to us are ours. If the last man on earth picked up a King James Bible, there might be things he could not properly interpret without additional research materials, but that is not really God's fault. They weren't called the Dark Ages for nothing.
The doctrines above were all examples of how the Bible always interprets itself, either in the verse, in the context, or how it's been used before. The charts used in this session of the class read "All Scripture interprets itself". VP was adamant about this point. The problem is, it just ain't so. Not only can we find examples of Scripture that are not explained in the verse, context, or previous usage,(ie I Cor. 10:10) [...]
=====>1 Cor 10:10? What about Numbers 14:29?
14:29: Your carcases shall fall in this wilderness; and all that were numbered of you, according to your whole number, from twenty years old and upward, which have murmured against me,
[...] but there's a big hole in this system and it's called Orientalisms.
[orientalism recap snipped]
Sorry to belabor the point, but this is just one example of a whole category in God's Word that does not interpret itself. So I think, as long as we need secular history books to "rightly divide" these sections of Scripture, Wierwille's assertion that "All scripture interprets itself" should be counted as an Actual Error.
=====>That's an unreasonable burden to place on the Bible's self-interpretation. It was perfectly plain in the vernacular of that time, even though it puzzles us in the modern age. By that logic, the Bible would have to contain a complete dictionary and cross-reference, too.
It depends on how strictly one defines self-interpretation as to whether or not this is an error. Is the Word of God consistent enough with itself as to be self-interpreting? I would say yes. Does the KJV retain sufficient consistency by itself? I'd say no.
Since it depends on exactly where one falls on that axis of thought as to whether or not it's an error, I'd say this one has to be in the interpretational error category instead of the actual error category.
Hi Zixar. I won't answer for The Evan, but I will say that I don't believe the Bible was intended to be our guidebook. It's a starting point, a primer for approaching God and Christ. We're supposed to walk by faith, not by the book. But back to the topic at hand. Here's another example of a passage in the Bible that doesn't interpret itself. When I went back through this section in the PFAL book, I was actually surprised to see that VP even asserted that Revelation interprets itself.
quote:"The book of Revelation is considered by many to be a very difficult book. The reason it has been difficult is that we have never allowed it to interpret itself in the verse or in the context. Things in Revelation which are symbolic have been taken literally, and things that are literal have been taken symbolically.
If these "keys" can be applied to the book of Revelation, they should elucidate Revelation 9:2-11
quote:2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
Okay, what are the locusts? They come from the bottomless pit and are ruled by an "angel", so are they spirits? The description of them is entirely physical, so are they animals? Scripture harmony, anyone?
I hesitate to cite this passage because it may seem unfair to refer to prophecy and demand that it interpret itself.The prophecy in Daniel was sealed. I seem to recall a TWI teaching that such prophetic scriptures are impossible to interpret until their fulfillment is about to happen. But Revelation 22:10 says the prophecy was not sealed because its fulfilment was close at hand. So, if the Word of God does interpret itself, what is the Biblical interpretation of this passage?
Here's another error in PFAL, overlooked form session one. Again, I'll leave it to Rafael to decide whether this is an Actual Error or one of interpretation. I think it's a clear case of "fudging the data". One of the many instances in which VP read things into the Scripture, a cardinal sin in his eyes, in order to manufacture Biblical support for his teachings.
In session one, after presenting the five keys for receiving anything from God, he said that each record in the Bible where someone received deliverance, all of these five keys are present. That's quite an extreme statement. The statement in the PFAL book is more moderate. On page 20, we read the following.
quote:
"In every Scriptural account in the Word of God
where a miracle took place or where God did a
mighty work, the principles pointed out in the previous
chapter were present. The persons involved
knew what was available, how to receive what they
needed, and what to do with it after they received,
and they had their needs and wants coordinated
knowing that God’s ability equals His willingness to
keep His promises. When these keys are understood,
we can read any place from Genesis to Revelation and
see this pattern."
Then he presents the story from Mark chapter three about the man with the withered hand.
quote:
1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.
3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
Where in this passage is there ANY indication that this man knew that God's ability is equal to his willingness? Are we to assume that just because Dr. Wierwille says so?
Nor does this passage mention anything about the man's need and want being parallel. The man didn't even approach Jesus, as many others did, and ask for healing. He was simply present in the synagogue and Jesus told him to "stand forth". There is not one word form this man in the Scriptural record, so we have no indication of what his desires ,attitudes and beliefs were.
This is a very poor example of VP's theory, but a good example of how much he stretched Scriptural evidence to make his teachings fit. I wonder why he chose this particular example when there are others in which, at least the person delivered spoke and expressed a desire for healing or a belief that Jesus could deliver them. Perhaps he was more interested in presenting the conflict between Jesus and the Church leadsers than he was in documenting the keys for deliverance. But that's a topic for another thread.
Just remembered another one. In the beginning of the section on the New Birth, VP states that before Pentecost, eternal life wasn't available. This is a direct contradiction of the famous Kingdom of God verses in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I'm at work, so I can't pull up the references at the moment. I'll post em in detail in a few hours unless someone beats me to it.
You've got a few items here worth responding to...
1. I think the statement that all scripture interprets itself IS an actual error: BUT that Wierwille leaves himself an out. He also says that there's another option, namely, that there is no interpretation possible. So, for those scriptures that do not interpret themselves, there is no interpretation possible. That would satisfy the quotes in revelation and several other verses.
As for the issue of Orientalisms, I'm leaning toward Zixar's view. The figures of speech and Orientalisms are assumed in the writing of Scripture. WE need an outside source to understand certain "strange scriptures" (as one book called them. But the original readers did not.
The fact that we CAN argue the point means that, even assuming you are absolutely right, it's not an "actual error" but an interpretational, hermeneutical, or some other type of error. (Once we head into that category, my argument loses much of its strength).
2. "The principles pointed out ... were present."
Notice that Wierwille does NOT say that the principles he pointed out were stated or documented.
I think I need to break out a subset of actual errors called "baseless speculations." Recall that on the list of actual errors, a couple of them say that in order to be discounted as an error, all the other errors would have to be refuted. This error certainly falls under that category.
Maybe I'll reset some of the errors to reflect that category.
3. I don't recall Wierwille saying that eternal life was not available before Pentecost. Before you refute the statement, please quote it so that we all know what you're discussing.
quote:I think the statement that all scripture interprets itself IS an actual error: BUT that Wierwille leaves himself an out. He also says that there's another option, namely, that there is no interpretation possible. So, for those scriptures that do not interpret themselves, there is no interpretation possible. That would satisfy the quotes in revelation and several other verses.
In my mind,it's a contradiction of the material in the class. On the video class he refers to a chart saying "ALL Scripure Interprets Itself" wiht the word "All" underlined. And he makes reference to the underline in order to further emphasize his point that ALL Scripture interprets itself. However, since he hedged later wiht the clause about there being no interpretation possible, I'll withdraw it.
quote:"The principles pointed out ... were present." Notice that Wierwille does NOT say that the principles he pointed out were stated or documented.
This is another one I got from the video class, in which the statement is more dogmatic. But to be fair, we are talking primarily about the written material here and VP should be given credit for moderating what was committed to press. Withdrawn sir.
quote:I don't recall Wierwille saying that eternal life was not available before Pentecost. Before you refute the statement, please quote it so that we all know what you're discussing.
Sorry, I meant to do that last night, but I worked about 13 hours and had to do answer e-mail and make some phone calls when I got home, so I forgot to follow up on it. Here's the quote from PFAL, page 289; right at the beginning of Chapter 19.
quote:The problem with many Biblical teachers is that they do not consider the fact that one cannot have something until it is available, and the New Birth was not available until Pentecost. No one, absolutely no one, was born again until the day of Pentecost. Everybody until that time was just body and soul, without eternal life.
So according to VP, eveyone who lived before Pentecost was without eternal life. Matthew 19:16-29 contradict that. It's a rather long passage and we've all cited and read it before, so this is the truncated version.
quote:16:And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17:And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18: He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19: Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
29: And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
I think that's a fairly clear case of VP Vs. JC. What say ye?
Jerry: Off the top of my head, I'd say no. There is still the chance of everlasting life for pre-Pentecostals at the resurrection of the just, and Jesus could have been referring to that, since your example seems to require works of the Law instead of grace.
In other words, Wierwille can still be correct, as all who died under the Law have to be judged by the Law at the end. Those who are judged faithful get eternal life then--not now.
I don't see how receiving eternal life by the works of the law agrees with what VP said. He said that before Pentecost, eternal life was not available; that everyone who lived before then, was just body and soul, "without eternal life".
If eternal life was available by works, it was still available, which Wierwille denied.
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
Jbarrax
I think we should look at the sonship rights teaching as an error in communication. Personally, I've never felt that this was well thougt out. The word "right" means something you can demand or receive because of your citizenship or relationship. American citizens have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Children have a right to access to their parents' wealth, etc. These connotations all relate to things we may access at will by choice. Is this true of righteousness, sanctification, or justification?
Can you demand to be righteous? NO, God makes you righteous when you receive salvation, at which time He also sanctifies you (sets you apart from the world), justifies you (applies Jesus' payment to your sins), and redeems you (buys you from the Devil and places you in His kingdom).
My point is, none of these are benefits to be received on demand, like the right to speak your mind. They are spiritual gifts, given by faith. If you're already righteous, how can you demand righteousness? How can you "claim your sonship right"? It's actually a little nonsensical.
I think I understand what VP meant by this teaching. It was in the renewed mind section and he was talking about changing your self image, your thinking and habit patterns. We, as righteous, redeemed, justified, sanctified, sons of God have a right to peace of mind. We can claim it, receive peace by asking for it and rebuking anxiety and the sources therof.
If I understand this properly, and I'm not sure I do, this would work primarily in the area of spiritual oppression. If you are anxious, worried, depressed, or angry out of all proportion to the circumstances and are unable to reign these emotions in, there may be a spiritual (read 'demonic, satanic, or devilish) presence intensifying that emotion. In such a situation, you can claim peace; you can receive on demand freedom from that oppression, anxiety, anger whatever.
That's what I think VP was getting at. So if we wanted to fix this section, we might call it a case of poor communication, like the famous "throughly" teaching, or his circular definition of "made".
I don't think sanctification, righteousness, et al are "sonship rights", but the gift of sonship gives us the right to health, peace, and protection from harm.
What do you all think?
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Rafael - I'm happy to discuss my thinking with you, but it's my policy to keep the conversation public. I decided on this policy even before I became active on the internet, because I found that some religious leaders will say one thing in private, and a different thing in public. Reflecting on some of your own recent experiences may give you some insight into the wisdom of this policy. I'm looking forward to further dialogue with you!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Jerry, I agree.
I think he didn't really think through the
whole "sonship rights" thing before making it
an official doctrine, either.
Furthermore, nobody seemed to do so in twi
since then. I've heard discussions among
outies, but not innies.
I have heard, while in, someone (lcm) making
a big deal about it being a good thing something
was a sonship RIGHT and not a sonship
OBLIGATION. I ignored him because he wasn't
making sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Two new actual errors...
1. In Jesus Christ is Not God, Wierwille writes (after quoting John 1:18):
p. 116 and 117
The emphases in that last sentence are mine.
Interestingly enough, that last sentence in flat-out wrong. In Hebrews 11, Isaac is called Abraham's "only begotten son," and we know for a fact that Abraham had more than one offspring.
Wierwille's definition of the word is correct, but he failed to note that the word monogenes can and is used in a figure of speech in Hebrews 11:17. That figurative usage is NOT in the sense of one and only one offspring. The usage in Hebrews 11:17 is one of uniqueness.
Hey, could it be that monos, meaning one, and genos, meaning "kind" (a definition Wierwille peculiarly omitted), were combined to form not only the literal term "only begotten," but the figurative term "unique," (ie, "one of a kind")?
The next one's easier.
2. In Jesus Christ is Not God, Wierwille writes:
page 135.
Now, most of us can refute this one with our eyes closed. (There's a whole denomination devoted to an outrageous overemphasis of the correction of this error).
God's name was both pronounceable and pronounced. Frequently. The name appears so many times in the Old Testament that your Young's Concordance won't quote each line: it merely lists all the verses for most of four columns. I mean, we are literally talking about, what, a couple of thousand usages in the Old Testament? Would you believe the answer is close to 7,000?
The Hebrews pronounced this name. They did so frequently. Most people don't know that the term "thus saith the Lord" is not frequently found in the Bible. Nope. It's the name, not the word "Lord," which appears in those verses.
Yahweh is a proper name. It was pronounceable and pronounced, many times. The original pronunciation may be lost to us, but to write, as Wierwille did, that there was no pronounceable name for God reflects a REMARKABLE ignorance of the Biblical usage of God's proper name, Yahweh.
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 16, 2003 at 13:41.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
In The Bible Tells Me So, Wierwille writes that Matthew 27:5 is a summary of Judas' life after the betrayal, and that it does not mean the things there happened in quick succession. He then writes that the term "hanged himself" refers to different types of suicide, and specifically says Judas impaled himself on a stake (mentioned in Acts 1). However, in Jesus Christ Our Passover Wierwille goes into detail about how "Judas hanged himself" really means that he went away choked with grief.
In truth, if Wierwille was right the first time, then the events did not happen in quick succession. If Wierwille was right the second time, then the events DID happen in quick succession. If Wierwille was right the first time, then "hanged himself" was a clear reference to Judas' death. If Wierwille was right the second time, "Hanged himself" was clearly NOT a reference to Judas' death.
One of the books has got to be wrong. They cannot both be right.
How do I handle this error? Simple. Further research into Matthew 27:5 led Wierwille to change his mind. Perfectly acceptable. None of us should lose any sleep over it...
UNLESS you hold that all of Wierwille's books are God-breathed and therefore free from error or contradiction. If that's your position, then the burden is on you to explain why and how Wierwille contradicted himself on these two occasions.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Good stuff Rafael! You rock!
:)-->
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Or, it COULD be that the second one was written by a Research Department that had a clue what ethical research was, and he just slapped his name on their work.
(Oh, don't start THAT again...
:)--> )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Come on, Zix, that's too easy...
Dr. Wierwille always wrote that the final contents of his books are his responsibility. Therefore, regardless of who was actually putting the words on the page, God told Wierwille that it was okay (just like God told Wierwille to trust, but not save, the old piece of literature that said Jesus was bar-mitzvahed a year too early for his own personal life, and 1370 years too early for history).
Sigh.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Okay, I'll give you a five minute head start, then It's Clobberin' Time!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Thank you Ben Grimm
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
This thread certainly proves collective as well individual mastery of the PFAL. The "indisputable errors" expose the truth of PFAL for what it is... like the sun does not revolve around the earth and the earth is not the centre of the universe... or 2+2 does not equal 5. Very hard to deny such "indisputable errors" and still claim the world is flat.
Can ya imagine running an audio PFAL Class today:
"Good evening new students and grads and welcome to the PFAL Class. There are at least 31 undisputed errors in the class, but pay no attention to these and please hold your questions tillT the end of the class for by then you should have all your questions answered. This is your class flip chart emc... Roll em. And remember to listen with a purpose..."
This thread ROCKS !!!!!!!
Corona w/ lime please...
"This is Truth that the world has not known since PFAL." from Long Lost Lines.
[This message was edited by TheSongRemainsTheSame on February 18, 2003 at 19:40.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
All Scripture Interprets Itself
This may be stricken down as an error of interpretation, but I'd like to offer it anyway. We've already discussed the Actual Error of VP reversing the meaning of the biblical phrase "private interpretation". He shifted the emphasis from its Biblical meaning of how we got the Bible to how we interpret it. As is the case with many of PFAL's errors, this one leads to another.
The private interpretation error was used to set us up for the doctrine that underlies the controversial teachings "the Four Crucified", the Cry of Triumph, and Paul's thorn in the flesh; the creed that the Word of God interprets itself. All of these trademark Way doctrines were introduced as examples of how the Scripture interprets itself. The logic being that "...if you dare not interpret it.." or I dare not interpret it, then "...either there is no interpretation possible" or it has to interpret itself.
The doctrines above were all examples of how the Bible always interprets itself, either in the verse, in the context, or how it's been used before. The charts used in this session of the class read "All Scripture interprets itself". VP was adamant about this point. The problem is, it just ain't so. Not only can we find examples of Scripture that are not explained in the verse, context, or previous usage,(ie I Cor. 10:10) but there's a big hole in this system and it's called Orientalisms.
An Orientalism is a passage of Scripture that alludes to a custom or aspect of Biblical culture with which we are no longer familiar. Such passages are often misunderstood by modern western readers because we have no knowledge of the cultural background involved. For example, Romans 12:20 says
To modern western readers, the verse appears to say that being kind to your enemies will enrage them and that this is somehow a desirable thing.
According to the Orientalism books, this is a reference to an eastern custom in which someone had to go out early in the cold predawn morning and physicalaly light the streetlamps. The person would carry the coals of fire in a special headdress. The wearing of the headdress would warm the person and help insulate him against the cold. The meaning here has nothing to do with enraging an enemy, but deals with the warming and humbling effect of unconditional kindness and mercy.
Now where in the verse does it say anyting about streetlamps? Is there a special Biblical usage of the phrase "coals of fire"? No, the coals are actual coals. Does scripture buildup, or harmony with the related verses give us this info? No. Does the context mention the practice of lighting ancient municipal lamps and being warmed thereby? No. Where in the previous usage do we read about the streetlight custom? Nowhere, mon frere.
Sorry to belabor the point, but this is just one example of a whole category in God's Word that does not interpret itself. So I think, as long as we need secular history books to "rightly divide" these sections of Scripture, Wierwille's assertion that "All scripture interprets itself" should be counted as an Actual Error.
Peace
JerryB
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Re: Jerry's comments on "All Scripture Interprets Itself"
Not to mention all the times in the Scriptures themselves where they have to be interpreted for various people, such as; the class Ezra ran, the road to Emmaus, the Ethiopian eunoch, etc., etc.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Jerry: Ironically, I think this is just an interpretational error. See italicized comments below:
It depends on how strictly one defines self-interpretation as to whether or not this is an error. Is the Word of God consistent enough with itself as to be self-interpreting? I would say yes. Does the KJV retain sufficient consistency by itself? I'd say no.
Since it depends on exactly where one falls on that axis of thought as to whether or not it's an error, I'd say this one has to be in the interpretational error category instead of the actual error category.
That's just my opinion, I welcome others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hi Zixar. I won't answer for The Evan, but I will say that I don't believe the Bible was intended to be our guidebook. It's a starting point, a primer for approaching God and Christ. We're supposed to walk by faith, not by the book. But back to the topic at hand. Here's another example of a passage in the Bible that doesn't interpret itself. When I went back through this section in the PFAL book, I was actually surprised to see that VP even asserted that Revelation interprets itself.
If these "keys" can be applied to the book of Revelation, they should elucidate Revelation 9:2-11
Okay, what are the locusts? They come from the bottomless pit and are ruled by an "angel", so are they spirits? The description of them is entirely physical, so are they animals? Scripture harmony, anyone?
I hesitate to cite this passage because it may seem unfair to refer to prophecy and demand that it interpret itself.The prophecy in Daniel was sealed. I seem to recall a TWI teaching that such prophetic scriptures are impossible to interpret until their fulfillment is about to happen. But Revelation 22:10 says the prophecy was not sealed because its fulfilment was close at hand. So, if the Word of God does interpret itself, what is the Biblical interpretation of this passage?
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Here's another error in PFAL, overlooked form session one. Again, I'll leave it to Rafael to decide whether this is an Actual Error or one of interpretation. I think it's a clear case of "fudging the data". One of the many instances in which VP read things into the Scripture, a cardinal sin in his eyes, in order to manufacture Biblical support for his teachings.
In session one, after presenting the five keys for receiving anything from God, he said that each record in the Bible where someone received deliverance, all of these five keys are present. That's quite an extreme statement. The statement in the PFAL book is more moderate. On page 20, we read the following.
Then he presents the story from Mark chapter three about the man with the withered hand.
Where in this passage is there ANY indication that this man knew that God's ability is equal to his willingness? Are we to assume that just because Dr. Wierwille says so?
Nor does this passage mention anything about the man's need and want being parallel. The man didn't even approach Jesus, as many others did, and ask for healing. He was simply present in the synagogue and Jesus told him to "stand forth". There is not one word form this man in the Scriptural record, so we have no indication of what his desires ,attitudes and beliefs were.
This is a very poor example of VP's theory, but a good example of how much he stretched Scriptural evidence to make his teachings fit. I wonder why he chose this particular example when there are others in which, at least the person delivered spoke and expressed a desire for healing or a belief that Jesus could deliver them. Perhaps he was more interested in presenting the conflict between Jesus and the Church leadsers than he was in documenting the keys for deliverance. But that's a topic for another thread.
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Yes, I agree.
If he wanted to teach the principle, the healing
of Naaman (to name one) would have served better.
Since he picked an example that didn't illustrate
his STATED principle, he must have been
following an UNSTATED rule in using it.
Something like "see how evil established religion
gets?" would fit the bill.
Then again, Brutus is an honourable man.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Just remembered another one. In the beginning of the section on the New Birth, VP states that before Pentecost, eternal life wasn't available. This is a direct contradiction of the famous Kingdom of God verses in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I'm at work, so I can't pull up the references at the moment. I'll post em in detail in a few hours unless someone beats me to it.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You've got a few items here worth responding to...
1. I think the statement that all scripture interprets itself IS an actual error: BUT that Wierwille leaves himself an out. He also says that there's another option, namely, that there is no interpretation possible. So, for those scriptures that do not interpret themselves, there is no interpretation possible. That would satisfy the quotes in revelation and several other verses.
As for the issue of Orientalisms, I'm leaning toward Zixar's view. The figures of speech and Orientalisms are assumed in the writing of Scripture. WE need an outside source to understand certain "strange scriptures" (as one book called them. But the original readers did not.
The fact that we CAN argue the point means that, even assuming you are absolutely right, it's not an "actual error" but an interpretational, hermeneutical, or some other type of error. (Once we head into that category, my argument loses much of its strength).
2. "The principles pointed out ... were present."
Notice that Wierwille does NOT say that the principles he pointed out were stated or documented.
I think I need to break out a subset of actual errors called "baseless speculations." Recall that on the list of actual errors, a couple of them say that in order to be discounted as an error, all the other errors would have to be refuted. This error certainly falls under that category.
Maybe I'll reset some of the errors to reflect that category.
3. I don't recall Wierwille saying that eternal life was not available before Pentecost. Before you refute the statement, please quote it so that we all know what you're discussing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
In my mind,it's a contradiction of the material in the class. On the video class he refers to a chart saying "ALL Scripure Interprets Itself" wiht the word "All" underlined. And he makes reference to the underline in order to further emphasize his point that ALL Scripture interprets itself. However, since he hedged later wiht the clause about there being no interpretation possible, I'll withdraw it.
This is another one I got from the video class, in which the statement is more dogmatic. But to be fair, we are talking primarily about the written material here and VP should be given credit for moderating what was committed to press. Withdrawn sir.
Sorry, I meant to do that last night, but I worked about 13 hours and had to do answer e-mail and make some phone calls when I got home, so I forgot to follow up on it. Here's the quote from PFAL, page 289; right at the beginning of Chapter 19.
So according to VP, eveyone who lived before Pentecost was without eternal life. Matthew 19:16-29 contradict that. It's a rather long passage and we've all cited and read it before, so this is the truncated version.
I think that's a fairly clear case of VP Vs. JC. What say ye?
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Jerry: Off the top of my head, I'd say no. There is still the chance of everlasting life for pre-Pentecostals at the resurrection of the just, and Jesus could have been referring to that, since your example seems to require works of the Law instead of grace.
In other words, Wierwille can still be correct, as all who died under the Law have to be judged by the Law at the end. Those who are judged faithful get eternal life then--not now.
Just a thought,
Zix
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
????
I don't see how receiving eternal life by the works of the law agrees with what VP said. He said that before Pentecost, eternal life was not available; that everyone who lived before then, was just body and soul, "without eternal life".
If eternal life was available by works, it was still available, which Wierwille denied.
I don't see your point Zixar.
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Jerry: I was just saying that no one before Pentecost was assured of eternal life, they still have to pass the judgment, even Moses and Elijah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Oh.
:)-->
So whaddayasay Mr. Olmeda, AE or IE?
JB
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.