A Few Big Things I Learned Taking PFAL

[anotherDan]

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Oldies, you can subsitute "which" if you like-- no problem. Paul called this a mystery (again, if you like, you can say God called it this, since Paul wrote "by revelation"). And it is a "great" mystery -- the mystery of the incarnation. How do we explain it? God "reproducing Himself" in human form? The Word's terminology is that Jesus was "God's Son."

After the Way, I finally gave some honest consideration to what trinitarians say about the Trinity. I think you'd agree, a person isn't going to come to a true picture of who VPW was just by listening to his critics. Dr. Wierwille was in good company. Mohammed, who "inspired" the Koran said their is no Trinity, "say not a Trinity" is in the English translation. The idea of One God is without question an important one. But I have little hope that it will be solved by the intellect. The Ford will never explain Henry. We're going to have to take Henry's Word for it. It's a mystery.

After reading a lot (and I'm still reading.... TBone: "the integrity of the Word is at steak!" funny! You're my new favorite theologian) I still haven't bought the T-shirt, but I can sure love the people who wear it. And they make as much sense to me as VP's "reductionist" theory.

Speaking strictly for myself, the effect of my involvement in the Way was that Jesus Christ was not Lord. I said he was, but I came to know later on, that he was, in fact, not. For me. I wouldn't lay that at anyone else's feet. Not your's, not VPW's, nobody. Totally beside the point. When I "got out," which was quite a while after I thought I'd "got out," I came face to face with this problem. Jesus was not my Lord! Dang! This is a problem.

As I said, I don't wear the Trinitarian ("T") -shirt. I also don't go around saying "Jesus Christ is not God," because I don't like to contradict God's Word. If God called him God, then who am I to say that he is "not God"? "Therefore God, even thy God has annointed thee with gladness above thy fellows." (I think that's in Hebrews, quoted from the Psalms?... anyway, in both the NT and OT)

When the Edsel can explain Henry, I guess we'll see what's in the woman's purse. My prayer is that until that time, all the world can come to God by faith in Jesus Christ. When you see him, you see the Father. God was not a man. Did He become a man? Strictly speaking, no. It is His Son that was born in a manger, and died for our sins, who "emptied himself" of his glory, which he had before the ages in His Father's heart, and who is heir of the universe for his obedience unto death, even the death of the cross. Seeking to know God, I seek to know him. I cannot go "over his head" to God. That's about as far as I've taken it so far.

[WordWolf]

Das ist sehr gut, Herr WW! Now I can claim it as my own! I was worried about being accused of plagiarism! From now on, I will consider myself the originator of that one & maybe come up with a few new ones down the road!

You can consider it a personal milestone-but only once you get someone else to use it...

Speaking of the “Trinity”, have you ever used that 3 in 1 oil? Me, I buy more of the WD 40. Works real well with the little straw accessory in car locks and other tight places! :)

The shoe polish, yes, but the 4-in-1 I've seen was an oil, which would lead to a whole

OTHER doctrinal squabble.

[T-Bone]

Great posts, Socks, Oakspear, WordWolf, Another Dan!!!!! I like your posts because it's thinking outside the PFAL box. And for that matter, I think an awareness of our own theological box is a good thing…I'm not interested in defending Trinitarian doctrine, nor consider myself a firm believer in all things Trinitarian. I am drawn to Trinitarian doctrine because it helps me organize the biblical data around a common theme – an apparent relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

But I try to remember it's an impossible task - to cram a God that inhabits eternity into my little Trinitarian Box. I can imagine all sorts of things – but cannot even remotely understand a being that is infinitely powerful, sees past/present/future, and created the cosmos out of - - nothing…I think it was Augustine who likened theology's pursuit of God – to scooping a bucket of water from the ocean. We think what's in that bucket tells us all we need to know about the vast ocean.

Some of what drove me to Trinitarian doctrine was a need to explore outside the confines of PFAL the central element of my faith – God, and more specifically, MY relationship with Him. For me, PFAL had reduced God to a semi-powerful being who painted Himself into a corner when He made the law of believing, put me out of touch with the one person who reveals God – His own son, Jesus Christ, and transformed the Holy Spirit into a car battery at my disposal.

[oldiesman]

A weakness I see in the TWI-mindset is the tendency toward reductionism – where ideas, concepts, things about life, spiritual matters or even about God are reduced to formulas, rules, oversimplified statements, pat answers…The Ford couldn't explain Henry, but Henry could explain the Ford and vpw could explain God….vpw had an explanation for everything dontchaknow…

While some ideas and concepts can have duplicate meanings, a lot of VP's explanations especially on the trinity make more sense to me than the relativism offered by some other churches and groups. As VP said in his book " if son of God means or equals God the Son " then language and words are useless as a tool for communication.

Another principle that helped me taking PFAL was that the Word means what it says and says what it means, and shouldn't be watered down. I think if there's an apparent contradiction then, I think its much better to say "I don't know" than water it down to fit your beliefs or traditions as I believe trinitarians do with that one belief.

I received little inspiration from the religion of my youth because of their failure to provide solid answers from the bible, like VP and TWI has done for me.

Edited August 28, 2007 by oldiesman

[waysider]

As VP said in his book " if son of God means or equals God the Son " then language and words are useless as a tool for communication.

That's a catchy phrase, alright, except it really makes no sense when you break it down.

Where does the Bible say,"The son of God is God the son?"

And, if, in fact, it does, why would that make language and words useless as a form of communication?

[Oakspear]

As VP said in his book " if son of God means or equals God the Son " then language and words are useless as a tool for communication.

Trinitarians do not say that that the words "Son of God" = the words "God the Son". They do believe both of these things, but do not claim that one means the other.

Another principle that helped me taking PFAL was that the Word means what it says and says what it means, and shouldn't be watered down. I think if there's an apparent contradiction then, I think its much better to say "I don't know" than water it down to fit your beliefs or traditions as I believe trinitarians do with that one belief.

From an irrerant bible point of view, PFAL did a good thing in emphasizing that aspect. It is my observation however that once Wierwille reached a conclusion on something he did exactly what he accused the older denominations of doing and bent scriptures to fit his view.

In my opinion, T-Bone and WordWolf do the best job I've seen yet of articulating the difficulties of harmonizing the various inconsistancies in the descriptions and atrributes of Jesus.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Oakspear

[oldiesman]

Where does the Bible say,"The son of God is God the son?"

Well, I don't believe it does but isn't this what trinitarians believe?

[anotherDan]

Oldies, you didn't respond to my post, even though I addressed you directly. The rest of the post adds considerable context to the snip below, and much more that you could reply to. How about just this little snip? What do you think?

As I said, I don't wear the Trinitarian ("T") -shirt. I also don't go around saying "Jesus Christ is not God," because I don't like to contradict God's Word. If God called him God, then who am I to say that he is "not God"? "Therefore God, even thy God has annointed thee with gladness above thy fellows." (I think that's in Hebrews, quoted from the Psalms?... anyway, in both the NT and OT)

Edited August 28, 2007 by anotherDan

[waysider]

Well, I don't believe it does but isn't this what trinitarians believe?

Even if they do, how does that render words and language useless as tools of communication?

[oldiesman]

If I say to you "black is white and white is black" is that useful to you?

Oldies, you didn't respond to my post, even though I addressed you directly. The rest of the post adds considerable context to the snip below, and much more that you could reply to. How about just this little snip? What do you think?

Another Dan, I'll have to look those up. Could you please quote the scriptures (chapter & verse).

[anotherDan]

Hebrews 1:8 ff, citing Psalm 45:6 ff

I'm off to work... will try to check in tonight. Oldies, you're a good man.

Edited August 28, 2007 by anotherDan

[T-Bone]

While some ideas and concepts can have duplicate meanings, a lot of VP's explanations especially on the trinity make more sense to me than the relativism offered by some other churches and groups. As VP said in his book " if son of God means or equals God the Son " then language and words are useless as a tool for communication.

Another principle that helped me taking PFAL was that the Word means what it says and says what it means, and shouldn't be watered down. I think if there's an apparent contradiction then, I think its much better to say "I don't know" than water it down to fit your beliefs or traditions as I believe trinitarians do with that one belief.

I received little inspiration from the religion of my youth because of their failure to provide solid answers from the bible, like VP and TWI has done for me.

It appears your opinion of Trinitarian doctrine is based on what vpw said about it. He's the one fabricating meaningless communication - according to your quote. vpw's equation makes no sense to me. Well…speaking of titles, names by which we reference someone, here's another tidbit of confusion in the Bible – look at the names applied to Jesus in Isaiah, one of the names for the son will be Eternal Father…oh my :

Isaiah 9:6 NASB

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;

And the government will rest on His shoulders;

And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

…The way I find myself thinking – I must have received some great inspiration from my upbringing in the Roman Catholic Church. Two BIG items, anyway: an awareness of a moral code built into us by our Creator and the mystery and wonder of God Almighty. For me, PFAL gave people an illusion of solid answers – because I'm of the opinion there's much in the Bible, and in life that can't be figured out…maybe that says something about the author of it all. At least it makes for an exciting journey – with a seemingly inexhaustible choice of paths.

Edited August 28, 2007 by T-Bone

[waysider]

If I say to you "black is white and white is black" is that useful to you?

What, in heaven's name, does that have to do with considering whether or not the phrase in question is semantically sound?

[Abigail]

It appears your opinion of Trinitarian doctrine is based on what vpw said about it. He's the one fabricating meaningless communication - according to your quote. vpw's equation makes no sense to me. Well…speaking of titles, names by which we reference someone, here's another tidbit of confusion in the Bible – look at the names applied to Jesus in Isaiah, one of the names for the son will be Eternal Father…oh my :

Isaiah 9:6 NASB

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;

And the government will rest on His shoulders;

And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

…The way I find myself thinking – I must have received some great inspiration from my upbringing in the Roman Catholic Church. Two BIG items, anyway: an awareness of a moral code built into us by our Creator and the mystery and wonder of God Almighty. For me, PFAL gave people an illusion of solid answers – because I'm of the opinion there's much in the Bible, and in life that can't be figured out…maybe that says something about the author of it all. At least it makes for an exciting journey – with a seemingly inexhaustible choice of paths.

Here is what I get out of that verse, FWIW. It says he will be CALLED these things, it doesn't say he IS these things. That said, it seems to me by the "tone" it appears to me to be written with, that it is OKAY with God that he is called these things.

And ya know, apparently, he is called all of those things and if it is okay with God I'm certainly not going to argue about it. :D

[doojable]

One thing that Oldiesman seems to be forgetting is that for the most part, we got in TWI as teenagers. It's no surprise that certain things in the established churches didn't make sense to us.

It is a mistake in logic to hold to that limited understanding now. To keep the definition given to us of a subject like the Trinity seems intellectually dishonest, in the very least.

[WhiteDove]

The Trinity

Made no sense then - still makes no sense , that about sums that up.

[doojable]

What I think doesn't make sense is - trying to define God. Since when does the creation get to define the Creator?

I've said this before:

As long as God knows who He is, and Jesus knows who he is, then I'm fine. All I need to do is remember who I am and that I am neither God nor Jesus.

Edited August 29, 2007 by doojable

[oldiesman]

Hebrews 1:8 ff, citing Psalm 45:6 ff

I'm off to work... will try to check in tonight. Oldies, you're a good man.

Another Dan, thanks, you too. Here's a short answer on what I think: it is not uncommon that people were given the God title in the Bible. Another instance is Psalm 82:6. God in that verse is Elohim. But that doesn't mean people are God Almighty any more so than Jesus is God Almighty.

I would ask Abigail what she thinks of Psalm 45:6, she knows more about the old testament than I.

[WhiteDove]

Defining God is one thing, I do believe that there is a understanding of who they are in the scriptures which is not the creation defining them. But when it comes to worship and prayer then that becomes a different animal I think scripture is clear on that as well.

[T-Bone]

Here is what I get out of that verse, FWIW. It says he will be CALLED these things, it doesn't say he IS these things. That said, it seems to me by the "tone" it appears to me to be written with, that it is OKAY with God that he is called these things.

And ya know, apparently, he is called all of those things and if it is okay with God I'm certainly not going to argue about it. :D

I agree !!!

[oldiesman]

Well Golly, I coulda also offered that from JCING.

The idea that "Jesus will be called God" doesn't make him God.

[T-Bone]

Well Golly, I coulda also offered that from JCING.

The idea that "Jesus will be called God" doesn't make him God.

Don't think I'd trust anything by the author of JCING though…Seems that vpw liked to re-define things using a twisted logic. Take for instance a little word like "with" [Greek pros] in two PFAL studies on Who is the Word in John 1 - the Word was with [pros] God and the Word was God. vpw says pros means together with yet distinctly independent – he then reasons that the only way that's possible is in God's foreknowledge! So that makes God schizophrenic! It's like saying the thought of a man who is planning on having a child is together with yet distinctly independent of the man.

vpw was great for skirting around logic. Like him saying God can only communicate with what He is which is spirit – and taught this in the Great Principle – God's Spirit teaches His creation in you which is now your spirit, and your spirit teaches your mind… I think Raf, WordWolf, Oakspear and a few others have discussed the break down of logic in that: God can only communicate with spirit – so He has to talk to your spirit. But somehow your spirit can talk to your mind. Maybe God is a little shy and doesn't like dealing directly with people, or else His universal cosmic translator is busted.

Edited August 28, 2007 by T-Bone

[anotherDan]

Oldies, you didn't respond to my post, even though I addressed you directly. The rest of the post adds considerable context to the snip below, and much more that you could reply to. How about just this little snip? What do you think?

As I said, I don't wear the Trinitarian ("T") -shirt. I also don't go around saying "Jesus Christ is not God," because I don't like to contradict God's Word. If God called him God, then who am I to say that he is "not God"? "Therefore God, even thy God has annointed thee with gladness above thy fellows." (I think that's in Hebrews, quoted from the Psalms?... anyway, in both the NT and OT)

Here's a short answer on what I think: it is not uncommon that people were given the God title in the Bible. Another instance is Psalm 82:6. God in that verse is Elohim. But that doesn't mean people are God Almighty any more so than Jesus is God Almighty.

So, Oldies, I guess the question is, are you comfortable calling Jesus "not God" when God Himself calls him God? I can see you thinking Thomas was confused when he said, "My Lord and my God." But God Himself? Are you comfortable contradicting God?

Hebrews 1:8, 9 NRSV:

But of the Son he says,

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.

You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions."

Psalm 45:6, 7

Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever.

Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;

you love righteousness and hate wickedness.

Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;

You can base your answer on the NT alone, before you get to consult with Abi on the OT. The class taught you the keys to the Word's interpretation, remember?

edited to add Scripture verses

Edited August 28, 2007 by anotherDan

[wrdsandwrks]

What I think doesn't make sense it trying to define God. Since when does the creation get to define the Creator?

I've said this before:

As long as God knows who He is, and Jesus knows who he is, then I'm fine. All I need to do is remember who I am and that I am neither God nor Jesus.

Wow, Dooj, another great insight. You seem to me to have a ministry of taking very complicated and convoluted subjects and distilling them down to a very pithy statement of truth. Thanks.

At one point I was very tied up in knots over the question of the trinity, how to define the relationship between God and Jesus Christ etc. I got really peaceful and relaxed when this thought similar to what you said above came to me. God knows who He is, He doesn't need me or anyone else to tell Him.

What that did for me really helped me get close to Him as God, not as a theololgical construct. Doesn't mean I'm not interested in what the Bible says about Him and who He is, just that it's not my responsibility to define Him, lest I make up a God of my own imagination, and one infinitely smaller and tamer than the God of all creation.

Edited August 28, 2007 by wrdsandwrks

[anotherDan]

Dooj, I'm glad Wrds didn't let that one go by without a comment. I too thought it was a great statement.