What is written in the bible is what we, as believers, should have been trusting. Instead, I think a lot of us let our lives be swayed by what was originating out of HQ without totally checking out what we were being "taught". Because we had been shown so much by vpw, we instinctively took what lcm & the rest continued to hand out as being 100% accurate. Big mistake!!! Oh well, we live, learn and then get on with our lives....... <_<
What is written in the bible is what we, as believers, should have been trusting. Instead, I think a lot of us let our lives be swayed by what was originating out of HQ without totally checking out what we were being "taught".
Railroader --- go to the head of the *class*!! ;)
I remember many times docvic said "Don't take my word for it, check it out yourselves" (or something to that effect).
I also remember everyone going "heh heh heh -- yea right. We don't need to check out YOUR research"
Complacency led to blind obedience, which led to ignorance, which was manifested in a *more than abysmal life*.
I've mentioned this story in other threads, but I have one piece of advice that VPW gave I have always followed, and it regards this subject and I really believe that he said this in ernest to me.
As stated above, he once told me, "Don't ever take anyones word for what the word of God says." Then after a pause, where he lock eyes with me and made sure he had my complete attention, he added placing emphisis on each word, "not even mine."
This is my fondest memory of him. and since that time I have followed that advice, which is one reason I am not longer with TWI.
Actually there are, imho, two problems with this topic. One is our failure to fully check out what "The Teacher" said. But the fault is not all ours. Weirwille encoraged us to accept his word. Contrary to what he said to Keith, what he told us in PFAL was "Read what's written. If it's wrong, I'll tell you." This statment, along with the 'no private interpretation' mantra conditioned us not to question the Bible or the Teacher.
As a result, Way people have learned to read the bible without really reading the Bible. We read it, but the message in our minds is not what's actually on the page, but what we've been taught to think about it. Just yesterday, I was thinking about Romans 12:3 and what I recalled was not what's actually written, but Vp's literal according to usage. We were conditioned to accept Weirwille's interpretation as "The Word".
That 's the first problem.
The other problem is the tendency to try to live according to the limitations of Scripture. God gave us holy spirit--a living connection with Him--for a reason. We're not designed to live our lives according to a collection of writings two milennia old. We're designed to live according to what our Father tells us to do by the Spirit. I've pretty much convinced myself that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. It is loaded with contradictions (why do you think there are so many factions among Fundamentalists?) Yet despite the fact that I know the Bible is not my "only rule for faith and practice", despite the fact that I know it was written by men who had fallacious expectations, I am still conditioned by that stupid mantra. When I can get fully past "the word, the word, and nothing but the Word", I will be fully free of the spiritual prison that we call Waybrain.
The other problem is the tendency to try to live according to the limitations of Scripture. God gave us holy spirit--a living connection with Him--for a reason. We're not designed to live our lives according to a collection of writings two milennia old. We're designed to live according to what our Father tells us to do by the Spirit. I've pretty much convinced myself that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. It is loaded with contradictions (why do you think there are so many factions among Fundamentalists?) Yet despite the fact that I know the Bible is not my "only rule for faith and practice", despite the fact that I know it was written by men who had fallacious expectations, I am still conditioned by that stupid mantra. When I can get fully past "the word, the word, and nothing but the Word", I will be fully free of the spiritual prison that we call Waybrain.
Judging from your post I think you've done exceedingly well, thereby disproving the notion that if "the Word contradicts itself in one place, everything else falls apart". Or something to that effect.
It can be quite a painful process surrendering the notion of an entirely, infallible Word.
But of all ironies, Jesus' parable of the field of wheat and tares - minus the later allegorical, eschatological interpretation appended to it (thereby restoring to the reader their right to personally and spiritually interpret such for themselves, as parables were originally intended in their function)-- can actually prove quite helpful. There is both truth ("wheat") in the Bible, and that planted alongside it ("tares") in the same "field". In other words, don't eat everything that grows in the "field" of this bible.
Infinitely more preferable to the "proof verses" (e.g., 2 Tim.3:16, written by one pretending to be "Paul") that were drilled in us - leading to the mentality of "it's either all of the Word or none of it is".
It's up to each reader to exercise their thinking and judgment - to weigh any idea in a passage from "root to fruit"- to determine the nature of an idea, from whence it originates. Whether it's truth, or whether it's baloney.
God gave us holy spirit--a living connection with Him--for a reason. We're not designed to live our lives according to a collection of writings two milennia old. We're designed to live according to what our Father tells us to do by the Spirit.
Jerry --- Great point! When I read that --- it got me to thinking about how the Pharisees lived according to the letter of the law (and didn't cut the mustard), and how Jesus transcended the *letter* of the law, (and followed it in it's entirety).
While I think that there is a viable reason for the *letter*, I can also see what you are saying about the Spirit. It makes sense that the two are co-dependant on each other, and to laud one over the other is an invitation for disaster.
And we have had plenty of that (theologically) past and present.
I guess you can be a Christian without believing that every word in the bible is true. I would imagine it frees up some time to live a Christ-like life if you're not spending so much time trying to make it all "fit like a hand in a glove".
I guess you can be a Christian without believing that every word in the bible is true. I would imagine it frees up some time to live a Christ-like life if you're not spending so much time trying to make it all "fit like a hand in a glove".
Oak --- did I just inadverdantly bolster your viewpoint??
I guess you can be a Christian without believing that every word in the bible is true. I would imagine it frees up some time to live a Christ-like life if you're not spending so much time trying to make it all "fit like a hand in a glove".
Oak,
This brings to mind some comments made by A. Powell Davies in his fascinating work, The First Christian: A Study of St. Paul and Christian Origins, Farrar, 1957;pp.1-2:
"The traditional story of Christian origins in well known and there are many who do not wish to subject it to closer examination. To these good people the work of scholars seems meddlesome and even destructive...[scholars] are not, as some would have it, attacking Christianity. Most Biblical scholars are members of a church (or synagogue) and many of them are professors devoted to the education of the ministry. What they believe (and their critics apparently do not) is that fidelity to truth is a sacred obligation and that nothing that suppresses truth is genuinely religious.
But then, it is objected, even though this be so, should not the findings of scholars be restricted to those who make a special study of such matters - other scholars and the educated clergy? Is it wise to share this knowledge with the uninitiated layman? What this really means is that the layman's faith must be based on ignorance or it may fall apart -an assumption which, when plainly stated, is rather shocking. Actually there is no more reason why the layman's faith should be damaged by knowledge of the truth than the faith of scholars or the clergy.
As to the effect of scholarship upon faith, let us take an illustrious example. Albert Schweitzer is a scholar. He rejects the traditional view of Christian origins, and for that matter, even the traditional view of Jesus. But Schweitzer, as is widely known, instead of being a man whose faith has been destroyed by his scholarship is a modern saint who has devoted his life to the welfare of the African tribesmen in remote Lambarene. What proof can there be that no conflict exists between a consecrated life and a scientific view of Christian history?..."
This brings to mind some comments made by A. Powell Davies in his fascinating work, The First Christian: A Study of St. Paul and Christian Origins, Farrar, 1957;pp.1-2:
"The traditional story of Christian origins in well known and there are many who do not wish to subject it to closer examination. To these good people the work of scholars seems meddlesome and even destructive...[scholars] are not, as some would have it, attacking Christianity. Most Biblical scholars are members of a church (or synagogue) and many of them are professors devoted to the education of the ministry. What they believe (and their critics apparently do not) is that fidelity to truth is a sacred obligation and that nothing that suppresses truth is genuinely religious.
But then, it is objected, even though this be so, should not the findings of scholars be restricted to those who make a special study of such matters - other scholars and the educated clergy? Is it wise to share this knowledge with the uninitiated layman? What this really means is that the layman's faith must be based on ignorance or it may fall apart -an assumption which, when plainly stated, is rather shocking. Actually there is no more reason why the layman's faith should be damaged by knowledge of the truth than the faith of scholars or the clergy.
As to the effect of scholarship upon faith, let us take an illustrious example. Albert Schweitzer is a scholar. He rejects the traditional view of Christian origins, and for that matter, even the traditional view of Jesus. But Schweitzer, as is widely known, instead of being a man whose faith has been destroyed by his scholarship is a modern saint who has devoted his life to the welfare of the African tribesmen in remote Lambarene. What proof can there be that no conflict exists between a consecrated life and a scientific view of Christian history?..."
Danny
So in other words, Schweitzer studied enough to realize the basic dogma's of Christian religions were flawed. So rather than continuing to try to find a perfect dogma, he tossed them aside and dedicated himself to helping his fellow man. Sounds like a plan to me. :-)
Jerry --- Great point! When I read that --- it got me to thinking about how the Pharisees lived according to the letter of the law (and didn't cut the mustard), and how Jesus transcended the *letter* of the law, (and followed it in it's entirety).
While I think that there is a viable reason for the *letter*, I can also see what you are saying about the Spirit. It makes sense that the two are co-dependant on each other, and to laud one over the other is an invitation for disaster.
And we have had plenty of that (theologically) past and present.
But any message we get from God has to be backed up by Scripture. The problem comes when we say the revelation we got from God goes against the book. The book is the best objective moral standard we have,
Too many times people get caught up in revelation knowledge and run wild with it. The desire to have that special knowledge that no else has is how twi got started in the first place.
In scholarly circles, they would just call gnosticism.
But any message we get from God has to be backed up by Scripture.
Why? Who says?
The book is the best objective moral standard we have....
Isn't that a subjective viewpoint? It precludes that one must believe that the Bible is the God-breated word, inerrant and not entirely put together by men with political agendas. It also precludes the notion that perhaps there might be scrolls and information that should have been included in the Bible. ;)
But any message we get from God has to be backed up by Scripture. The problem comes when we say the revelation we got from God goes against the book. The book is the best objective moral standard we have,
Too many times people get caught up in revelation knowledge and run wild with it. The desire to have that special knowledge that no else has is how twi got started in the first place.
In scholarly circles, they would just call gnosticism.
Nonsense Def. I got revelation last year about where to go to open a checking account. How do you back that up by Scripture? What if you get revelation not to go to work today? How are you going to check that against the Scripture? Or to refer to an incident I posted about on the revelation trhread, suppose you have a dream that your neighbor's child is in grave danger and should stay home. What chapter and verse are you going to go to for that?
That whole argument about people running wild with revelation knowledge is nothing but a scare tactic designed to keep people from trusting God and walking by the spirit. It elevates head knowledge and puts people's minds and lives in little boxes and nourishes legalism. What got TWI in trouble was the intellectual and spiritual dishonesty of "V.P. Weirwille" putting together an incoherent patchwork of other people's ideas and claiming it was the "rightly divided Word". If he had had the honesty to admit that there are things in the Bible that just don't fit and that we have to learn to walk in love and walk by the spirit because the answers are found in Chist, and not in the pages of a book, the groundwork may not have been laid for the hard-hearted legalistic, cruel, Pharisaic religion The Way is today. And my goodness that last sentence was way too long. :-)
...Wierwille taught Ephesians but refused to live it...
...He talked about every believer having their own access to God, he talked about walking by the spirit...but he wouldn't allow it. His organizational hierarchy stifled anyone from doing so...
The "Word", as it was affectionately called, was nothing more than a portal that led to the control of people's lives, by a religious organization.
Had Wierwille allowed every home fellowship to be truly independant, he would have lost his place as "the great MOG who orchestrated people's lives and made decisions FOR them"...The man didn't really believe what he taught.
I guess we should ask ourselves, if we believe we will appear before Jesus Christ at the bema, if we would rather tell him I rightly divided my King James Bible OR be able to say what we actually DID to help others.
Oh and I don't really think Jesus Christ will be too pleased that all we did was talk to those in need instead of actually giving them warmth, food etc
Recommended Posts
TheInvisibleDan
"The WOrd, the Word and nothing but the Word" = Biblatry - or "Bible worship".
Not a very healthy or smart position to be in, IMHO.
It is a small jump from there to worship someone's interpretations along with the book,
-which we shouldn't have been taught to worship to begin with.
Viewing the NT as an infallible superbook renders it a "letter that killeth" that contradicts the Spirit of freedom.
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yup -- I remember that , and fer what it is worth, that is a true statement, whether or not docvic said it! :)
If God is God, then what He says carries weight, and is worthy of perusal.
(My IMO) ;)
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
It sounded good, but Wierwille always got to decide what "the Word" was, didn't he?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yup -- he did. And LCM after him -- and I lay the blame at my doorstep for believing them, instead of the source. :(
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
railroader
What is written in the bible is what we, as believers, should have been trusting. Instead, I think a lot of us let our lives be swayed by what was originating out of HQ without totally checking out what we were being "taught". Because we had been shown so much by vpw, we instinctively took what lcm & the rest continued to hand out as being 100% accurate. Big mistake!!! Oh well, we live, learn and then get on with our lives....... <_<
Edited by railroaderLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Railroader --- go to the head of the *class*!! ;)
I remember many times docvic said "Don't take my word for it, check it out yourselves" (or something to that effect).
I also remember everyone going "heh heh heh -- yea right. We don't need to check out YOUR research"
Complacency led to blind obedience, which led to ignorance, which was manifested in a *more than abysmal life*.
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
dmiller, you hit the nail right on the head. That often was our attitude about checking out Wierwille.
Shame on us.
Shame on him for encouraging it
I hope we all learned
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
I've mentioned this story in other threads, but I have one piece of advice that VPW gave I have always followed, and it regards this subject and I really believe that he said this in ernest to me.
As stated above, he once told me, "Don't ever take anyones word for what the word of God says." Then after a pause, where he lock eyes with me and made sure he had my complete attention, he added placing emphisis on each word, "not even mine."
This is my fondest memory of him. and since that time I have followed that advice, which is one reason I am not longer with TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
railroader
Some food for thought from an old war horse who never took anything for granted. Maybe we should have heeded him.
*************************************************************
Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results.
George S. Patton
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Actually there are, imho, two problems with this topic. One is our failure to fully check out what "The Teacher" said. But the fault is not all ours. Weirwille encoraged us to accept his word. Contrary to what he said to Keith, what he told us in PFAL was "Read what's written. If it's wrong, I'll tell you." This statment, along with the 'no private interpretation' mantra conditioned us not to question the Bible or the Teacher.
As a result, Way people have learned to read the bible without really reading the Bible. We read it, but the message in our minds is not what's actually on the page, but what we've been taught to think about it. Just yesterday, I was thinking about Romans 12:3 and what I recalled was not what's actually written, but Vp's literal according to usage. We were conditioned to accept Weirwille's interpretation as "The Word".
That 's the first problem.
The other problem is the tendency to try to live according to the limitations of Scripture. God gave us holy spirit--a living connection with Him--for a reason. We're not designed to live our lives according to a collection of writings two milennia old. We're designed to live according to what our Father tells us to do by the Spirit. I've pretty much convinced myself that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. It is loaded with contradictions (why do you think there are so many factions among Fundamentalists?) Yet despite the fact that I know the Bible is not my "only rule for faith and practice", despite the fact that I know it was written by men who had fallacious expectations, I am still conditioned by that stupid mantra. When I can get fully past "the word, the word, and nothing but the Word", I will be fully free of the spiritual prison that we call Waybrain.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Judging from your post I think you've done exceedingly well, thereby disproving the notion that if "the Word contradicts itself in one place, everything else falls apart". Or something to that effect.
It can be quite a painful process surrendering the notion of an entirely, infallible Word.
But of all ironies, Jesus' parable of the field of wheat and tares - minus the later allegorical, eschatological interpretation appended to it (thereby restoring to the reader their right to personally and spiritually interpret such for themselves, as parables were originally intended in their function)-- can actually prove quite helpful. There is both truth ("wheat") in the Bible, and that planted alongside it ("tares") in the same "field". In other words, don't eat everything that grows in the "field" of this bible.
Infinitely more preferable to the "proof verses" (e.g., 2 Tim.3:16, written by one pretending to be "Paul") that were drilled in us - leading to the mentality of "it's either all of the Word or none of it is".
It's up to each reader to exercise their thinking and judgment - to weigh any idea in a passage from "root to fruit"- to determine the nature of an idea, from whence it originates. Whether it's truth, or whether it's baloney.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Jerry --- Great point! When I read that --- it got me to thinking about how the Pharisees lived according to the letter of the law (and didn't cut the mustard), and how Jesus transcended the *letter* of the law, (and followed it in it's entirety).
While I think that there is a viable reason for the *letter*, I can also see what you are saying about the Spirit. It makes sense that the two are co-dependant on each other, and to laud one over the other is an invitation for disaster.
And we have had plenty of that (theologically) past and present.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Jerry & Dan:
I guess you can be a Christian without believing that every word in the bible is true. I would imagine it frees up some time to live a Christ-like life if you're not spending so much time trying to make it all "fit like a hand in a glove".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Oak --- did I just inadverdantly bolster your viewpoint??
:lol: :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Oak,
This brings to mind some comments made by A. Powell Davies in his fascinating work, The First Christian: A Study of St. Paul and Christian Origins, Farrar, 1957;pp.1-2:
"The traditional story of Christian origins in well known and there are many who do not wish to subject it to closer examination. To these good people the work of scholars seems meddlesome and even destructive...[scholars] are not, as some would have it, attacking Christianity. Most Biblical scholars are members of a church (or synagogue) and many of them are professors devoted to the education of the ministry. What they believe (and their critics apparently do not) is that fidelity to truth is a sacred obligation and that nothing that suppresses truth is genuinely religious.
But then, it is objected, even though this be so, should not the findings of scholars be restricted to those who make a special study of such matters - other scholars and the educated clergy? Is it wise to share this knowledge with the uninitiated layman? What this really means is that the layman's faith must be based on ignorance or it may fall apart -an assumption which, when plainly stated, is rather shocking. Actually there is no more reason why the layman's faith should be damaged by knowledge of the truth than the faith of scholars or the clergy.
As to the effect of scholarship upon faith, let us take an illustrious example. Albert Schweitzer is a scholar. He rejects the traditional view of Christian origins, and for that matter, even the traditional view of Jesus. But Schweitzer, as is widely known, instead of being a man whose faith has been destroyed by his scholarship is a modern saint who has devoted his life to the welfare of the African tribesmen in remote Lambarene. What proof can there be that no conflict exists between a consecrated life and a scientific view of Christian history?..."
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
B) <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
So in other words, Schweitzer studied enough to realize the basic dogma's of Christian religions were flawed. So rather than continuing to try to find a perfect dogma, he tossed them aside and dedicated himself to helping his fellow man. Sounds like a plan to me. :-)
Thanks Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
But any message we get from God has to be backed up by Scripture. The problem comes when we say the revelation we got from God goes against the book. The book is the best objective moral standard we have,
Too many times people get caught up in revelation knowledge and run wild with it. The desire to have that special knowledge that no else has is how twi got started in the first place.
In scholarly circles, they would just call gnosticism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Isn't that a subjective viewpoint? It precludes that one must believe that the Bible is the God-breated word, inerrant and not entirely put together by men with political agendas. It also precludes the notion that perhaps there might be scrolls and information that should have been included in the Bible. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Nonsense Def. I got revelation last year about where to go to open a checking account. How do you back that up by Scripture? What if you get revelation not to go to work today? How are you going to check that against the Scripture? Or to refer to an incident I posted about on the revelation trhread, suppose you have a dream that your neighbor's child is in grave danger and should stay home. What chapter and verse are you going to go to for that?
That whole argument about people running wild with revelation knowledge is nothing but a scare tactic designed to keep people from trusting God and walking by the spirit. It elevates head knowledge and puts people's minds and lives in little boxes and nourishes legalism. What got TWI in trouble was the intellectual and spiritual dishonesty of "V.P. Weirwille" putting together an incoherent patchwork of other people's ideas and claiming it was the "rightly divided Word". If he had had the honesty to admit that there are things in the Bible that just don't fit and that we have to learn to walk in love and walk by the spirit because the answers are found in Chist, and not in the pages of a book, the groundwork may not have been laid for the hard-hearted legalistic, cruel, Pharisaic religion The Way is today. And my goodness that last sentence was way too long. :-)
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...Wierwille taught Ephesians but refused to live it...
...He talked about every believer having their own access to God, he talked about walking by the spirit...but he wouldn't allow it. His organizational hierarchy stifled anyone from doing so...
The "Word", as it was affectionately called, was nothing more than a portal that led to the control of people's lives, by a religious organization.
Had Wierwille allowed every home fellowship to be truly independant, he would have lost his place as "the great MOG who orchestrated people's lives and made decisions FOR them"...The man didn't really believe what he taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penguin
I guess we should ask ourselves, if we believe we will appear before Jesus Christ at the bema, if we would rather tell him I rightly divided my King James Bible OR be able to say what we actually DID to help others.
Oh and I don't really think Jesus Christ will be too pleased that all we did was talk to those in need instead of actually giving them warmth, food etc
Edited by penguinLink 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.