The person who wrote this received a degree for it? Shoot, they ought to pass out a few of those degrees to a few writers here, beginning with you, Raf.
Yes, it's a lot to take in (but what Thesis isn't?).
But it's an excellent and scholarly expose of Wierwille's logical flaws and assumptions and shows clearly he could not have been taught the Word as it had not been taught since the first century.
I especially recommend it to Mike - might make him think again about PFAL!
Single. And can you do me a favor? Make it real small. And print it 1,000 times. You can hand it to me in a scroll. No need to waste money on wood; just wrap it around a cylindrical piece of cardboard.
Whew! A lot to take in all right. That guy twists a lot of what VPW says.
For instance, on page 47 he quotes VPW asking "How can God who is spirit, communicate with man, who is flesh?" and cites it as a logical fallacy of "begging the question" by definition, or something like that. Then on pages 67 and 68 (is that a song by Chicago?) he asks "If spirit cannot conmmunicate with flesh, can flesh communicate with spirit? If not..." so he does the same thing he accuses VPW of doing.
Then a page or 2 later he says VPW thinks the gift of holy spirit is a "part of God". I don't recall VPW saying that. Part of the believer, yes. Part of God, no. That guy has some rigid laws of logic of his own.
Actually, Dicks is not doing the same thing as Wierwille. I am not even sure that Dicks is quoting Wierwille there. What Dicks is doing is testing Wierwille's logic and reasoning and showing how it is faulty.
Wierwille states that spirit cannot communicate with flesh. Wierwille states this as a "law" (definition).
Dicks argues (correctly I think) that in Wierwille's theology that this "Law" defines how the scripures are to be understood in regards to such question as "How can God, who is spirit, communicate with man, who is flesh?"
Dicks then goes on to question and test Wierwille's "law" by asking the question,"can spirit communicate with flesh?" he goes on to say:
"To say that "spirit cannot communicate with
flesh" and establish it as such an authoritative
statement as a "law of logic" is to establish
an irrefutable position by means of a definition
and not by means of empirical investigation.
Thus, Wierwille begs the question at issue.
Dicks is correct. Wierwille offers no emperical data or scriptural evidence to support his Law. It is a classical example of logic fallacy. It does not necessarily mean that Wierwille is wrong, just that his logic and reasoning are fallacious.
Dicks goes on to note that Wierwille never defines "communicate" or why spirit cannot communicate with flesh. Dick also notes as I did in a previous post here that this law contratdicts Wierwilles own argument.
Wiewille says that God being spirit cannot communicate with the mind. As proof he cites his "law" that "spirit cannot communicate with flesh".
By Wierwille's own law then one must conclude that holy spirit, being spirit, also cannot communicate with flesh. However, Wierwille's doctrine on the holy spirit, renewed mind, etc contradicts this law since Wierwille clearly taught the the holy spirit can communicate with the mind (flesh).
Again, we can see the faulty logic and reasoning. And again it does not necessiarily mean that all that Wierwille taught in this area is wrong (a fallacious argument can sometimes come to a correct conclusion). However, seeing this faulty logic should highly suggest to those of us that rely on Wierwille's laws - to take a much deeper look.
We should address his concerns about gnosticism and its alleged influences on vpw and us.
Also, I believe we need to look beyond TWi-influenced teachers and scholars to gain a better and fuller understanding of what Christianity is all about.
quote: My conclusion regarding how Wierwille arrives at his anthropology, pneumatology and consequent soteriology is that he gets there any way he can. Wierwille appears to have a
preconceived theology which he attempts to fortify by prooftexting. This promoting of his preconceived theology can be observed in his concocted hermeneutical principles, self imposed
"laws," appeals to minor textual variant readings and his selective choosing of certain Biblical texts while ignoring other relevant texts.
quote:According to Wierwille's system of thinking, then, no one can obtain salvation. Neither does his theology lead anyone to salvation according to Biblical theology. The
apostle Paul warned that there were false Christs, false spirits and false gospels (II Cor. 11:4). Wierwille's theology contains all three of these false beliefs. Therefore,
any questions as to whether Wierwille's followers have received the Holy Spirit or whether they are born-again must
be answered in the negative.
If this is the best he can persuade, I'm unimpressed.
quote:This may be applied to trinitarians as well.
So if someone tells you that your face is dirty, what do you do? Look at their face and take comfort in the fact that it is also dirty? Their dirty face does not make yours clean.
The fact that trinitarians also use fallacious logic based upon a preconceived theology does nothing to get Wierwille's faulty heremenutics and errant "laws" off the hook.
quote:According to Wierwille's system of thinking, then, no one can obtain salvation. Neither does his theology lead anyone to salvation according to Biblical theology. The
apostle Paul warned that there were false Christs, false spirits and false gospels (II Cor. 11:4). Wierwille's theology contains all three of these false beliefs. Therefore,
any questions as to whether Wierwille's followers have received the Holy Spirit or whether they are born-again must
be answered in the negative.
If this is the best he can persuade, I'm unimpressed.
I agree with you here Oldies. Here DIck's use of faulty reasonining based on his theological bias rears it's ugly head.
But this is his worse not his best. Other parts of his thesis are actually quite good.
Recommended Posts
TheInvisibleDan
The person who wrote this received a degree for it? Shoot, they ought to pass out a few of those degrees to a few writers here, beginning with you, Raf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You flatterer you.
I take it you received my check.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Raf. The lines are widely spaced and a lot of the pages consist of appendices.
Its still a lot to swallow though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Yes, it's a lot to take in (but what Thesis isn't?).
But it's an excellent and scholarly expose of Wierwille's logical flaws and assumptions and shows clearly he could not have been taught the Word as it had not been taught since the first century.
I especially recommend it to Mike - might make him think again about PFAL!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I ran across this thesis a couple of years ago when doing a Google search on "Pike's Peak Theological Seminary"
One of the best pieces I have read so far on Wierwille.
I recommend it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Raf,
For 50 bucks I'll send you a Masters degree from the Silicon Hills Institute of Theology.
For 50 bucks more, I'll make it a PhD.
You can even pick the paper - single or double ply?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Single. And can you do me a favor? Make it real small. And print it 1,000 times. You can hand it to me in a scroll. No need to waste money on wood; just wrap it around a cylindrical piece of cardboard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Whew! A lot to take in all right. That guy twists a lot of what VPW says.
For instance, on page 47 he quotes VPW asking "How can God who is spirit, communicate with man, who is flesh?" and cites it as a logical fallacy of "begging the question" by definition, or something like that. Then on pages 67 and 68 (is that a song by Chicago?) he asks "If spirit cannot conmmunicate with flesh, can flesh communicate with spirit? If not..." so he does the same thing he accuses VPW of doing.
Then a page or 2 later he says VPW thinks the gift of holy spirit is a "part of God". I don't recall VPW saying that. Part of the believer, yes. Part of God, no. That guy has some rigid laws of logic of his own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
muy interesante!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Johniam,
Actually, Dicks is not doing the same thing as Wierwille. I am not even sure that Dicks is quoting Wierwille there. What Dicks is doing is testing Wierwille's logic and reasoning and showing how it is faulty.
Wierwille states that spirit cannot communicate with flesh. Wierwille states this as a "law" (definition).
Dicks argues (correctly I think) that in Wierwille's theology that this "Law" defines how the scripures are to be understood in regards to such question as "How can God, who is spirit, communicate with man, who is flesh?"
Dicks then goes on to question and test Wierwille's "law" by asking the question,"can spirit communicate with flesh?" he goes on to say:
"To say that "spirit cannot communicate with
flesh" and establish it as such an authoritative
statement as a "law of logic" is to establish
an irrefutable position by means of a definition
and not by means of empirical investigation.
Thus, Wierwille begs the question at issue.
Dicks is correct. Wierwille offers no emperical data or scriptural evidence to support his Law. It is a classical example of logic fallacy. It does not necessarily mean that Wierwille is wrong, just that his logic and reasoning are fallacious.
Dicks goes on to note that Wierwille never defines "communicate" or why spirit cannot communicate with flesh. Dick also notes as I did in a previous post here that this law contratdicts Wierwilles own argument.
Wiewille says that God being spirit cannot communicate with the mind. As proof he cites his "law" that "spirit cannot communicate with flesh".
By Wierwille's own law then one must conclude that holy spirit, being spirit, also cannot communicate with flesh. However, Wierwille's doctrine on the holy spirit, renewed mind, etc contradicts this law since Wierwille clearly taught the the holy spirit can communicate with the mind (flesh).
Again, we can see the faulty logic and reasoning. And again it does not necessiarily mean that all that Wierwille taught in this area is wrong (a fallacious argument can sometimes come to a correct conclusion). However, seeing this faulty logic should highly suggest to those of us that rely on Wierwille's laws - to take a much deeper look.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
This guy's critiques sound like ones I have heard of the "Da Vinci Code."
Gnostic influences on Vpw?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
It was long and interesting.
We should address his concerns about gnosticism and its alleged influences on vpw and us.
Also, I believe we need to look beyond TWi-influenced teachers and scholars to gain a better and fuller understanding of what Christianity is all about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Gnostic influences on Wierwille?
Not wittingly, and not in specific, but in the general sense of there being inside "secret" knowledge known by the insiders...YES.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I always wanted to know what the E.W. in E.W. Kenyon stood for.
"Essek William"
Kewl.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
If this is the best he can persuade, I'm unimpressed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Om
Not to derail this thread, but check Christianity Today web site -see history and see where the gnostic influence came in to the church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Oldies,
So if someone tells you that your face is dirty, what do you do? Look at their face and take comfort in the fact that it is also dirty? Their dirty face does not make yours clean.
The fact that trinitarians also use fallacious logic based upon a preconceived theology does nothing to get Wierwille's faulty heremenutics and errant "laws" off the hook.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I agree with you here Oldies. Here DIck's use of faulty reasonining based on his theological bias rears it's ugly head.
But this is his worse not his best. Other parts of his thesis are actually quite good.
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.