TheEvan

I wasn't invited. Sniff.

The poster was making the point that wierwille was trinitarian (he was still teaching along trinitarian lines in the Way mag as late as '63, I believe, if memory serves me) and wondering out loud what might have turned him. I think it's a good question. I don't believe the explanation in the intro of JCING, that he turned because of the inexorable pull of scripture, seemingly against his will, put him face to face with the inescapable conclusion. He came to NO OTHER conclusion or belief that way and I seriously doubt he came to this conclusion in the manner he claims. Again, good question. Based on his grandstanding after coming out with the book (nailing some declaration to the door of his childhood church, innumerable letters to the local paper, etc) I tend to think he chose it as a point of sharp differentiation...a way to 'divide and conquer', so to speak, and gain a sense of exclusivity with his followers.

Lovely posts, Sunesis & MarkO. I've nothing to add.

I think "sonship rights" is a dangerous misnomer. Yes, certain blessings and qualities are granted (grace), but nowhere in the Bible are they called a "right", nor the converse, "privilege". Seeing the Bible doesn't bother naming them with a category, the honest workman would wonder in what light these blessings are presented. Wierwille calling them rights was part of the whole man-focused theology of what's in it for me. Rather than "asserting my rights" with the Lord I would much rather approach Him in a spirit of yielding, not of demanding my rights.

Good call on the Resphigi. You might also like Dvorak's New World Symphony, Mendelssohn's Hebrides Overture & his Reformation Symphony. For modern religious, Arvo Part's anything is great, though some can be brooding. John Tavener's choral music is fantastic.

Hey, didn't realize my buds were posting in here. Hi guys!

My sisters & I & my wife got a great deal out of it. As did my kids in the youth version. But we're not and weren't then tiptoeing the thin line of emotional instability. I'd never actively promote it to somebody. Nevertheless, I'm glad I did it and had no problem with signing the hold-harmless. Those who had a bad experience, sorry. I hope you learn to deal with it. Those who never did but love to snipe from the gallery, snipe on!

New baby is finally in the house, after 13 months of gestation...

I love the Great Rift Valley in the rainy season...'tis beautiful in green & flowers, though it makes a Maasai hut a bit too rich for me as they're plastered with cow crap. You made me think of a night when we had a gathering with a Maasai village and somebody fired up a generator to power one bare bulb. In no time that place was crawling with things I didn't know exist...really freaky stuff...along with the biggest, blackest, shinest scorpions I've ever seen. I had to resist the urge to scream like a banshee and bolt out into the darkness. But then I rememebered that outside is where they 'keep' the lions & hyenas.

Thanks, starbird. That was an excellent synopsis of the bad fruit I, too, experienced in the Way. That's the false religion you're speaking of, right?

Hmmm, not a banjo?

Really nice, Raf. I'll go on to say that "believing" or "positive believing" have no power whatsoever to cause anything to happen or not happen. The only power they have is to influence the attitudes and actions of the person, sometimes to the point of bringing the "believed for" thing into reality, through their own efforts. Of course, then folks will say 'I believed for it and God did it'. No He didn't. He does what He wants, not what you or I want.

Lisa, I'm heartbroken to lose "LG" and I hurt for you as well. As time goes on I hope you'll take solace in the beauty of your relationship with him as well as the time you had to hold each other until the end...

That's not 'honest discussion' (the title of this thread), it's misrepresenting what your other side thinks then flogging it. I forget which logical fallacy that is. I don't understand the hostility. We should be able to have a reasonable discussion. But you posts raise a point germane to any doctrinal discussion, and that is the so-called 'keys to interpretation'. I think a reason Wierwille and his followers fell into some grievous errors was a glaring logical fallacy Wierwille presented in his class: In expounding on this he says something like: So if I dare not interpret it and you dare not interpret it, by sheer logic the only way is that the Bible interprets itself. ! Whoah, that's a huge leap, snatched out of the blue. Both Daniel & Joseph noted that interpretations belong to God and Jesus declared it was the Holy Spirit who would guide us into the truth. When the Bible is turned into a Magic Walking Talking Self Interpreting organism (in true Bible-worshipping fashion) a few things happen. -The Bible takes on an exaggerated place in the life of the Christian to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit. -Application of keys rather than humbless, holiness and devotion becomes the path to enlightened knowledge. Which led to the institutional arrogance typified by the Way. -A proper sense of mystery and unfathomability is lost. I contend (and I'll spare you the biblical footnotes in support) that the Bible is a closed book that will only yield its mysteries to those who approach the Lord humbly through Christ. It matters not how large one's "key ring" is, it is a spiritual book and must be revealed by God's Spirit in order to see the spiritual God behind the printed page. Application to the subject at hand: In that both the Trinity and the "Godhead According To Wierwille" are incomplete reductions of the unfathomable, they should succeed at showing us all a sense of wonder and mystery of a Being whose fulness is quite beyond the capacity of the human mind to grasp. Unfortunately, too many take them to be a complete explanation and lose the sense of mystery. There's another expression of the Godhead not yet mentioned in this thread, and one to which I don't subscribe but is subscribed to by many non-trinitarian Pentecostals, the so-called "Oneness" doctrine. I encourage you to read up on it. An over-simplistic reduction could be "there is only one God, and His name is Jesus". Check it out.

Could you elaborate, lindy?

It is a separate issue. While I have not fully embraced the Trinity as the best explanation of the Godhead, coming to understand Jesus as God was much easier.-He is the express image of God's person. Another way of saying that is "Jesus' image (ie, His physical presence) is what God 'would look like' in person. The expression "God come in the flesh" is apt. -On a related note, the "fulness of the Godhead bodily dwelleth in my Lord". For me the path began with believing in Jesus' divinity. My Waybrain chafed at the idea that Jesus might be "divine". But if He is the Son of God, what's not divine about Him? From there, the scriptures that declare Him to be God became clear to me. The quote from the poet illustrates a point that came up elsewhere in this thread...that the knowlege of the Holy isn't always about logic, and it certainly isn't about human reasining. A prerequisite to receiving the knowledge of God is to start with a sense of awe at His Glory. His knowledge comes by the Holy Spirit, not keys, as you know. sorry I was unclear. Starbird, if we are to have an honest discussion I think you'll have understand that everybody posting here is doing so on scriptural evidence. Your points are offered as a non-sequiter without an opportunity to offer a scriptural counterpoint. We're having an "honest discussion" here, not a sparring session. I respect you scriptural view, though I certainly disagree.

In the words of the great Elizabethan poet: "all knowledge that begins not with His glory is but a giddy, but a vertiginous circle, but an elaborate and exquisite ignorance." ---John Donne

Entire books have been written on the topic, I believe.

Bob's song reflects the gross misunderstanding of the Trinity propagated in Der Veg. def answered the points well.

Thanks Cynic. Actually that does help. For me then, the next question that arises is what of the baptism of the Holy Spirit? (BTW, I jettisoned the impersonal object "holyspirit™" long ago). You also raise the soteriological point: I like that, though a few difficulties spring immediately to mind. The Wierwillology of "holyspirit" is just too weird for me for the very points you raise. Mark, "and the Son" seems to be supported by scripture if memory serves. But I have no time to look it up for the moment. I remember seeing that in the Creed at some point.

I think I remember reading that Huntsville has the highest per capita ratio of engineers in the USA. Perfect for a pocket protector maven like Garth. :P

From tonight's local newscast:

Whoah, I looked at it again and I'm thinking that's ATLANTA! :o

Really now. Now, that was stupid. Thanks. (I'll bet an equal number, more or less, of those dummies voted for the two sides. Possibly more for Dems as it looks like a big city)

Potato, you queried, which, I think, is referring to "God is not a man that He should lie". In regards to lying, God is not a man. Very true. But that's shaky ground to build a concept of who Christ is. Awfully shaky. Jesus was the Word made flesh. The express image of His person. The fulness of the Godhead bodily dwelt in Him. I believe He is God incarnate, meaning, God come in the flesh. Thankfully, I haven't seen in this thread the straw man that Way-style 'unitarians' love to flog: That trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Father. No they don't. Read up on the doctrine before you flog that straw man. Now, I accept Jesus' divinity unequivocally, and his eternal existence. Where I balk at trinitarian dogma is the notion of the Holy Spirit as a distinct person of the Trinity. I see him as a descriptive aspect of God, much like "the Almighty" that describes that aspect of his divine nature. I'll need help to see him as a distinct person of the Trinity. Hi, sonofarthur. Where y'at these days? Still in Denton?