I was 17 years old when I took the PFAL class Prior to this class I had been saved and had taken the Bill Gothard Basic Institute on Youth Conflicts. I also had read many Watchmen Nee books and the like. After high school, I attended some way twig fellowships, and borrowed some tapes from a guy who was big in The Way there. I also attended briefly and left a big Way convention in Minneapolis. During this time , I attended a Assemblies of God Church from time to time also.
I was wrestling deeply with the teachings of Victor Paul Weirwelle. I enrolled and took 15 credits of biblical Greek. Throughout this time my views about The Way and its teachings were profoundly changed.
Before I get into what I think some serious errors are, let me make a few comments. I know that mainstream Christianity has criticized The Way as a cult without really having a basis for understanding the teachings of the Way. I think this was wrong of them. Neither does it allow those of you that have learned "from the Lords hand" something good, to feel that your time is redeemable that you spent. For some of you clearly it was. For others clearly it wasn't. Lets let the Lord be judge, who will render unto every man according to his work. Personally, I think those of you who move on can take a suitcase full of experience and make good of it. After all, isn't that what our Lord is really about, mending broken hearts?
I believe there was some serious error in the teaching of Victor Paul Werewille.
Two of the cornerstones of his teachings come from Peter and Timothy, I will address them first.
I ) II Peter 2:20 provides one of the corner stones on which Victor Paul hung his hat. You know the one, " Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
From this he taught that the Bible interprets itself . Clearly this is not what this scripture says. In no place does this scripture say that the Bible self interprets. What does the scripture say then about itself and understanding it? It says a lot. I Corinthians 2:13 says " Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual with spiritual." Alas , the Holy Ghost is the teacher. Neither do we have to be concerned with excesses of words, because by definition the Holy Ghost teaches us what these words mean. II Corintians 3:6 says , " Who hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life." Ask yourself a questions: The spirit giveth what or who life? How about us life. How about the spirit giveth the letter life. We know that the Sword of the Spirit is the Word of God. Without the spirit though its just another sword and not even God's sword. In addition, God did not make us ministers of the letter. That's what it says right? And we all know it says what it means and means what it says. PS, Let me add one more thing, I think I also have the spirit on that one. We know from Corinthians that then you people have the right to judge. That's what it says. It says in I Corinthians 14:29 that when someone speaks and says they have the spirit, "Let the other judge." Because you and me have this thing inside us called a conscience and we use it to decipher between good and evil as it says in Hebrews. Refreshing to think that God seems to like the idea that we question things with our conscience. . Sufficient to say that the "word became flesh." If you want to know what his words meant isn't it best to go to the author and ask?
Let me give you a simple illustration of how the Bible does not interpret itself. I want to do this because Victor Paul said there were no inconsistencies in the Bible and if he found one, he would dig and dig until he fixed up the letters. Here is my example. Two scriptures that say exactly the opposite of each other. Galations 6:2 " Bear you one anothers burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ" and Galations 6:5 " For every man shall bear his own burden." Despite two different Greek words for burden, both have the meaning of taking a load off of someone else's life.
The contradiction is erased not with words but with grace and remember its by grace that we are saved. Why by grace? Because the grace of God by the Spirit teaches us when to say no and when to say yes to others. The difference maker is experience. We know that its not good to carry the load of others who are abusing us. We also know that providing were not tired out, its feels great to lend a helping hand to a friend in need. Without experience, you cannot make the word of God click. Thank heavens, that God didn't digitize his word so that we were like robots.
Its what makes us grow and learn. It's also fun. I loved it when I learned to say no and others got mad at me and I knew God wasn't. Because I knew they were abusing me and it felt great to make it stop. Gang, this is Biblical also. Romans 5:3-5 says that the work of God in us is experience. It takes experience and doing it to work the word of God not "words." It's in the application man, not the words. The Bible is like a big bag of jewels, with each facet being discovered more clearly with experience.
is the word "scripture", which couldn't be referring to N.T. canon at all, as it didn't exist yet. It was O.T. "scripture" that all this misappropriated blather was about all along.
And - because we were a bunch of immature and unschooled KIDS - we never caught on, despite the endless of hours of pointless "research" we endured.
is the word "scripture", which couldn't be referring to N.T. canon at all, as it didn't exist yet.
At least one New Testament canon most certainly did exist when the "Timothy" writings were crafted aprox. 150 CE - that of the arch-heretic Marcion of Sinope (I'm sorry, here I go again...), which most likely was in circulation 20 years earlier.
But Geo is probably correct that "all scripture"
was intended to encompass and even emphasize the Old Testament which Marcion had rejected from his canon.
There are many other indicators which provide a dead givaway to the approx. time and occassion for the writing of this material, by reason of it being directed against a rival heretic and his church in the middle of the second century.
Paul is reinvented in the Pastoral epistles and used to attack 2nd cent. rivals who esteemed Paul as the only trustworthy apostle. This new improved pasteurized Paul speaks against points of Marcion's doctrine - e.g., "forbidding to marry" (1 Ti.4:3) - Marcion promoted celibacy -"abstaining from foods" - Marcionites were vegetarians - a warning against some who would make "shipwreck" the faith - Marcion was a sea captain - with even the title of his lost work "Antithesis"
(or "contradictions") being cleverly employed
(1 Ti 6:20).
Too many little coincidences.
Indeed, a many standard NT introductions provide a few other reasons for categorizing these writings as deutero-Pauline, having mostly
to do with the writing style. And there's the classic work by P.K. Harrison, "The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles".
And after going through twi, which held these letters in such high esteem, I'm sure we could cite a few more. ;)-->
Forgive me for being so rude, but I should have taken a moment amidst my last rambling post to welcome you to the GS!
It's funny, but I was also about 17 years old when I first took PFAL.
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on how the Bible does not "interpret itself", contrary to what we had been taught in the past. And yes, I still think there are many "jewels" in the Bible to be enjoyed, though in my case these past few years, I've tended to approach the various ideas within the book as a mixed field of wheat and tares, truth and non-truth growing side by side, but which every reader may on their own discern from root to fruit. I've come to find this approach a bit more stimulating and interactive than the former notion of having to "eat" everything through the assumption that all of it was entirely "God-breathed". I think partly due to my own personal observation that the Bible itself had become something of an object of worship in the Way.
In any event, welcome to GS, and I hope you enjoy the menu here!
Thanks for the welcome mat. It's nice to have a place where you can rub off theclods of mud that were stuck on my feet 20 years ago. It's not like you can discuss "Way Doctrine" with people who dont know what it is. They already have it categorized into a box but never understood Weirwille's theories.
Your point about experience is well taken. You have to apply the Word Of God along the way. The opposite with the way was you let the Word of God apply you.
Interestingly, the teachings of VPW flourished at a time when churches were still deeply divided over doctrines of babtism, the Virgin Mary, and other things. Many of us young people were looking for a way to sort all of this out. VPW more than seized the moment, he tried to steal the whole show.
Since I have an analytical type mind, it really made me think. I always wondered why the way had to say everything both forwards and in reverse. Like " it means what it says and says what it means. At some point, (and I clawed my way out of this all by my lonesome), the shell game was kinda obvious. Yes 1 + 1 = 2, and 2 = 1 +1, however 1 does not equal 2 + 1. A person can find these inconsistecies if you really look.
On a somewhat humorous and pointed note, I do think this ministry would have been served better by addition rather than subtraction, at least in reference to redesigning the Trinity.
By adding "God the Word", they could have created "God the Square." This however would have had 2 unfortunate side consequences:
1) "God the Square" would have had to hung a sign on the other three fellas saying , "Were mutes" or "Were on Vacation."
2) I can't imagine hippies, punksters and hip hoppers tossing out there meandering ways in favor of "God The Square." Pun intended.
As your sifting through the debris, here is something to consider. Watchman Nee in his 3 part book titled "The Spiritual Man", similarly divides man into three parts, body , soul and spirit.
It appears that Nee died in 1972. Presumably therefore his writings proceeded those of VPW.
Any ways the comparisons of the two teaching are pretty similar, except that Nee seemed to take the analogy one step further and divide man's spirit into 3 more parts, intuition, conscience and communion. I'm not sure I ever found intellectually compartmentalizing spiritual activity like this beneficial though. Moreover, the biggest benefit I gleaned from this book was that our intellect or mind seems to function better as a servant of out spirit, rather than the other way around. Ie (Using intellectual knowledge more so than ones spirit.) Oddly, with excesses of words this was kind of the trap of the mind. In addition there is some other tidbits about the application of the cross to our flesh, that I thought were appropriate. Furthermore, I don't remember that ever being highly topical, at least not in my experience from the Way.
Other Nee books, I personally wouldn't recommend. I found them unnecessarily repetitive about meandering things. Years ago I also heard that some of those books may have been written by his followers and rubber stamped with his name on. I do not however know if this was true. Oddly, when I looked on the Internet, there seemed to be some groups that had fallen prey to similar type problems of dysfuntionate behavior that focused on his writings.
The skinny of the matter is , whether Nee taught it or VPW taught it, that one seems like a keeper. Another nugget that you guys already possess to keep yourself upbeat, is that you gotta get up pretty early in the morning to fool people thats been through this stuff. And that you guys perhaps might be the biggest benefit of all for all of yah. Later -----
Here's a brief sampling from some works I have read. If you have opportunity, their arguments are IMHO are really worth reviewing. Especially the French authors, who are really quite funny.
Fein-Beim Kummel, p.272, in "Introduction to the New Testament" presents a rather conservative estimate: "Writing as a pupil of Paul in the name of Paul, he shows the churches how to repulse the false teachers through correct order in the churches, through sound doctrine...the time best suited for composition is just after the turn of the second century."
Morton Scott Enslin, p.303, "Christian Beginnings": "The evidence of a date quite beyond Paul and an essential difference of point of view is further seen in the author's attitude toward Christianity itself...Christianity is now an objective system which men can accept or reject...A comparison of two passages [Rom.8:29,30 cf. to 1 Tim.6:12]...confirms this shift of emphasis and hardening of Christianity into a system of beliefs...(p.306)...Marcion did not include them in his canon. Had he believed them from Paul's pen he would have scarcely refrained...
Perhaps the most probable date for all three [1&2 Tim., Titus] would be 100-125 A.D., although personally I do not consider a date fifty years later impossible. (emphasis mine).
Bart D. Ehrman, "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction...", p.354: "Up to this point I have tried to show why scholars continue to debate the authorship of the Deutero-Pauline epistles [e.g., Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians], but when we come to the Pastoral epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, there is greater scholarly unanimity. These three letters are widely regarded by scholars as non-Pauline ...(p.362) they were written near the end of the first century, or somewhat later..." (emphasis on Ehrman's trailing, under-breath comment mine).
The French scholars Paul-Louis Couchoud ("The Creation of Christ") and Joseph Turmel ("The Epistles of Paul") through their numerous, colorful works and articles were especially emphatic about placing the writing of the Pastorals about the middle of the second century. I personally think they make a very good case.
Who wrote them? It's anyone's guess. Some have proposed St. Clement, others Polycarp of Smyrna.
It is refreshing to me to hear others speak of Watchman Nee.
One of the things that sheltered me through the mental storms swirling about doctrine and practice (post-way) was reading Nee's "Normal Christian Life".
Eventually I went on to collect many of his books. "The Spiritual Man" and "Changed into his likeness" are fantastic.
"Release of the Spirit" and "Sit, Walk, Stand"
(a brief study of Ephesians) and "The body of Christ" are great as well.
I am pretty confident that Nee got his spirit, soul, and body start from the work of G.H. Pember.
Pember's book "Earth's Earliest Ages" (published in the mid to late 1800's) has some fascinating things about the creation of the world, the angels, Lucifer and Adam.
Pember's work far exceeds anything I every heard in twi (pfal, intermediate, advanced, WOW ambassador, and six months of waycoprse) about the fall of Lucifer.
Interesting things in this thread.
Sky4it, I share your enthusiasm for how the Lord Jesus is working in us today, even in what appears to be "secular" parts of our lives.
The works I mentioned above as well as some of the "deeper life" literature and the Keswick Convention stuff was a secure segway for me to
start looking at what I felt was lacking in my life and in my sprit-soul diet.
Since then ( I left twi in 79 over doctrinal and practical differences) I have been spending the last ten years or so learning about what the bible says about the Lordship of Jesus, as well as learning how to live as one of his apprentices on a daily basis.
I firmly believe that once we are born again there is nothing secular about our lives afterwards.
God Bless you all,
Darrell Bailey
Indianapolis
P.S. Watchman Nee was imprisoned for about twenty years in China before his death in prison.
Interestingly i think 1979 was probably the time I last had any meaningful contact with the teachings of the way. I found the grease spot forum a little over a week ago.
I was fortunate to have read Nee and others prior to running into way doctrines. I see tho it works the other way as well. later....
quote:II Peter 2:20 provides one of the corner stones on which Victor Paul hung his hat. You know the one, " Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
From this he taught that the Bible interprets itself . Clearly this is not what this scripture says. In no place does this scripture say that the Bible self interprets. What does the scripture say then about itself and understanding it?
How about doing what Philip did with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 and begin at the same scripture. If 2 Peter 1:20 doesn't mean the bible interprets itself, then what DOES it mean? VP said either there's no interpretation possible, or it interprets itself. Sounds logical to me.
By the way, TWI aren't the only ones who believe that: when I was a WOW (77/78) I over heard a Christian bookstore worker tell a young couple that the bible interprets itself.
quote:It says a lot. I Corinthians 2:13 says " Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual with spiritual." Alas , the Holy Ghost is the teacher. Neither do we have to be concerned with excesses of words, because by definition the Holy Ghost teaches us what these words mean.
If that's all there is to it; that the holy ghost teaches us what the words mean, then why have a written bible in the first place? Surely the holy ghost doesn't need a written standard to teach us anything does it? Of course then there's that pesky old problem of 3000 different denominations all claiming to be Christian and all claiming to have the "proper" understanding of the bible. Maybe Colin Ferguson was right when he claimed that God spoke in an audible voice instructing him to kill those people on that subway 10 years or so ago. And maybe Nat Turner was also right when he claimed it was God's will for him and his slave buddies to kill 60 or so white people using OT scriptures to justify it.
So if you could, I'd like to know what 2 Peter 1:20 means if it doesn't mean that the bible interprets itself. Thanx.
Certainly fundamentalist believe also in the infallibility of scriptures also. I agree that the Word of God is infallible. I do not agree however that the written word is in a form that is infallible. Even the King James has some things that the Young's concordance points out are error. In addition it is removed from several different languages. God did that on purpose so that we would be more hung up on his person than on semantics of languages. It was on purpose that God did that. What I am saying is that in people everyday lives it is not necessary to sort out every dot and tick in order to have proper doctrine. The difference I believe is in the living word Jesus Christ. What I am saying is that the written word needs the anointing of the Holy Spirit
Secondly, I think that its all about application in our everyday lives. If we are obedient to the things God is teaching us, we get more . For example, in Revelation it says him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna. It therefore must come from the Lords hand.
With respect to the interprets itself thing, I am not saying that reading the Bible with only the content in mind is not a good idea or beneficial. All I am saying is that it is not the only ingredient necessary to understanding it. For example, The Psalms say who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Him that hath a clean heart, and pure hands who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity nor sworn deceitfully. The scripture is simply directional about how to live our lives. What I am saying is that scripture is primarily directed to application type matters. I bring up this matter of a clean spirit and cleanliness for a major reason. It is the one matter that most clearly causes people to error in there application of the Word of God. It is very easy to presume things about God and find out he is not interested in doing something we think he is. This is pivotal in my view. It means that we must sit at the feet of Jesus and grow. It is not an ever learning type thing either, it is an ever-growing thing.
If in fact man was born in this world with a spirit (because of sin) that was not cut off from God, you are correct man would not need the word in written form. Adam communicated with God before and after the fall. So did Abraham and other of the Patriarch's who did not have any form of guidance in writing.
What does that particular text mean? In perhaps the most mathematical type assertion that we were used to:
When you look at it a closely, it does say that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any ....... It only means just this(private interpretation)". Private interpretation meaning: it only means just this. That is precisely what it says. The word private being key and not being able to exclude yourself from something it might be down the road. Right? From this aspect drawing on precisely the same words from PAL, it says not to do what we were taught, which is to say it only means this. That is control. Some people dot like that. I in particular do. It means to me my understanding of it is increasing. This is consistent also with other scriptures. Collisions 1:10 "increasing in the knowledge of the Lord" Vs (saying increasing in the knowledge of the scriptures which it does not say.)I don't know fully. There may be an application for it that hasn't reached my understanding down the road. In this context, you may not agree or like what I am saying. I do think it means that we cannot limit the scripture to one particular application, nor can we control it and say this is the only thing it means.
With respect to the thousands of interpretations I agree that that has caused no end of controversy.
It is also the reason that we are discussing it today. As a young person I wanted to sort it all out also. The Spirit of God must have prominence in the interpetation though. Even if that causes us to struggle with certain things. That struggle , my friend, is what brings us to perfection as a person in the sight of Jesus Christ. My disagreement with this group was that that also was what they were trying to take away from me. That is to say, God's right to governance over what he was teaching me. The perfect word situation created a problem. I didn't need God anymore for instruction. That is simply not so at all.
With respect to those who have murdered with the Bible, you make my point exactly. It is all about pureness of heart. A corrupt heart is capable of twisting words in all kinds of ways.
You can also look at that scripture humorously. I think God has a good one. Idios bieng the Greek for private. Idios means ones own. VP made the argument that either it could or could not be interpreted. I agree then with both halves of V.P assertion. I do not agree that it can be only interpreted aka (thats the end of the matter) but that it has other meaning as well.
The humorous aspect is that we don't own it. (We really don't you know. I mean there his words not ours.)
I apologize for not laying it out mathematically. It's been years since I have thought this way.
Your comment:
Peter 1:20 doesn't mean the bible interprets itself, then what DOES it mean? VP said either there's no interpretation possible, or it interprets itself. Sounds logical to me.
VP said:
1) either there's no interpretation possible or
2) it interpets itself.
The key word is or meaning one or the other but not both,
My assertation is that it is both.
In my referencing I am talking about EVERYTHING being self explanatory.
My problem therefore was who needs God in the learning process.
By saying both, I do not mean to say that I beleive #1 above(that there is no possibility), but that there is interpretation in addition to #2 above by the means I mentioned in my previous posts, Ie (application, the holy ghost etc.)
I put those last 2 posts together in haste. There is a better way to say it. The words I posted are from you are of I presume the direct quote of VP. They are not therefore Gods words.
Your Comment:
VP said:
1) either there's no interpretation or
2) the Bible interprets itself.
You say this sounds logical. I say its not. This quote is an either or situation. You get to pick one and only one. Everyone agreed that number one is not possible, therefore you must pick number 2. I say that's not true. I do not disagree that #2 isn't helpful. (#2 is simply the obvious)
All I say is that #2 isn't the only situation for interpretation, that there is more much more.
It interprets in other ways as well such as:
1) The Holy Ghost and God and Jesus I Cor 2:13, II Corinth 3:6
2) ongoing application (inconsistencies sorted through application) Gal 6:2 ,6:5 example
3) itself as above (the obvious but not only itself) ie( Adultry is sin)
4) some is unrevealed or hidden Rev 2:17
5) historical stuff (as invisible Dan mentioned above which I am horrible at.)
6) Typology of Old Test stuff - (the tabernacle are figures of the true) Heb 9:9,24
7) Seeking (The Kingdom of God Matt 6:33, His Face (The Lord God)Psalm 27:8 , II Cor 3:18)
etc.
My view is that interpretation is larger than the comments you quoted. Neither did I one thing that VP did not do himself. His view was that it is only #2. I say that it is not. The things I listed prove logically that it is not (only number 2) Neither do no. 1,2,4,5,6,7 fit into number # 2 of the VP comment that you quoted. Why? because they are from other sources than the Bible "itself." Therefore I have proved mathematically and with certainty this statement you quoted is incorrect or an error.
I agree therefore that you can learn some things from "the Bible itself" just not all things from the Bible "itself".
Sky: VPs approach on this was purely logical: if God is truly the author of the bible, then the words must be perfect or God is not perfect. Consider that right before Peter wrote "no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" he called it a "more sure word of prophecy" than having hung out with Jesus.
The problem that evolved in TWI was that out of one side of their mouth they say "no private interpretation/the word interprets itself" but then they put their own 'seal of approval' on a particular application of scripture and say "we got this nailed down/ this is the right dividing of the word/ don't bother to think about it any more/ just move with it". I don't think that is good. People need to digest whatever they believe as truth.
Sure, God is perfect, but we're not. So if God authored the bible to us, He did so knowing we'd only be able to take it so far. Far enough to have a relationship with Him, but not far enough to know everything.
2 Peter 1:20 is good for stuff like the trinity or 'dead alive now'. Anyone who believes either of those has to at some point decide that they can interpret scripture any way they feel like it. For that matter, so does anyone who believes adultery is OK if they're spiritual enough to handle it.
My view is: what good is it to even have a bible if it has no godly authority?
Recommended Posts
sky4it
I was 17 years old when I took the PFAL class Prior to this class I had been saved and had taken the Bill Gothard Basic Institute on Youth Conflicts. I also had read many Watchmen Nee books and the like. After high school, I attended some way twig fellowships, and borrowed some tapes from a guy who was big in The Way there. I also attended briefly and left a big Way convention in Minneapolis. During this time , I attended a Assemblies of God Church from time to time also.
I was wrestling deeply with the teachings of Victor Paul Weirwelle. I enrolled and took 15 credits of biblical Greek. Throughout this time my views about The Way and its teachings were profoundly changed.
Before I get into what I think some serious errors are, let me make a few comments. I know that mainstream Christianity has criticized The Way as a cult without really having a basis for understanding the teachings of the Way. I think this was wrong of them. Neither does it allow those of you that have learned "from the Lords hand" something good, to feel that your time is redeemable that you spent. For some of you clearly it was. For others clearly it wasn't. Lets let the Lord be judge, who will render unto every man according to his work. Personally, I think those of you who move on can take a suitcase full of experience and make good of it. After all, isn't that what our Lord is really about, mending broken hearts?
I believe there was some serious error in the teaching of Victor Paul Werewille.
Two of the cornerstones of his teachings come from Peter and Timothy, I will address them first.
I ) II Peter 2:20 provides one of the corner stones on which Victor Paul hung his hat. You know the one, " Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
From this he taught that the Bible interprets itself . Clearly this is not what this scripture says. In no place does this scripture say that the Bible self interprets. What does the scripture say then about itself and understanding it? It says a lot. I Corinthians 2:13 says " Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual with spiritual." Alas , the Holy Ghost is the teacher. Neither do we have to be concerned with excesses of words, because by definition the Holy Ghost teaches us what these words mean. II Corintians 3:6 says , " Who hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life." Ask yourself a questions: The spirit giveth what or who life? How about us life. How about the spirit giveth the letter life. We know that the Sword of the Spirit is the Word of God. Without the spirit though its just another sword and not even God's sword. In addition, God did not make us ministers of the letter. That's what it says right? And we all know it says what it means and means what it says. PS, Let me add one more thing, I think I also have the spirit on that one. We know from Corinthians that then you people have the right to judge. That's what it says. It says in I Corinthians 14:29 that when someone speaks and says they have the spirit, "Let the other judge." Because you and me have this thing inside us called a conscience and we use it to decipher between good and evil as it says in Hebrews. Refreshing to think that God seems to like the idea that we question things with our conscience. . Sufficient to say that the "word became flesh." If you want to know what his words meant isn't it best to go to the author and ask?
Let me give you a simple illustration of how the Bible does not interpret itself. I want to do this because Victor Paul said there were no inconsistencies in the Bible and if he found one, he would dig and dig until he fixed up the letters. Here is my example. Two scriptures that say exactly the opposite of each other. Galations 6:2 " Bear you one anothers burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ" and Galations 6:5 " For every man shall bear his own burden." Despite two different Greek words for burden, both have the meaning of taking a load off of someone else's life.
The contradiction is erased not with words but with grace and remember its by grace that we are saved. Why by grace? Because the grace of God by the Spirit teaches us when to say no and when to say yes to others. The difference maker is experience. We know that its not good to carry the load of others who are abusing us. We also know that providing were not tired out, its feels great to lend a helping hand to a friend in need. Without experience, you cannot make the word of God click. Thank heavens, that God didn't digitize his word so that we were like robots.
Its what makes us grow and learn. It's also fun. I loved it when I learned to say no and others got mad at me and I knew God wasn't. Because I knew they were abusing me and it felt great to make it stop. Gang, this is Biblical also. Romans 5:3-5 says that the work of God in us is experience. It takes experience and doing it to work the word of God not "words." It's in the application man, not the words. The Bible is like a big bag of jewels, with each facet being discovered more clearly with experience.
1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
sorry gang, my 1st page is second and second page is first, so read them that way. I thought the last post would appear first my mistake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I think a bigger error with regards to II Tim.
is the word "scripture", which couldn't be referring to N.T. canon at all, as it didn't exist yet. It was O.T. "scripture" that all this misappropriated blather was about all along.
And - because we were a bunch of immature and unschooled KIDS - we never caught on, despite the endless of hours of pointless "research" we endured.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Geo:
Thank you and I agree.
:)-->.
I never really thought about that one either but its a great point. By the time I was outta there i was clicking my heals. later man
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
At least one New Testament canon most certainly did exist when the "Timothy" writings were crafted aprox. 150 CE - that of the arch-heretic Marcion of Sinope (I'm sorry, here I go again...), which most likely was in circulation 20 years earlier.
But Geo is probably correct that "all scripture"
was intended to encompass and even emphasize the Old Testament which Marcion had rejected from his canon.
There are many other indicators which provide a dead givaway to the approx. time and occassion for the writing of this material, by reason of it being directed against a rival heretic and his church in the middle of the second century.
Paul is reinvented in the Pastoral epistles and used to attack 2nd cent. rivals who esteemed Paul as the only trustworthy apostle. This new improved pasteurized Paul speaks against points of Marcion's doctrine - e.g., "forbidding to marry" (1 Ti.4:3) - Marcion promoted celibacy -"abstaining from foods" - Marcionites were vegetarians - a warning against some who would make "shipwreck" the faith - Marcion was a sea captain - with even the title of his lost work "Antithesis"
(or "contradictions") being cleverly employed
(1 Ti 6:20).
Too many little coincidences.
Indeed, a many standard NT introductions provide a few other reasons for categorizing these writings as deutero-Pauline, having mostly
to do with the writing style. And there's the classic work by P.K. Harrison, "The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles".
And after going through twi, which held these letters in such high esteem, I'm sure we could cite a few more.
;)-->
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Sky4kit -
Forgive me for being so rude, but I should have taken a moment amidst my last rambling post to welcome you to the GS!
It's funny, but I was also about 17 years old when I first took PFAL.
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on how the Bible does not "interpret itself", contrary to what we had been taught in the past. And yes, I still think there are many "jewels" in the Bible to be enjoyed, though in my case these past few years, I've tended to approach the various ideas within the book as a mixed field of wheat and tares, truth and non-truth growing side by side, but which every reader may on their own discern from root to fruit. I've come to find this approach a bit more stimulating and interactive than the former notion of having to "eat" everything through the assumption that all of it was entirely "God-breathed". I think partly due to my own personal observation that the Bible itself had become something of an object of worship in the Way.
In any event, welcome to GS, and I hope you enjoy the menu here!
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Invisible Dan:
Thanks for the welcome mat. It's nice to have a place where you can rub off theclods of mud that were stuck on my feet 20 years ago. It's not like you can discuss "Way Doctrine" with people who dont know what it is. They already have it categorized into a box but never understood Weirwille's theories.
Your point about experience is well taken. You have to apply the Word Of God along the way. The opposite with the way was you let the Word of God apply you.
Interestingly, the teachings of VPW flourished at a time when churches were still deeply divided over doctrines of babtism, the Virgin Mary, and other things. Many of us young people were looking for a way to sort all of this out. VPW more than seized the moment, he tried to steal the whole show.
Since I have an analytical type mind, it really made me think. I always wondered why the way had to say everything both forwards and in reverse. Like " it means what it says and says what it means. At some point, (and I clawed my way out of this all by my lonesome), the shell game was kinda obvious. Yes 1 + 1 = 2, and 2 = 1 +1, however 1 does not equal 2 + 1. A person can find these inconsistecies if you really look.
later
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ah, yes, it's welcoming time...
Sorry I took so long.
Cream and sugar?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
WOW Raf! you sure have a lot of different sets of china!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Raf:
Thanks Man, this is a refreshing place.
On a somewhat humorous and pointed note, I do think this ministry would have been served better by addition rather than subtraction, at least in reference to redesigning the Trinity.
By adding "God the Word", they could have created "God the Square." This however would have had 2 unfortunate side consequences:
1) "God the Square" would have had to hung a sign on the other three fellas saying , "Were mutes" or "Were on Vacation."
2) I can't imagine hippies, punksters and hip hoppers tossing out there meandering ways in favor of "God The Square." Pun intended.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
One other Golden Nugget for the Heavy Heart:
As your sifting through the debris, here is something to consider. Watchman Nee in his 3 part book titled "The Spiritual Man", similarly divides man into three parts, body , soul and spirit.
It appears that Nee died in 1972. Presumably therefore his writings proceeded those of VPW.
Any ways the comparisons of the two teaching are pretty similar, except that Nee seemed to take the analogy one step further and divide man's spirit into 3 more parts, intuition, conscience and communion. I'm not sure I ever found intellectually compartmentalizing spiritual activity like this beneficial though. Moreover, the biggest benefit I gleaned from this book was that our intellect or mind seems to function better as a servant of out spirit, rather than the other way around. Ie (Using intellectual knowledge more so than ones spirit.) Oddly, with excesses of words this was kind of the trap of the mind. In addition there is some other tidbits about the application of the cross to our flesh, that I thought were appropriate. Furthermore, I don't remember that ever being highly topical, at least not in my experience from the Way.
Other Nee books, I personally wouldn't recommend. I found them unnecessarily repetitive about meandering things. Years ago I also heard that some of those books may have been written by his followers and rubber stamped with his name on. I do not however know if this was true. Oddly, when I looked on the Internet, there seemed to be some groups that had fallen prey to similar type problems of dysfuntionate behavior that focused on his writings.
The skinny of the matter is , whether Nee taught it or VPW taught it, that one seems like a keeper. Another nugget that you guys already possess to keep yourself upbeat, is that you gotta get up pretty early in the morning to fool people thats been through this stuff. And that you guys perhaps might be the biggest benefit of all for all of yah. Later -----
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Danny,
You're saying that the books of Timothy were written cir. 150 AD ?
Is this the usual date given by the textual research sorta guys?
Who do they then attribute it to? I mean, I think Paul woulda been getting rather long in the tooth by then.
I'll be damned...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Hi Geo,
Here's a brief sampling from some works I have read. If you have opportunity, their arguments are IMHO are really worth reviewing. Especially the French authors, who are really quite funny.
Fein-Beim Kummel, p.272, in "Introduction to the New Testament" presents a rather conservative estimate: "Writing as a pupil of Paul in the name of Paul, he shows the churches how to repulse the false teachers through correct order in the churches, through sound doctrine...the time best suited for composition is just after the turn of the second century."
Morton Scott Enslin, p.303, "Christian Beginnings": "The evidence of a date quite beyond Paul and an essential difference of point of view is further seen in the author's attitude toward Christianity itself...Christianity is now an objective system which men can accept or reject...A comparison of two passages [Rom.8:29,30 cf. to 1 Tim.6:12]...confirms this shift of emphasis and hardening of Christianity into a system of beliefs...(p.306)...Marcion did not include them in his canon. Had he believed them from Paul's pen he would have scarcely refrained...
Perhaps the most probable date for all three [1&2 Tim., Titus] would be 100-125 A.D., although personally I do not consider a date fifty years later impossible. (emphasis mine).
Bart D. Ehrman, "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction...", p.354: "Up to this point I have tried to show why scholars continue to debate the authorship of the Deutero-Pauline epistles [e.g., Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians], but when we come to the Pastoral epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, there is greater scholarly unanimity. These three letters are widely regarded by scholars as non-Pauline ...(p.362) they were written near the end of the first century, or somewhat later..." (emphasis on Ehrman's trailing, under-breath comment mine).
The French scholars Paul-Louis Couchoud ("The Creation of Christ") and Joseph Turmel ("The Epistles of Paul") through their numerous, colorful works and articles were especially emphatic about placing the writing of the Pastorals about the middle of the second century. I personally think they make a very good case.
Who wrote them? It's anyone's guess. Some have proposed St. Clement, others Polycarp of Smyrna.
I tend to think St. Clement.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Darrell Bailey
It is refreshing to me to hear others speak of Watchman Nee.
One of the things that sheltered me through the mental storms swirling about doctrine and practice (post-way) was reading Nee's "Normal Christian Life".
Eventually I went on to collect many of his books. "The Spiritual Man" and "Changed into his likeness" are fantastic.
"Release of the Spirit" and "Sit, Walk, Stand"
(a brief study of Ephesians) and "The body of Christ" are great as well.
I am pretty confident that Nee got his spirit, soul, and body start from the work of G.H. Pember.
Pember's book "Earth's Earliest Ages" (published in the mid to late 1800's) has some fascinating things about the creation of the world, the angels, Lucifer and Adam.
Pember's work far exceeds anything I every heard in twi (pfal, intermediate, advanced, WOW ambassador, and six months of waycoprse) about the fall of Lucifer.
Interesting things in this thread.
Sky4it, I share your enthusiasm for how the Lord Jesus is working in us today, even in what appears to be "secular" parts of our lives.
The works I mentioned above as well as some of the "deeper life" literature and the Keswick Convention stuff was a secure segway for me to
start looking at what I felt was lacking in my life and in my sprit-soul diet.
Since then ( I left twi in 79 over doctrinal and practical differences) I have been spending the last ten years or so learning about what the bible says about the Lordship of Jesus, as well as learning how to live as one of his apprentices on a daily basis.
I firmly believe that once we are born again there is nothing secular about our lives afterwards.
God Bless you all,
Darrell Bailey
Indianapolis
P.S. Watchman Nee was imprisoned for about twenty years in China before his death in prison.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Darryl:
thank you so much, your message was refreshing.
Interestingly i think 1979 was probably the time I last had any meaningful contact with the teachings of the way. I found the grease spot forum a little over a week ago.
I was fortunate to have read Nee and others prior to running into way doctrines. I see tho it works the other way as well. later....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Sky:
quote:II Peter 2:20 provides one of the corner stones on which Victor Paul hung his hat. You know the one, " Knowing this first that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
From this he taught that the Bible interprets itself . Clearly this is not what this scripture says. In no place does this scripture say that the Bible self interprets. What does the scripture say then about itself and understanding it?
How about doing what Philip did with the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 and begin at the same scripture. If 2 Peter 1:20 doesn't mean the bible interprets itself, then what DOES it mean? VP said either there's no interpretation possible, or it interprets itself. Sounds logical to me.
By the way, TWI aren't the only ones who believe that: when I was a WOW (77/78) I over heard a Christian bookstore worker tell a young couple that the bible interprets itself.
quote:It says a lot. I Corinthians 2:13 says " Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual with spiritual." Alas , the Holy Ghost is the teacher. Neither do we have to be concerned with excesses of words, because by definition the Holy Ghost teaches us what these words mean.
If that's all there is to it; that the holy ghost teaches us what the words mean, then why have a written bible in the first place? Surely the holy ghost doesn't need a written standard to teach us anything does it? Of course then there's that pesky old problem of 3000 different denominations all claiming to be Christian and all claiming to have the "proper" understanding of the bible. Maybe Colin Ferguson was right when he claimed that God spoke in an audible voice instructing him to kill those people on that subway 10 years or so ago. And maybe Nat Turner was also right when he claimed it was God's will for him and his slave buddies to kill 60 or so white people using OT scriptures to justify it.
So if you could, I'd like to know what 2 Peter 1:20 means if it doesn't mean that the bible interprets itself. Thanx.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
johniam:
Certainly fundamentalist believe also in the infallibility of scriptures also. I agree that the Word of God is infallible. I do not agree however that the written word is in a form that is infallible. Even the King James has some things that the Young's concordance points out are error. In addition it is removed from several different languages. God did that on purpose so that we would be more hung up on his person than on semantics of languages. It was on purpose that God did that. What I am saying is that in people everyday lives it is not necessary to sort out every dot and tick in order to have proper doctrine. The difference I believe is in the living word Jesus Christ. What I am saying is that the written word needs the anointing of the Holy Spirit
Secondly, I think that its all about application in our everyday lives. If we are obedient to the things God is teaching us, we get more . For example, in Revelation it says him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna. It therefore must come from the Lords hand.
With respect to the interprets itself thing, I am not saying that reading the Bible with only the content in mind is not a good idea or beneficial. All I am saying is that it is not the only ingredient necessary to understanding it. For example, The Psalms say who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Him that hath a clean heart, and pure hands who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity nor sworn deceitfully. The scripture is simply directional about how to live our lives. What I am saying is that scripture is primarily directed to application type matters. I bring up this matter of a clean spirit and cleanliness for a major reason. It is the one matter that most clearly causes people to error in there application of the Word of God. It is very easy to presume things about God and find out he is not interested in doing something we think he is. This is pivotal in my view. It means that we must sit at the feet of Jesus and grow. It is not an ever learning type thing either, it is an ever-growing thing.
If in fact man was born in this world with a spirit (because of sin) that was not cut off from God, you are correct man would not need the word in written form. Adam communicated with God before and after the fall. So did Abraham and other of the Patriarch's who did not have any form of guidance in writing.
What does that particular text mean? In perhaps the most mathematical type assertion that we were used to:
When you look at it a closely, it does say that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any ....... It only means just this(private interpretation)". Private interpretation meaning: it only means just this. That is precisely what it says. The word private being key and not being able to exclude yourself from something it might be down the road. Right? From this aspect drawing on precisely the same words from PAL, it says not to do what we were taught, which is to say it only means this. That is control. Some people dot like that. I in particular do. It means to me my understanding of it is increasing. This is consistent also with other scriptures. Collisions 1:10 "increasing in the knowledge of the Lord" Vs (saying increasing in the knowledge of the scriptures which it does not say.)I don't know fully. There may be an application for it that hasn't reached my understanding down the road. In this context, you may not agree or like what I am saying. I do think it means that we cannot limit the scripture to one particular application, nor can we control it and say this is the only thing it means.
With respect to the thousands of interpretations I agree that that has caused no end of controversy.
It is also the reason that we are discussing it today. As a young person I wanted to sort it all out also. The Spirit of God must have prominence in the interpetation though. Even if that causes us to struggle with certain things. That struggle , my friend, is what brings us to perfection as a person in the sight of Jesus Christ. My disagreement with this group was that that also was what they were trying to take away from me. That is to say, God's right to governance over what he was teaching me. The perfect word situation created a problem. I didn't need God anymore for instruction. That is simply not so at all.
With respect to those who have murdered with the Bible, you make my point exactly. It is all about pureness of heart. A corrupt heart is capable of twisting words in all kinds of ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
John:
You can also look at that scripture humorously. I think God has a good one. Idios bieng the Greek for private. Idios means ones own. VP made the argument that either it could or could not be interpreted. I agree then with both halves of V.P assertion. I do not agree that it can be only interpreted aka (thats the end of the matter) but that it has other meaning as well.
The humorous aspect is that we don't own it. (We really don't you know. I mean there his words not ours.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Johniam:
3rd post on the same deal:
I apologize for not laying it out mathematically. It's been years since I have thought this way.
Your comment:
Peter 1:20 doesn't mean the bible interprets itself, then what DOES it mean? VP said either there's no interpretation possible, or it interprets itself. Sounds logical to me.
VP said:
1) either there's no interpretation possible or
2) it interpets itself.
The key word is or meaning one or the other but not both,
My assertation is that it is both.
In my referencing I am talking about EVERYTHING being self explanatory.
My problem therefore was who needs God in the learning process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
VP said:
1) either there's no interpretation possible or
2) it interpets itself.
By saying both, I do not mean to say that I beleive #1 above(that there is no possibility), but that there is interpretation in addition to #2 above by the means I mentioned in my previous posts, Ie (application, the holy ghost etc.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Johniam:
I put those last 2 posts together in haste. There is a better way to say it. The words I posted are from you are of I presume the direct quote of VP. They are not therefore Gods words.
Your Comment:
VP said:
1) either there's no interpretation or
2) the Bible interprets itself.
You say this sounds logical. I say its not. This quote is an either or situation. You get to pick one and only one. Everyone agreed that number one is not possible, therefore you must pick number 2. I say that's not true. I do not disagree that #2 isn't helpful. (#2 is simply the obvious)
All I say is that #2 isn't the only situation for interpretation, that there is more much more.
It interprets in other ways as well such as:
1) The Holy Ghost and God and Jesus I Cor 2:13, II Corinth 3:6
2) ongoing application (inconsistencies sorted through application) Gal 6:2 ,6:5 example
3) itself as above (the obvious but not only itself) ie( Adultry is sin)
4) some is unrevealed or hidden Rev 2:17
5) historical stuff (as invisible Dan mentioned above which I am horrible at.)
6) Typology of Old Test stuff - (the tabernacle are figures of the true) Heb 9:9,24
7) Seeking (The Kingdom of God Matt 6:33, His Face (The Lord God)Psalm 27:8 , II Cor 3:18)
etc.
My view is that interpretation is larger than the comments you quoted. Neither did I one thing that VP did not do himself. His view was that it is only #2. I say that it is not. The things I listed prove logically that it is not (only number 2) Neither do no. 1,2,4,5,6,7 fit into number # 2 of the VP comment that you quoted. Why? because they are from other sources than the Bible "itself." Therefore I have proved mathematically and with certainty this statement you quoted is incorrect or an error.
I agree therefore that you can learn some things from "the Bible itself" just not all things from the Bible "itself".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
sky the posts are too long for me to read at the moment but i wanted to say hi and that i like you
oh and i like geo. and danny and johnnyam and raf and tommy s and darrell b
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
excath:
and I do apologize for being long winded. My problem is the scriptures and the Lord Jesus is something I have always been passionate about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Sky: VPs approach on this was purely logical: if God is truly the author of the bible, then the words must be perfect or God is not perfect. Consider that right before Peter wrote "no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" he called it a "more sure word of prophecy" than having hung out with Jesus.
The problem that evolved in TWI was that out of one side of their mouth they say "no private interpretation/the word interprets itself" but then they put their own 'seal of approval' on a particular application of scripture and say "we got this nailed down/ this is the right dividing of the word/ don't bother to think about it any more/ just move with it". I don't think that is good. People need to digest whatever they believe as truth.
Sure, God is perfect, but we're not. So if God authored the bible to us, He did so knowing we'd only be able to take it so far. Far enough to have a relationship with Him, but not far enough to know everything.
2 Peter 1:20 is good for stuff like the trinity or 'dead alive now'. Anyone who believes either of those has to at some point decide that they can interpret scripture any way they feel like it. For that matter, so does anyone who believes adultery is OK if they're spiritual enough to handle it.
My view is: what good is it to even have a bible if it has no godly authority?
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.