TLC

I may have several (different) copies, if I didn't toss them (I don't remember.) That page was in a binder, following a pfal syllabus (forgot to check the date on it, will have to do that later), so I'm not sure if it was part of it or if it was something that I stuck in there sometime later. (Hadn't looked at it in years, and certain memories have a way of fading.) Proof of faithfulness to abundant sharing and *active promotion* of The Way and PFAL was a prereq for the AC? Well shiver me timbers. Couldn't have been enforced very well...

Great questions, but I doubt you'll have much luck getting any answers (or at least, straight answers) from them. I haven't checked much more than a cursory read or two of some of Von Schoenheit's take on administrations, but it appears that he differs (correctly, in my opinion) from twi on "the Christ Administration" and adds a change (with Noah) after the flood. However, like twi (or, like Scofield or Ironsides if you prefer to step back further), they stick with the thinking that Pentecost (in Acts 2) ushered in another. Personally, I'm inclined to think they all (vpw, twi, and these offshoots) would have been better off giving some of Cornelius Stam's work some thought or attention, rather than give as much as they seem to have given Welch, Bullinger, or the aforementioned Ironsides & Scofield (and possibly others)... but as I stated once already in a thread somewhere here on GSC, I don't think that any one person nowadays (probably by divine design or intent) has "all the right answers." (With Paul possibly having been the only exception, a man with a life that no reasonably sane person would, could, or should ever honestly dare to equate themselves with...)

Well, out of curiosity, I pulled out some old notes & pfal materials (yeah, I still have some)... and found this old "Your Continued Spiritual Growth" sheet talking about the "Home Study Lessons. I guess it was or became part of the pfal syllabus (c.1975 ?), but maybe I just didn't pay much attention to it. In it was this this line: "Your basic library should be your Bible, The Way material, and a concordance as you continue in your Christian walk."

lol... how clever of him. Thank you for the added insight. He sure was into the "tradition" thing (as long as he laid out exactly what the right traditions were...) Well, if you were to look at what I said previously and consider it a little more carefully, I think you actually just added a lot of support and give much more credence to it. (Which, you'll no doubt want a further explanation of.) For starters, I didn't say that I thought he modeled it after the Book of Acts. I poignantly and specifically said that it appeared to me to "reflect an attempt of vpw to model things after the way the early church might have operated in Jerusalem, and not after what is depicted in the Pauline epistles." What I didn't expound upon (but mustn't be overlooked) is how the apostles that were in Jerusalem might have controlled and directed their ministry outreach program to all of Israel, and/or how it may have been so greatly different from Paul's. Considering that I believe there were two gospels involved in the Book of Acts, I strongly oppose any effort to blenderize them together into one (which in effect, is what most of Christendom seems intent on doing.) Furthermore, as I recall it (and if I have this right), Bullinger himself didn't think the modern church age started on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. He put it after the close of Acts 28. (Which is the primary difference between dispensationalists and Bullingner's ultradispensationalism.) Personally, I don't see it as being either of these, as I see the break (or change, if you prefer) happening with Saul-->Paul. Perhaps it needs its own thread to discuss this further. Maybe you're right, DWBH. I was going strictly from memory, and how I might have perceived it. Perhaps I am mixing things I heard him say at other times with it, and I'd have to (fat chance) listen to that session of the class again to be sure. The point was, it wasn't TWI collaterals. (That was something that came afterwards.)

Yes, of course. Lazy fingers and bad eyes aren't a good combination late at night. Thanks for the correction. No surprise, but I'm not as familiar with Welch's writings. (Nothing listed here caught my attention at first glance.) My main point was that he thought it was his most significant work. I don't know... maybe he just had to work harder at extracting and compiling it from Bullinger.

No, I simply think that many times things here are looked at and/or stated in the extremes. I don't think that anyone associated with it, either in similar fashion to, or for as long as I was, wasn't changed in one way or another as a result. In short, it's not likely that we would be who or what we are today had we not been. And, not unlike other trying events or situations in life, where we end up and/or the "lenses" that use to view life with varies from person to person. In spite of all the issues, problems or difficulties, I can look back on some number of things and see where God worked with me, in spite of many good/bad situations and/or my own strengths, shortcomings and/or failures. There's no question that there are a lot of things to "stew" over. But facts are facts, and they're not just semantics. And just because some people seemed to bow down and kiss the ring of certain ministry leadership, doesn't mean that everyone else did likewise and worshipped the ground that vpw walked on (either at the beginning or at the end), nor does it mean that some psychoanalyst somewhere can now paint everyone with the same stroke of the brush and/or "wash" everyone clean with some offering of philosophical wisdom or miracle detergent. And read what? TWI's material? You bumped your head if you think that. It was to read the Pauline epistles. But how many people do you think actually did that? None, that I knew or ever heard of... Again, to see it only (or merely) as "always opposed, and always one or the other" pushes that to the very extreme edge of reason or sanity... something which I honestly suspect very few actually did. And where does the "wisdom of God" enter that picture? Is there never any room or option for it?

They don't? Guess I wasn't aware of that. (Then again, '92 was some time after being distanced from HQ.)

Yes. But to further clarify, I meant "the way tree" wasn't from the git-go. (and not that I think the tree thing was okay at first, but that later it got screwed up. "It" was jacked up from its inception... which to me appears to reflect an attempt of vpw to model things after the way the early church might have operated in Jerusalem, and not after what is depicted in the Pauline epistles.)

Yeah, the tree thing was pretty jacked up, as mentioned other places already. (But,it wasn't always that way or from the "git-go.") And it wasn't always like that either. Seems like we must have lived in different eras, or parts of the country, or something... yeah, but there was a time when most of these manifestations were done on a "first to get to it" request. If you didn't care or really want to, you just didn't. Well, there were exceptions. (It's a fact, as I was one...) But yes, I did do both of the above. Indeed it is. And I'm not denying that manipulation is also everywhere around us. We just have to learn to recognize and deal with where there are (or were) heavier concentrations of it.

Done sometime in the 50's, he actually considered it his most significant book. (...perhaps he thought it to be his most original.)

Because they've been mentioned 4 or 5 times already in this thread, 3 of which (including the first) were by your very highly respected pal, DWBH, in this post: Which stirred this response from you: Discussions wander, as that's their nature, especially on such an elusive subject as this. If you object so vehemently to my post, you're certainly free to report them for removal. Fact is, given your early suggestion to ignore me, I probably wouldn't even be here posting to you in this thread right now if it weren't for the interest expressed by krys in discussing things further. Furthermore, I actually posted a rather succinct, very carefully phrased definition of an apostle that elicited no comments or responses thus far. Evidently, I must not have the right title, nametag, or position that what I said warranted any of your attention or honest consideration, aside from sparking the abundant criticism that you've thrown my direction. But, whatever. It's no skin off my nose.

Seriously? Did you miss what I wrote in the following post (on this thread) from a couple of weeks ago? And as for these comments: Why do you view my asking you to further explain what your thinking is concerning how "modeling your life" after how Jesus actually lived while on this earth (which I briefly stated, but have no problem substantiating with scripture), when it appears to contradict what Paul plainly wrote in 2 Cor.5:16? Because I then offer what appears to be the simplest or most obvious possibilities? It appears that you're now merely trying to dodge the (logical and succinct) question. (Though, if I were to be argumentative, I would call you out the rather condescending nature of your response to my post.)

If you did that, then wouldn't you be endeavoring to live your life as a Jew (according to all the law), and your outreach message would be designed to and for the nation of Israel (as was his)? And what do you do with 2Cor.5:16? Cut it out of the Bible? Or, do you discard Paul's epistles whenever or where ever they disagree with you?

If it's the same Christ (the one and only) in you, then why think or suppose that you have (or would need) anything else (as in, "spirit") from him (or God)? Sure, I know what was taught (and what is predominantly thought) in pfal and twi. But what if something isn't quite right in how "body, soul & spirit" is taught from Genesis? What do the scriptures actually say concerning this "gift of holy spirit" from God? Gal. 4 [6] And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Where did (or do) we get the idea that once we have (the ascended) Christ (aka, "a quickening spirit") living within us that "it"(?) is now "my spirit"? I'm still learning and working at understanding how these things fit together... even after 40 some years. And you don't even want to know my perspective on how many WC (and I'll include myself) back in the day "thought" they understood a lot more than they really did concerning this (and "the gift.")

no worries. (shoot, I've read things that I wrote years ago and... well, I won't bother to tell you how bad it was! I'm still working on it...) Okay, let's stop right there and consider that. If the "it" is from Christ, then I take it that you don't exactly see or think of "it" as being Christ in you. Or do you? What does that phrase of "Christ in you" mean, exactly? Is Christ present within you? ...Or only something (i.e., whatever "it" is) that comes from or is sent by him? How did or do you think about it? (I'll back up to think about and consider the rest of your analogy afterwards...)

Well, that's part of what was said, but not all of it. (And it's the other part which I thought would be more difficult to make sense of.)

I'm not persuaded that the difficulty should be pinned solely or completely to the writers either not speaking of it in the same way or not agreeing with each other. I think the mind of man (courtesy of Adam) has a difficult time grasping spiritual realities, and compensates for it with imaginations. In other words, if there is an inherent (or seemingly) "blank spot" in the reality that man formulates in his mind, he might use whatever intellectual capability he has to project other known images onto (or into) it. If various scriptures are (divinely) designed to expose a "blank spot" (so to speak) in man's perception of reality, any effort by the intelligence of man to "fill it in" apart from his acknowledgement and acceptance of other spiritual truths will result in contradictions from what are probably "equally intelligent" men. Hence, scholars will continue to disagree, and the writers (as you've indicated) will continue to be perceived as being in disagreement. This may not make much sense, but I am not saying that I think there is no way to correctly fill in the blanks. But it's how they're filled in, not what they filled with that merits attention. For lack of any better way to say it, the missing (or invisible) pieces inevitably construct a "theological system" (right or wrong), or a "spiritual framework" of sorts, within our mind. In other words, they work together to paint a certain picture of "spiritual reality" (or, just plain "spiritual" if you don't think it's real.) It's been a long time since I've thought much about it, but years ago (as a result of a protracted discussion with another person) I was amazed to see a certain logical unity between several major "components" (or ingredients) of their belief system. Break one, and you break them all. Or, prove one, and you prove them all. But, on the other hand, if none are broken, then neither can the logic that binds them together be shown to be faulty. Most will probably think this silly or incredulous (and refuse to believe it), but (at least at the time) I honestly couldn't pinpoint or find "the break" between these various concepts: Reincarnation, The Trinity, Universalism, and there being no devil. I looked a few years back and apparently the (online) discussion (where we went down more than a few rabbit holes) was deleted. But, it was sure rather interesting at the time...

??? Do you honestly need to ask that? But why? Where are you "trying to go" with them or what are you trying to accomplish? To "prove" them wrong? Are you trying to lead them somewhere? I don't get it, and I guess it just doesn't make any sense to me. So, it seems to be nothing that I can offer any other comments on. I'm quite aware of what a rhetorical question is, and how to use it. Yours just didn't come across as being one. Furthermore, it's actually not at all uncommon or unusual for someone (i.e., myself) who's primary method of learning and/or teaching (which can sometimes be extremely difficult to distinguish) is Socratic to be mistaken as being condescending. Which is, at least in part, why I've tried to reveal that about myself. I do try to make certain adjustments for it (depending on the discussion), but it can be (and often is) difficult for me to suppress. So, my apologies for appearing as such, it's a known issue with me. Not necessarily, as that is often where I see or think a conversation might (or should) naturally lead or progress to, which would incline me to say certain things that I otherwise wouldn't. But, it seemed to be a presumption on my part. As mentioned in my previous post, I wasn't itching to get up on some soapbox and talk about the Trinity.

That's probably true, but why do you conclude that the Trinitarian view is better? How many discussion have you ever really had with a staunch Trinitarian?

First I've heard that, but it doesn't surprise me one little bit. It fits entirely with his character and twi's failure (IMO) to differentiate Paul's gospel from the gospel of the kingdom. Comparisons to the Aaronic Priesthood? What's that to do with the high priest after the order of Melchisedec? Is there any wonder why the WC training, namebadges, and ordinations were all such an egotistical trainwreck waiting to happen?

Same type of thinking as what? I don't get what you're trying to ask. If the assumption is that it's unavoidable, then why go there? It would make no sense to me. If I said something you didn't understand, you're free to ask. Given my engrained (probably genetic) socratic nature, I'm really not into soliloquys.

Based on those two points alone, I'd be left wondering why you'd want to try understand how anyone's mind thinks concerning such a convoluted subject such as the Trinity. However, if and when the subject ever does comes up (rare are the times I would think to initiate any discussion of it), my thoughts fairly quickly turns towards assessing what impact or place of importance the subject holds in the other person's mind. IF (and this a mighty big if) it appears to be (in their thinking): 1) An issue of salvation, or 2) A probable issue of salvation, or 3) A possible issue of salvation, or 4) A probable point of contention. Then, I'll probably (and typically) avoid the subject altogether. It's probably dangerous to assume much of anything related to this subject... lol. I happen to agree with the thinking that Jesus Christ is not God. However, the reasons for it extend beyond what vpw or twi taught. It's been debated (and fought over) for hundreds of years (long, long before twi). Maybe you've heard that vpw once said that he thought Isalm wouldn't even exist today if it hadn't been for the Trinity. Whether or not that's true, or whether it's an original thought, I don't know. Perhaps. Maybe somebody else knows more or wants to add to it. As mentioned once already, I think there's far more significance attributed to it than ever should have been. (For reasons that might be less than noble. It's far, far easier for me to learn to separate truth from error than it is to determine and/or separate motives of the heart.) Well, my opinion is that it can affect (intentionally or unintentionally) how (or whether) some number of other issues or doctrines of Christianity are perceived, regardless of any association with (or knowledge of) twi or vpw.

Well, that's the first I've hear of such nonsense. While I don't remember the exact phrase that was used, as I recall it (presuming it was the same incident), the thought from Geer was more along the lines of the bones being picked clean (which was in no way viewed as either being good or healthy for the body of Christ.)

In short, aside from certain doctrinal aspects of it (which without a doubt weigh very heavily on the church, and on how people think), I don't think it makes a hill of beans worth of difference. Thanks, WW. Lucky timing, I suppose.

Neither was the context of it directed towards you. Doctrinal discussions (most especially concerning the Trinity) frequently encompass a lot of material apart from scripture. But as there's obviously no doctrinal intent or interest, then have at it.