And RFR, having the charisma of a band-aid and a little bit how do you say, butchy, also leads by control based upon position. Smile to the face, knife to the back, move the body off the property. In all of these cases why does anyone listen?
Like JAL. Who hasn't yet realized his leadership ability went out with the hair bands in the early 80's.
I have no idea why anyone ever did listen. I have authority issues. I'll follow, but you'd better give me an excellent reason.
Ok, I so laughed out loud over that last comment you made. I am so lucky I hadn't taken a drink of my Coke Zero, or it would have hit the screen!
They accepted what Wierwille said with blind devotion much as early Mormons accepted polygamy and six-foot tall residents on the moon because their “Prophet” Joseph Smith said so.
The truth hurts only because it should....perhaps JAL should place a call to John Juedes too.
because they believed he was "The Man of God for our day and time" who taught and spoke by revelation. It was not important what JCING said– only that Wierwille said it. They accepted what Wierwille said with blind devotion much as early Mormons accepted polygamy and six-foot tall residents on the moon because their "Prophet" Joseph Smith said so.
Juedes seems to be getting a little grandiose here ... there were varying degrees of belief in vp as MOGFOT ... Juedes seems to want to use totality as a springboard for his own Trinitarian beliefs ... a little self righteousness. It seems to me to be his own version of "people were possessed to not believe the Trinity"
We mostly laughed at the stupid peter beter tape about the fake moon landing. VP didn't openly teach his adultery doctrine .. he probably did some testing and found most people would not accept it. Certainly later most thought the Schoenheit adultery paper was obviously correct.
There are certainly plenty of reasons to believe JC was not God ... it seemed more logical to me even before TWI. Before TWI as a Lutheran I never thought of JC as being God, to the best of my recollection. Now as someone who doubts the Bible was "God breathed", I still don't see the Trinity doctrine fitting very well.
This section from Juedes marks him more as a black and white thinker, speaking from his own trinitarian cult ... marking all wayers as totally accepting, blindly devoted to vp ... "how else could they possibly deny The Trinity?". It seems to me he has his own Holy Cow.
But Juedes claims ...
By contrast, if Billy Graham or Chuck Smith would have published JCING, their
readers would have roundly rejected it
, rather than unquestioningly accepting it as Wierwille's followers did. Cult followers like TWI dutifully obey their leaders while deceiving themselves into thinking that they are thinking for themselves.
There is no evidence that readers would have rejected it ... except that their larger cult "blindly" accepted Trinity doctrine for so long. And certainly not all blindly accepted VP's trinity views, but they were less likely to stick around if they did not. Certainly there was less room for divergent views in TWI (I presume), but I find Juedes' view too absolute. If you were in divinity school, were you allowed to "pass go" without firm allegiance to Trinity dogma? (I don't really know, I'd say no, at least at Bob Jones University)
When I ran piffle, there were always parts that made me cringe, and I think most recognized vp "imperfections".
It was never total acceptance for most ... but it was strong influence. And probably the majority of TWI was closer to not believing vp was MOGFOT ... but the higher up the pecking order you went, the more allegiance and belief was required and instilled.
The vast majority of "wayers" were people going to twig, maybe running a twig. They were a different type than the people that dwelled in the hotbed of oppression that existed at the root locations. Those people are not the norm (nor normal).
Because GSC is inhabited by so many that spent time at HQ ... or that were in over a decade, the average wayfer is not represented. Especially the average joe from the vpw era.
I think the group think mentality was a large part of the influence, which also happens in most churches. It was the whole package, and so much in TWI tended to isolate the wayfer from everyone else.
Some mentally acquiesced, some suspended disbelief, some got too caught up in the drama ... I actually think few fully believed vp was the current Apostle Paul ... or anything near that.
Even in PFAL, his own stories showed him as too imperfect to be the MOFOT. Maybe the Apostle Paul was also imperfect, but VP's piffle stories of all the other men he learned from, and the mistakes ... did detract from the pure image of a more perfect MOGFOT ... didn't it?
TWI would qualify as a cult, as I see it. But to make such absolute statements about wayers seems wrong. Juedes seems to be speaking from his own cult's pulpit, when he uses the total blind devotion argument to support his Trinity belief.
It would seem lcm totally bought it ... he defended all the adultery and with claims that it was VP approved ... as if that was the final word. I think many other leaders just bought into the power trip and liked the perks. Certainly there were a good number that mostly bought it ... but few "totally accepted everything Wierwille said".
The cult label is a little unforgiving.
But where does Jalvis fit in? He seemed more opportunist. He used his position to party in the little basement romper room as corps coordinator, ten when time for rallying some contributors to his personal cause, he slammed the ministry and confessed his sins, wrote a few books for his splinter, now is trying the VP was God angle again.
The vast majority of "wayers" were people going to twig, maybe running a twig. They were a different type than the people that dwelled in the hotbed of oppression that existed at the root locations. Those people are not the norm (nor normal).
Because GSC is inhabited by so many that spent time at HQ ... or that were in over a decade, the average wayfer is not represented. Especially the average joe from the vpw era.
I think the group think mentality was a large part of the influence, which also happens in most churches. It was the whole package, and so much in TWI tended to isolate the wayfer from everyone else.
Some mentally acquiesced, some suspended disbelief, some got too caught up in the drama ... I actually think few fully believed vp was the current Apostle Paul ... or anything near that.
Yeah......I never believed that wierwille was anywhere near the current Apostle Paul standard, but rather was swayed into conformity [group-think mentality] to stay with the cause of "word over the world."
Along with the twi-drama.......were "friendships" and relationships and not wanting to be a quitter.......just so many reasons for *marching to the beat of twi's drum." With that youthfulness desire of acceptance or whatever, I see lots of other interlaced reasons why some stayed in twi. Sure, there were a few that might have believed that wierwille was THE mogfot........but I was NOT one of them.
You make some interesting points. I saw Dr. Juedes letter and just about stood up and applauded. Espescially, the part about JCNG :) You did say something I want to ask you about(With a soft tone and smile:) )
There is no evidence that readers would have rejected it ... except that their larger cult "blindly" accepted Trinity doctrine for so long. And certainly not all blindly accepted VP's trinity views, but they were less likely to stick around if they did not. Certainly there was less room for divergent views in TWI (I presume), but I find Juedes' view too absolute. If you were in divinity school, were you allowed to "pass go" without firm allegiance to Trinity dogma? (I don't really know, I'd say no, at least at Bob Jones University
When you say you would not pass go in a divinity school--is it really an allegiance to the trinity that would be a problem? You speak of it as if it is an allegiance to a dogma--can you see the perspective that is an understanding of God's nature instead? If you were in divinity school majoring in "God" and you rejected the most basic understanding of His being--and the textbook(The bible :) ) taught you otherwise--but you rejected it for a shoddy piece of scholarship--no bigger than newsweek and weak in its argument. Just to shore up a misunderstanding--should you pass?
You might pass in Victor Paul's School of the Divine--Someone who's qualifications match those of a false teacher, but in a Christian institue--you would not be sent out to tend the sheep--as your doctrine would be recognized and graded as false and you would be ill-equiped to minister to the brethren.
Another way to look at it??
I think your statement is a bit misleading because it imposes your understanding just in the framing of the question itself.
Rhino==of course there is an understanding that readers would have rejected it. Billy Grahm prepared the people he ministered to with an understanding of who God is and the true gospel of salvation. A child would recognize that error after hearing and accepting the truth of the gospel and reject it soundly--much like my child did. We were in a "Cult" and conditioned to dismiss it--reject it and mock it.
Mock it.
Anyway, just some thoughts from someone who has been on both sides of the coin. I did not blindly accept it for so long--I blindly rejected it and then accepted it after really seeing and understanding it.
--enjoy your day--I am not looking for a fight--I enjoy many of your posts!! :) :) :) :) These are smiley faces--I have on my best little girl voice and I am just speaking to you!!
I never heard the term ManOfGodForAllTime during VP's lifetime. Not once. I was in from '73 to '89. VP's teaching, and particularly his definition of an apostle as one who brings "new light" to his generation -- "it may be old light," etc. -- played into a claim of apostleship. While I was an enthusiastic supporter (and for that matter, still am) of some of the "principles" of healthy religion that Wierwille preached (but didn't himself necessarily practice) and while I admit to presently being ashamed at my own longterm immaturity and foolishness not to recognize more of the handwriting on the wall, I was definitely reminded from time to time of VP's feet of clay.
His teaching of TheWordTheWordAndNothingBUT-TheWord included "not what VP Wierwille says, but The Word!" I believed that, much to the dismay of others who did not. Yes, there were Wierwille worshipers then, like Mike today, as fantastic as that may seem. But there were sincere, intelligent, and honest people who believed in the message of God's Word, and who were dedicated to spreading the Good News. Even as early as my first WOW year in '74, I was aware of the foolishness of being PFAL salespeople rather than truly witnesses for Jesus Christ. I bought the teaching that I was a "follower of the Lord Jesus Christ..." in a non-denominational non-membership organization whose allegiance was only to him. I've grown up some since then, and acknowledge my spiritual naivety, but I prefer to excuse myself from Dr J's charges. And I was not alone.
As the ungodliness and fog increased under TWI2, it became clear to many of us that the thing was not worth trying to save. We decided to "chuck the whole thing." This cafe's visitors represent a decent cross-section from that era, as well as the later eras. Like any church, we'll not find perfection in the leadership, and forbearance and forgiveness are necessary. But it is also true that pride, fornication, and lying are not to go unchallenged or tolerated. Up until my last days in TWI, I hung on to the possibility that we could reform, get doctrine and practice straight -- keep "the baby" and get rid of the bathwater, but that was naive. I see that now. There was too much rot at "the root."
When you say you would not pass go in a divinity school--is it really an allegiance to the trinity that would be a problem? You speak of it as if it is an allegiance to a dogma--can you see the perspective that is an understanding of God's nature instead? If you were in divinity school majoring in "God" and you rejected the most basic understanding of His being--and the textbook(The bible :) ) taught you otherwise--but you rejected it for a shoddy piece of scholarship--no bigger than newsweek and weak in its argument. Just to shore up a misunderstanding--should you pass?
You might pass in Victor Paul's School of the Divine--Someone who's qualifications match those of a false teacher, but in a Christian institue--you would not be sent out to tend the sheep--as your doctrine would be recognized and graded as false and you would be ill-equiped to minister to the brethren.
Another way to look at it??
I think your statement is a bit misleading because it imposes your understanding just in the framing of the question itself.
Rhino==of course there is an understanding that readers would have rejected it. Billy Grahm prepared the people he ministered to with an understanding of who God is and the true gospel of salvation. A child would recognize that error after hearing and accepting the truth of the gospel and reject it soundly--much like my child did. We were in a "Cult" and conditioned to dismiss it--reject it and mock it.
As someone basically out of either position, saying "the Trinity" has anything to do with understanding God's basic nature does not seem natural to me ... it seems like a dogma.
Knocking the book JCING and VP's shoddiness does not address the real issue. Surely there are shoddy works that support the trinity as well. I'm not that interested in the issue, but Lynn's book did not use JCING as a reference. Perhaps the Babylon Mystery religion would be a better reference.
Traditional religion can't explain away Christmas or Easter myths so easily. There is clearly plenty of error in traditional Christian beliefs and practice.
Children learn what they are taught. It seems harder to teach that the child is the parent, than a more logical belief that they are distinct. If the comparison to sonship is only a figure of speech, it is still the one God chose ... (most of us are not our own grandpa). Do you teach your child that you and he are one?
And then of course Christians are also sons, and of the one body, with Christ as the head ... more problems for Trinitarian dogma. And as simple as it is, the use of "son of God" and not "God the Son" (or "God the Sun") seems rather glaring, though I haven't read the original manuscripts ... or was it spoken first?
I see nothing obvious about the trinity, except that it fit in better with old pagan beliefs, and would help convert pagans ... they have their easter and christmas and all the other fishiness.
Only to those that have been "brainwashed" at some point about the trinity, would that belief seem "natural", as i see it. Once indoctrinated, it seems natural, and since that is the major Christian belief, it becomes dogma, as all of us exWOWs that were burned at the stake in some small town, can testify.
Of course most of the world does not believe Jesus is God ... they believe in some other sacred cow. "Blindness" is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. :)
because they believed he was "The Man of God for our day and time" who taught and spoke by revelation. It was not important what JCING said– only that Wierwille said it. They accepted what Wierwille said with blind devotion much as early Mormons accepted polygamy and six-foot tall residents on the moon because their "Prophet" Joseph Smith said so.
Juedes seems to be getting a little grandiose here ... there were varying degrees of belief in vp as MOGFOT ... Juedes seems to want to use totality as a springboard for his own Trinitarian beliefs ... a little self righteousness. It seems to me to be his own version of "people were possessed to not believe the Trinity"
...
There are certainly plenty of reasons to believe JC was not God ... it seemed more logical to me even before TWI. Before TWI as a Lutheran I never thought of JC as being God, to the best of my recollection. Now as someone who doubts the Bible was "God breathed", I still don't see the Trinity doctrine fitting very well.
This section from Juedes marks him more as a black and white thinker, speaking from his own trinitarian cult ... marking all wayers as totally accepting, blindly devoted to vp ... "how else could they possibly deny The Trinity?". It seems to me he has his own Holy Cow.
But Juedes claims ...
By contrast, if Billy Graham or Chuck Smith would have published JCING, their
readers would have roundly rejected it
, rather than unquestioningly accepting it as Wierwille's followers did. Cult followers like TWI dutifully obey their leaders while deceiving themselves into thinking that they are thinking for themselves.
There is no evidence that readers would have rejected it ... except that their larger cult "blindly" accepted Trinity doctrine for so long. And certainly not all blindly accepted VP's trinity views, but they were less likely to stick around if they did not. Certainly there was less room for divergent views in TWI (I presume), but I find Juedes' view too absolute. If you were in divinity school, were you allowed to "pass go" without firm allegiance to Trinity dogma? (I don't really know, I'd say no, at least at Bob Jones University)
...
I agree with some of your points Rhino... good points. Dr. Juedes' writings do seem to be a bit presumptuous with his blanket one-size-fits-all labelling. I also periodically wonder if Dr. Juedes would be so relentless in his one-sided attacks against all-that-is-twi/ces/stfi, if twi/ces/stfi had been Trinitarian. Thanks.
Thank you for those remarks. While I agree with much of what JJ says regarding JAL's reasoning, I found his attack on the non-trinitarian thing to be a bit much. JCING was mostly about who Jesus was not and was lacking in its discussion of who Jesus was. I believe that is because there is no clear concept in TWI of who the risen Christ is and what He is doing. Although I don't have the book written to plagiarize, I was the one who started talking to JJ&M more about the functional equality of Jesus to Father God in his resurrected state. I am also the one who questioned the body-soul-spirit teaching of TWI and pointed out the clear verse in Genesis 5:4 that states that Seth was made after Adam's image, which I believe is in contrast to the image of God. My argument was that Adam didn't need "spirit" as his pre-fallen state without sin was the image of God. Jesus fit that criteria as well by not having an earthly father. This also led to his special designation as the "second Adam." That concept had never occurred to any of them as they were still very steeped in TWI doctrine. My original discussions with them were ultimately fleshed out and made it into the OGOL book. I did notice I was never given any credit for pointing them in that direction but what else is new?
Right now I am reading an interesting book by Bart D. Ehrman called Misquoting Jesus. Dr. Ehrman is a textual critic who has spent years comparing manuscripts. His research and reasoning is very high quality in contrast to John S's The Bible: You Can Believe It, which I believe starts with a flawed premise: that people couldn't alter text because it is God breathed. Dr. Ehrman correctly points out that the first century church was very fractured and dis-united in its doctrines and teachings, so VPW and JAL's claim that TWI (and CES) is teaching "the Word" as it has not been taught since the first century ignores the historical reality. Another historical reality that TWI ignores is that the explosive growth of Christianity during the first 2 centuries was not because of a single unified teaching system, but because of the multiple doctrinal models and TWI (as JJ rightly points out) never experienced that sort of growth. TWI is largely a legend in its own mind.
SIDEBAR: CES/STFI used to have (and maybe still does) Wednesday morning staff meetings. It was at one of those staff meetings that I suggested that STFI adopt more of a "seeker" model of church experience as opposed to a "seeker of truth" model. I believe these are 2 very different models. A standard "seeker" service in a church setting is light on teaching specific doctrine and is more aimed at pointing a person in the direction of Christ. A "seeker of truth" model is more aimed at pointing out what is different and unique about the organization and doesn't necessarily point anyone to Christ, except in the context of what that particular group teaches. I guess, based upon how they looked at me, that my face must have suddenly changed to a peculiar color and grew a rather large something on it. I tried to explain that by focusing on all the nit-picking little details that have little to do with salvation and Christ, that the big picture was lost. All I got was this blank look. That's when I realized how steeped they were in TWI think - it's all about the details and how those details are different from mainstream thinking. It's really not about bringing people to Christ, but bringing people to a non-trinitarian understanding of Christ.
Dr. Ehrman also has many college-level lectures on audio and video available through The Teaching Company that are also offered through many major libraries. His lectures and books offer a historical background that end up highlighting how ridiculous TWI's view of its impact on Christianity actually is.
Of course most of the world does not believe Jesus is God ... they believe in some other sacred cow. "Blindness" is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. :)
Interesting observation. Seems most of us have a blind spot..
arguing who is more blind is kinda futile at times..
I don't know if it's a blind spot, more than an eye patch, to keep the real light of reality from looking in..
I think in the end, we will all agree that we are all wrong..
Interesting observation. Seems most of us have a blind spot..
arguing who is more blind is kinda futile at times..
I don't know if it's a blind spot, more than an eye patch, to keep the real light of reality from looking in..
I think in the end, we will all agree that we are all wrong..
I think that the biggest lie TWI told us and the splinters propagate is that right doctrine and only right doctrine is going to earn someone a place in the kitchen with a liberal dose of how much you do for the organization or believe that the organization is right liberally added for good measure. Of course this is taught in mainstream churches as well. What disappointed me about TWI was its unrelenting bashing of other's belief systems in the context of a "research" ministry. When I figured out TWI's research was nothing more than its own form of proof-texting, I put it in the same category as any other religious organization. I'm not sure exactly when I leaped from TWI's doctrines being something I believed in to something I could live with - as long as I was left alone, but it was pretty early on.
and the key to make it all work? Be iconoclastic.. be "special", "unique".. to reduce the differences and arguments to solely that of doctrines and beliefs.
Then one may generally get away with DOING what one "fool well pleases.."
I think it's a "Clintonesque" strategy. Leave enough doctrinal dead bodies for the press to choke on, and perhaps they'll never catch up with perpetrator..
I agree with some of your points Rhino... good points. Dr. Juedes' writings do seem to be a bit presumptuous with his blanket one-size-fits-all labelling. I also periodically wonder if Dr. Juedes would be so relentless in his one-sided attacks against all-that-is-twi/ces/stfi, if twi/ces/stfi had been Trinitarian. Thanks.
I have a feeling he wouldn't be so relentless. He seems to make a bigger deal about the trinity issue than almost anything else, which in my mind hurts his credibility. The non-trinity position was not uniquely Wierwille's, and many have reached the same conclusion about the trinity without, or even in spite of, the poor scholarship in JCING. Ever since the development of the trinity doctrine there have been groups and individuals who have questioned its Scriptural validity. Yet Juedes almost makes it sound like no one would question the trinity if it weren't for VPW.
This makes it harder to accept the other things Juedes says about the Way. I thought he was just blowing smoke for years. It wasn't until I read the first-hand accounts that I realized how bad things were in TWI. He should stick to that stuff and not get into doctrinal issues if we wants to convince people, IMHO.
This makes it harder to accept the other things Juedes says about the Way. I thought he was just blowing smoke for years. It wasn't until I read the first-hand accounts that I realized how bad things were in TWI. He should stick to that stuff and not get into doctrinal issues if we wants to convince people, IMHO.
Sort of Walter Martin(ish) in his pursuit. A friend had me read the Kingdom of the Cults book and my main thought was how mean the guy was. Where's the heart? Where's the grace? Where's the compassion.
Despite what some believe, the trinity is not the deal maker/breaker.
The problems with TWI far exceeded mere doctrinal points.
It was a convoluted lifestyle that was designed to support the whims of a select handful of upper level officers.
Well I avoided that part of it for the most part. I didn't buy into the whole lifestyle thing. As I said, it became something I could live with - providing I was left to live my life as I saw fit.
I have a feeling he wouldn't be so relentless. He seems to make a bigger deal about the trinity issue than almost anything else, which in my mind hurts his credibility. The non-trinity position was not uniquely Wierwille's, and many have reached the same conclusion about the trinity without, or even in spite of, the poor scholarship in JCING. Ever since the development of the trinity doctrine there have been groups and individuals who have questioned its Scriptural validity. Yet Juedes almost makes it sound like no one would question the trinity if it weren't for VPW.
This makes it harder to accept the other things Juedes says about the Way. I thought he was just blowing smoke for years. It wasn't until I read the first-hand accounts that I realized how bad things were in TWI. He should stick to that stuff and not get into doctrinal issues if we wants to convince people, IMHO.
Ever since I have been in ex-way communities, I am absolutely fascinated that people can take or leave many Way doctrines but they hold on for dear life to JCING. Here's a thought, what if that book is wrong? It's just like believing. The Way really made it out to be telling God what to do, instead of the more humble approach of asking. Similarly, I think an honest look at JCING is worth doing. Just a few years prior to that book, where did VP stand?
Ever since I have been in ex-way communities, I am absolutely fascinated that people can take or leave many Way doctrines but they hold on for dear life to JCING. Here's a thought, what if that book is wrong? It's just like believing. The Way really made it out to be telling God what to do, instead of the more humble approach of asking. Similarly, I think an honest look at JCING is worth doing. Just a few years prior to that book, where did VP stand?
Paw - Someone who might be able to shed light on your question about where vp might have stood just prior to JCNG being published is DWBH. My own 2 cents:
When I was about 12 yrs. old, (yeah yeah back in the dark ages ) my mother and I sat in a pew on Good Friday at St. Francis de Sales Catholic Church. We were supposed to contemplate on the crucifixtion and what it meant for Jesus to die for us. Jesus, who of course was the second person of the Trinity, was also fully man, and fully God. As expected, I was also taking catechism classes at Catholic school and had it pounded into my pea brain that God was the creator who kept the universe in order, for instance He was busy preventing Earth from crashing into Mars, etc.
So out of boredom or a trouble making impulse, or something, I leaned over and asked my mom, if JC was God, but he died and was dead for three days and three nights, who kept the universe in order while he was dead since that was his job as God? She frowned and said it was a mystery. Did not make sense to me.
Then in high school, I got involved with Young Life. My local leader made a point, for some reason, of pointing out the word "trinity" was not found in the N.T. and so wasn't "true." He made that claim on the basis that the N.T. (at least his copy of Good News for Modern Man) contains the entire truth of God's Word, so if the trinity ain't in there, it ain't true. Made sense to me
By then I was starting to question the authority of my Catholic church. Mmm...not unlike in the tradition of someone named Martin Luther, but of course I was too young, too uneducated, and too shy to nail anything on any front door of any cathedral and cause an uproar. But then of course I had never heard of Martin Luther yet, either.
Then, in Dec. 1970 I took PFAL and don't remember hearing the word "trinity", only that JC was the son of God. Made sense to me. (Of course, vp had a way of making many things seem as if they made sense, since you barely had time to think about what he was saying nor the implications of what he said.)
Then, I left twi in 1987 and decided I didn't know anything for sure.
Most people here probably know that the trinity was "invented" long after Jesus died and this "trinity" became a major church doctrine. It was an attempt to identify just who or what JC was since there were so many conflicting ideas floating around (ref. books like Lost Christianities - The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew and you'll get a good overview). The debate continues to this day, obviously. Makes it up in the air for me.
I'm inclined to think JC was a man, although an enlightened one and definitely worth reading about in the N.T. and other documents. But then you should know that I'm a person who does not hold to the idea that the Bible is "perfect" nor contains everything we might ever learn about what people call "God."
BTW - Has anyone read The History of God by Karen Armstrong? I know Socks has.
Ever since I have been in ex-way communities, I am absolutely fascinated that people can take or leave many Way doctrines but they hold on for dear life to JCING. Here's a thought, what if that book is wrong? It's just like believing. The Way really made it out to be telling God what to do, instead of the more humble approach of asking. Similarly, I think an honest look at JCING is worth doing. Just a few years prior to that book, where did VP stand?
Paw, I didn't have an opinion about it one way or the other. I had never heard of the word "trinity" until I was in TWI, although I had heard Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Never got the context. I read JCING and thought it made sense. Then I sat down and read everything in the Catholic Encyclopedia and all of Augustine's works and studied history from that era to get an understanding of how the trinity came about. Then I lined that all up with what was actually written in the Bible, along with getting a Jewish understanding of Messiah, and concluded that the trinity has no root in the scripture, but was the best that people could come up with in light of the differing views of Jesus during the early years of the church.
I believe that JCING is a reasonably good representation of who Jesus is not and why. However, I don't believe it even begins to accurately address who he is, nor does any other non-trinitarian group besides perhaps the Christadelphians, and ironically CES , because of what Su3 P!3rce and Ra1ph Dub0fsky brought to the table before they got disgusted about other things and left.
After I left TWI, I sat down and went over every major doctrine and thought that JCING was ok, but incomplete not worth arguing over and have actually had flaming trinitarians come to my defense when others have accused me of not being a Christian, because my Christology is well thought through. I think that while Believing = Receiving is probably right, it was wrongly taught, which is why it backfired. I don't believe water is a requirement in baptism, but I've been baptized in the Jordan River and I have the T-shirt. I believe in an open Communion table and have actually been served communion in a Lutheran church with the pastor fully aware that I am not a Lutheran.
I don't believe any stronghold trumps the 2 great commandments and if you've got some belief that does that, you probably ought to reexamine it.
...BTW - Has anyone read The History of God by Karen Armstrong? I know Socks has.
Cheers!
Yup - fascinating book - she did a very thoughtful job of weaving together what was probably a gazillion hours of historical research...Liked it so much I picked up another one of hers [haven't read it yet...but I'm fixin' to - as they say in Texas]. It's In The Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis.
I didn't believe Jesus was God before TWI, and I still don't after TWI. The teachings by VP and others re: the trinity reinforced what I already believed, but JCNG wasn't a factor for me because I never read more than bits and pieces of it.
When I was in my mid-teens, I had to take a class before being baptized and joining the Congregational Church. There was a quiz. One of the questions was, "What is the Trinity?" My answer was, "Faith, Hope, and Charity." No disrespect to the trinitarians, but that still works for me. (I'm surprised the minister didn't fail me and refuse me membership, but then how could they have sent me those little offering envelopes to use every week and gotten me to pledge a certain amount to stick in 'em?) :D
I believe, and have believed since my youth, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, divinely conceived by God, without sin, perfect, my Lord and Savior, and the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. As others have said, I don't think whether one believes in the trinity or not is as big a deal as some would make of it either way.
Ever since I have been in ex-way communities, I am absolutely fascinated that people can take or leave many Way doctrines but they hold on for dear life to JCING. Here's a thought, what if that book is wrong? It's just like believing. The Way really made it out to be telling God what to do, instead of the more humble approach of asking. Similarly, I think an honest look at JCING is worth doing. Just a few years prior to that book, where did VP stand?
Personally, I don't hold on for dear life to JCING the book. "What if that book was wrong?" On a few points it was wrong. But the overall premise - that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and not God - I still believe in. But not because of what VPW taught about it. I re-evaluated all TWI doctrine, and in looking into the trinity question independently of TWI writings, I found that the Scriptures present God as ONE PERSON, not THREE.
Ironically, I became more convinced of this when I learned more about who Jesus IS rather than who he is not. The more I learned about what the OT prophecies said about the coming Messiah, the more I saw that God coming to earth in human form was just not part of the plan. God promised to send a king, who would be both a descendant of David, and also the Son of God. That king would rule the earth and subdue worldly kingdoms, and set up the Kingdom of God on earth. Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of God, and declaring that it was at hand, and that he was the promised king.
So I don't agree with John Juedes' claim that we just accepted JCING because VP said it. I believe the trinity is a false doctrine, in spite of VP's poor research. I think more ex-Ways should look into who else rejects the Trinity besides TWI, and get their takes on the matter. And as I said before, J. Juedes should understand that there is a long tradition of Biblical Unitarianism that was around long before VP was ever born.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
20
16
25
Popular Days
Jul 3
36
Jul 2
32
Jul 1
23
Aug 8
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Tzaia 19 posts
Ham 20 posts
rhino 16 posts
doojable 25 posts
Popular Days
Jul 3 2008
36 posts
Jul 2 2008
32 posts
Jul 1 2008
23 posts
Aug 8 2008
21 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
The letter of Assumptions--by St. John the divine of Indiana This is what happens when people isolate themselves from the Christian community at large. No accountibility. John, get out there and mee
geisha779
Word Wolf--That. . . was. . . an. . . AWESOME read!! Thank-you for that effort. Astute very astute!
Tzaia
I have no idea why anyone ever did listen. I have authority issues. I'll follow, but you'd better give me an excellent reason.
Ok, I so laughed out loud over that last comment you made. I am so lucky I hadn't taken a drink of my Coke Zero, or it would have hit the screen!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
The truth hurts only because it should....perhaps JAL should place a call to John Juedes too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Juedes seems to be getting a little grandiose here ... there were varying degrees of belief in vp as MOGFOT ... Juedes seems to want to use totality as a springboard for his own Trinitarian beliefs ... a little self righteousness. It seems to me to be his own version of "people were possessed to not believe the Trinity"
We mostly laughed at the stupid peter beter tape about the fake moon landing. VP didn't openly teach his adultery doctrine .. he probably did some testing and found most people would not accept it. Certainly later most thought the Schoenheit adultery paper was obviously correct.
There are certainly plenty of reasons to believe JC was not God ... it seemed more logical to me even before TWI. Before TWI as a Lutheran I never thought of JC as being God, to the best of my recollection. Now as someone who doubts the Bible was "God breathed", I still don't see the Trinity doctrine fitting very well.
This section from Juedes marks him more as a black and white thinker, speaking from his own trinitarian cult ... marking all wayers as totally accepting, blindly devoted to vp ... "how else could they possibly deny The Trinity?". It seems to me he has his own Holy Cow.
But Juedes claims ...
There is no evidence that readers would have rejected it ... except that their larger cult "blindly" accepted Trinity doctrine for so long. And certainly not all blindly accepted VP's trinity views, but they were less likely to stick around if they did not. Certainly there was less room for divergent views in TWI (I presume), but I find Juedes' view too absolute. If you were in divinity school, were you allowed to "pass go" without firm allegiance to Trinity dogma? (I don't really know, I'd say no, at least at Bob Jones University)
When I ran piffle, there were always parts that made me cringe, and I think most recognized vp "imperfections".
It was never total acceptance for most ... but it was strong influence. And probably the majority of TWI was closer to not believing vp was MOGFOT ... but the higher up the pecking order you went, the more allegiance and belief was required and instilled.
The vast majority of "wayers" were people going to twig, maybe running a twig. They were a different type than the people that dwelled in the hotbed of oppression that existed at the root locations. Those people are not the norm (nor normal).
Because GSC is inhabited by so many that spent time at HQ ... or that were in over a decade, the average wayfer is not represented. Especially the average joe from the vpw era.
I think the group think mentality was a large part of the influence, which also happens in most churches. It was the whole package, and so much in TWI tended to isolate the wayfer from everyone else.
Some mentally acquiesced, some suspended disbelief, some got too caught up in the drama ... I actually think few fully believed vp was the current Apostle Paul ... or anything near that.
Even in PFAL, his own stories showed him as too imperfect to be the MOFOT. Maybe the Apostle Paul was also imperfect, but VP's piffle stories of all the other men he learned from, and the mistakes ... did detract from the pure image of a more perfect MOGFOT ... didn't it?
TWI would qualify as a cult, as I see it. But to make such absolute statements about wayers seems wrong. Juedes seems to be speaking from his own cult's pulpit, when he uses the total blind devotion argument to support his Trinity belief.
It would seem lcm totally bought it ... he defended all the adultery and with claims that it was VP approved ... as if that was the final word. I think many other leaders just bought into the power trip and liked the perks. Certainly there were a good number that mostly bought it ... but few "totally accepted everything Wierwille said".
The cult label is a little unforgiving.
But where does Jalvis fit in? He seemed more opportunist. He used his position to party in the little basement romper room as corps coordinator, ten when time for rallying some contributors to his personal cause, he slammed the ministry and confessed his sins, wrote a few books for his splinter, now is trying the VP was God angle again.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Yeah......I never believed that wierwille was anywhere near the current Apostle Paul standard, but rather was swayed into conformity [group-think mentality] to stay with the cause of "word over the world."
Along with the twi-drama.......were "friendships" and relationships and not wanting to be a quitter.......just so many reasons for *marching to the beat of twi's drum." With that youthfulness desire of acceptance or whatever, I see lots of other interlaced reasons why some stayed in twi. Sure, there were a few that might have believed that wierwille was THE mogfot........but I was NOT one of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The thing is, without the Kool-Aid drinkers, the organization couldn't have kept the rest of us that could say
"WTF? That's ridiculous!" and have us show up again. There were plenty of people who just took vpw's word
for anything he said.
I was chatting with a COUNTRY Coordinator, and I made a statement-which was true, but I hadn't been asked
to SUPPORT it, I was just told I was wrong because they didn't see the support (which I could have shown
in seconds if asked.) I asked them if they'd automatically accept it as true if vpw had said it was true but
hadn't explained why. Their answer was, basically, "Of course."
There were plenty of adults, Advanced class grads, corps grads, and so on, who were willing to accept almost
anything because vpw said so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hey Rhino
You make some interesting points. I saw Dr. Juedes letter and just about stood up and applauded. Espescially, the part about JCNG :) You did say something I want to ask you about(With a soft tone and smile:) )
There is no evidence that readers would have rejected it ... except that their larger cult "blindly" accepted Trinity doctrine for so long. And certainly not all blindly accepted VP's trinity views, but they were less likely to stick around if they did not. Certainly there was less room for divergent views in TWI (I presume), but I find Juedes' view too absolute. If you were in divinity school, were you allowed to "pass go" without firm allegiance to Trinity dogma? (I don't really know, I'd say no, at least at Bob Jones University
When you say you would not pass go in a divinity school--is it really an allegiance to the trinity that would be a problem? You speak of it as if it is an allegiance to a dogma--can you see the perspective that is an understanding of God's nature instead? If you were in divinity school majoring in "God" and you rejected the most basic understanding of His being--and the textbook(The bible :) ) taught you otherwise--but you rejected it for a shoddy piece of scholarship--no bigger than newsweek and weak in its argument. Just to shore up a misunderstanding--should you pass?
You might pass in Victor Paul's School of the Divine--Someone who's qualifications match those of a false teacher, but in a Christian institue--you would not be sent out to tend the sheep--as your doctrine would be recognized and graded as false and you would be ill-equiped to minister to the brethren.
Another way to look at it??
I think your statement is a bit misleading because it imposes your understanding just in the framing of the question itself.
Rhino==of course there is an understanding that readers would have rejected it. Billy Grahm prepared the people he ministered to with an understanding of who God is and the true gospel of salvation. A child would recognize that error after hearing and accepting the truth of the gospel and reject it soundly--much like my child did. We were in a "Cult" and conditioned to dismiss it--reject it and mock it.
Mock it.
Anyway, just some thoughts from someone who has been on both sides of the coin. I did not blindly accept it for so long--I blindly rejected it and then accepted it after really seeing and understanding it.
--enjoy your day--I am not looking for a fight--I enjoy many of your posts!! :) :) :) :) These are smiley faces--I have on my best little girl voice and I am just speaking to you!!
Take Care
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Great points, rhino.
I never heard the term ManOfGodForAllTime during VP's lifetime. Not once. I was in from '73 to '89. VP's teaching, and particularly his definition of an apostle as one who brings "new light" to his generation -- "it may be old light," etc. -- played into a claim of apostleship. While I was an enthusiastic supporter (and for that matter, still am) of some of the "principles" of healthy religion that Wierwille preached (but didn't himself necessarily practice) and while I admit to presently being ashamed at my own longterm immaturity and foolishness not to recognize more of the handwriting on the wall, I was definitely reminded from time to time of VP's feet of clay.
His teaching of TheWordTheWordAndNothingBUT-TheWord included "not what VP Wierwille says, but The Word!" I believed that, much to the dismay of others who did not. Yes, there were Wierwille worshipers then, like Mike today, as fantastic as that may seem. But there were sincere, intelligent, and honest people who believed in the message of God's Word, and who were dedicated to spreading the Good News. Even as early as my first WOW year in '74, I was aware of the foolishness of being PFAL salespeople rather than truly witnesses for Jesus Christ. I bought the teaching that I was a "follower of the Lord Jesus Christ..." in a non-denominational non-membership organization whose allegiance was only to him. I've grown up some since then, and acknowledge my spiritual naivety, but I prefer to excuse myself from Dr J's charges. And I was not alone.
As the ungodliness and fog increased under TWI2, it became clear to many of us that the thing was not worth trying to save. We decided to "chuck the whole thing." This cafe's visitors represent a decent cross-section from that era, as well as the later eras. Like any church, we'll not find perfection in the leadership, and forbearance and forgiveness are necessary. But it is also true that pride, fornication, and lying are not to go unchallenged or tolerated. Up until my last days in TWI, I hung on to the possibility that we could reform, get doctrine and practice straight -- keep "the baby" and get rid of the bathwater, but that was naive. I see that now. There was too much rot at "the root."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
As someone basically out of either position, saying "the Trinity" has anything to do with understanding God's basic nature does not seem natural to me ... it seems like a dogma.
Knocking the book JCING and VP's shoddiness does not address the real issue. Surely there are shoddy works that support the trinity as well. I'm not that interested in the issue, but Lynn's book did not use JCING as a reference. Perhaps the Babylon Mystery religion would be a better reference.
Traditional religion can't explain away Christmas or Easter myths so easily. There is clearly plenty of error in traditional Christian beliefs and practice.
Children learn what they are taught. It seems harder to teach that the child is the parent, than a more logical belief that they are distinct. If the comparison to sonship is only a figure of speech, it is still the one God chose ... (most of us are not our own grandpa). Do you teach your child that you and he are one?
And then of course Christians are also sons, and of the one body, with Christ as the head ... more problems for Trinitarian dogma. And as simple as it is, the use of "son of God" and not "God the Son" (or "God the Sun") seems rather glaring, though I haven't read the original manuscripts ... or was it spoken first?
I see nothing obvious about the trinity, except that it fit in better with old pagan beliefs, and would help convert pagans ... they have their easter and christmas and all the other fishiness.
Only to those that have been "brainwashed" at some point about the trinity, would that belief seem "natural", as i see it. Once indoctrinated, it seems natural, and since that is the major Christian belief, it becomes dogma, as all of us exWOWs that were burned at the stake in some small town, can testify.
Of course most of the world does not believe Jesus is God ... they believe in some other sacred cow. "Blindness" is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. :)
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I agree with some of your points Rhino... good points. Dr. Juedes' writings do seem to be a bit presumptuous with his blanket one-size-fits-all labelling. I also periodically wonder if Dr. Juedes would be so relentless in his one-sided attacks against all-that-is-twi/ces/stfi, if twi/ces/stfi had been Trinitarian. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Rhino,
Thank you for those remarks. While I agree with much of what JJ says regarding JAL's reasoning, I found his attack on the non-trinitarian thing to be a bit much. JCING was mostly about who Jesus was not and was lacking in its discussion of who Jesus was. I believe that is because there is no clear concept in TWI of who the risen Christ is and what He is doing. Although I don't have the book written to plagiarize, I was the one who started talking to JJ&M more about the functional equality of Jesus to Father God in his resurrected state. I am also the one who questioned the body-soul-spirit teaching of TWI and pointed out the clear verse in Genesis 5:4 that states that Seth was made after Adam's image, which I believe is in contrast to the image of God. My argument was that Adam didn't need "spirit" as his pre-fallen state without sin was the image of God. Jesus fit that criteria as well by not having an earthly father. This also led to his special designation as the "second Adam." That concept had never occurred to any of them as they were still very steeped in TWI doctrine. My original discussions with them were ultimately fleshed out and made it into the OGOL book. I did notice I was never given any credit for pointing them in that direction but what else is new?
Right now I am reading an interesting book by Bart D. Ehrman called Misquoting Jesus. Dr. Ehrman is a textual critic who has spent years comparing manuscripts. His research and reasoning is very high quality in contrast to John S's The Bible: You Can Believe It, which I believe starts with a flawed premise: that people couldn't alter text because it is God breathed. Dr. Ehrman correctly points out that the first century church was very fractured and dis-united in its doctrines and teachings, so VPW and JAL's claim that TWI (and CES) is teaching "the Word" as it has not been taught since the first century ignores the historical reality. Another historical reality that TWI ignores is that the explosive growth of Christianity during the first 2 centuries was not because of a single unified teaching system, but because of the multiple doctrinal models and TWI (as JJ rightly points out) never experienced that sort of growth. TWI is largely a legend in its own mind.
SIDEBAR: CES/STFI used to have (and maybe still does) Wednesday morning staff meetings. It was at one of those staff meetings that I suggested that STFI adopt more of a "seeker" model of church experience as opposed to a "seeker of truth" model. I believe these are 2 very different models. A standard "seeker" service in a church setting is light on teaching specific doctrine and is more aimed at pointing a person in the direction of Christ. A "seeker of truth" model is more aimed at pointing out what is different and unique about the organization and doesn't necessarily point anyone to Christ, except in the context of what that particular group teaches. I guess, based upon how they looked at me, that my face must have suddenly changed to a peculiar color and grew a rather large something on it. I tried to explain that by focusing on all the nit-picking little details that have little to do with salvation and Christ, that the big picture was lost. All I got was this blank look. That's when I realized how steeped they were in TWI think - it's all about the details and how those details are different from mainstream thinking. It's really not about bringing people to Christ, but bringing people to a non-trinitarian understanding of Christ.
Dr. Ehrman also has many college-level lectures on audio and video available through The Teaching Company that are also offered through many major libraries. His lectures and books offer a historical background that end up highlighting how ridiculous TWI's view of its impact on Christianity actually is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Interesting observation. Seems most of us have a blind spot..
arguing who is more blind is kinda futile at times..
I don't know if it's a blind spot, more than an eye patch, to keep the real light of reality from looking in..
I think in the end, we will all agree that we are all wrong..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I think that the biggest lie TWI told us and the splinters propagate is that right doctrine and only right doctrine is going to earn someone a place in the kitchen with a liberal dose of how much you do for the organization or believe that the organization is right liberally added for good measure. Of course this is taught in mainstream churches as well. What disappointed me about TWI was its unrelenting bashing of other's belief systems in the context of a "research" ministry. When I figured out TWI's research was nothing more than its own form of proof-texting, I put it in the same category as any other religious organization. I'm not sure exactly when I leaped from TWI's doctrines being something I believed in to something I could live with - as long as I was left alone, but it was pretty early on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The problems with TWI far exceeded mere doctrinal points.
It was a convoluted lifestyle that was designed to support the whims of a select handful of upper level officers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
and the key to make it all work? Be iconoclastic.. be "special", "unique".. to reduce the differences and arguments to solely that of doctrines and beliefs.
Then one may generally get away with DOING what one "fool well pleases.."
I think it's a "Clintonesque" strategy. Leave enough doctrinal dead bodies for the press to choke on, and perhaps they'll never catch up with perpetrator..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I have a feeling he wouldn't be so relentless. He seems to make a bigger deal about the trinity issue than almost anything else, which in my mind hurts his credibility. The non-trinity position was not uniquely Wierwille's, and many have reached the same conclusion about the trinity without, or even in spite of, the poor scholarship in JCING. Ever since the development of the trinity doctrine there have been groups and individuals who have questioned its Scriptural validity. Yet Juedes almost makes it sound like no one would question the trinity if it weren't for VPW.
This makes it harder to accept the other things Juedes says about the Way. I thought he was just blowing smoke for years. It wasn't until I read the first-hand accounts that I realized how bad things were in TWI. He should stick to that stuff and not get into doctrinal issues if we wants to convince people, IMHO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Sort of Walter Martin(ish) in his pursuit. A friend had me read the Kingdom of the Cults book and my main thought was how mean the guy was. Where's the heart? Where's the grace? Where's the compassion.
Despite what some believe, the trinity is not the deal maker/breaker.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Well I avoided that part of it for the most part. I didn't buy into the whole lifestyle thing. As I said, it became something I could live with - providing I was left to live my life as I saw fit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Ever since I have been in ex-way communities, I am absolutely fascinated that people can take or leave many Way doctrines but they hold on for dear life to JCING. Here's a thought, what if that book is wrong? It's just like believing. The Way really made it out to be telling God what to do, instead of the more humble approach of asking. Similarly, I think an honest look at JCING is worth doing. Just a few years prior to that book, where did VP stand?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Paw - Someone who might be able to shed light on your question about where vp might have stood just prior to JCNG being published is DWBH. My own 2 cents:
When I was about 12 yrs. old, (yeah yeah back in the dark ages
) my mother and I sat in a pew on Good Friday at St. Francis de Sales Catholic Church. We were supposed to contemplate on the crucifixtion and what it meant for Jesus to die for us. Jesus, who of course was the second person of the Trinity, was also fully man, and fully God. As expected, I was also taking catechism classes at Catholic school and had it pounded into my pea brain that God was the creator who kept the universe in order, for instance He was busy preventing Earth from crashing into Mars, etc.
So out of boredom or a trouble making impulse, or something, I leaned over and asked my mom, if JC was God, but he died and was dead for three days and three nights, who kept the universe in order while he was dead since that was his job as God? She frowned and said it was a mystery. Did not make sense to me.
Then in high school, I got involved with Young Life. My local leader made a point, for some reason, of pointing out the word "trinity" was not found in the N.T. and so wasn't "true." He made that claim on the basis that the N.T. (at least his copy of Good News for Modern Man) contains the entire truth of God's Word, so if the trinity ain't in there, it ain't true. Made sense to me
By then I was starting to question the authority of my Catholic church. Mmm...not unlike in the tradition of someone named Martin Luther, but of course I was too young, too uneducated, and too shy to nail anything on any front door of any cathedral and cause an uproar. But then of course I had never heard of Martin Luther yet, either.
Then, in Dec. 1970 I took PFAL and don't remember hearing the word "trinity", only that JC was the son of God. Made sense to me. (Of course, vp had a way of making many things seem as if they made sense, since you barely had time to think about what he was saying nor the implications of what he said.)
Then, I left twi in 1987 and decided I didn't know anything for sure.
Most people here probably know that the trinity was "invented" long after Jesus died and this "trinity" became a major church doctrine. It was an attempt to identify just who or what JC was since there were so many conflicting ideas floating around (ref. books like Lost Christianities - The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew and you'll get a good overview). The debate continues to this day, obviously. Makes it up in the air for me.
I'm inclined to think JC was a man, although an enlightened one and definitely worth reading about in the N.T. and other documents.
But then you should know that I'm a person who does not hold to the idea that the Bible is "perfect" nor contains everything we might ever learn about what people call "God."
BTW - Has anyone read The History of God by Karen Armstrong? I know Socks has.
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Paw, I didn't have an opinion about it one way or the other. I had never heard of the word "trinity" until I was in TWI, although I had heard Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Never got the context. I read JCING and thought it made sense. Then I sat down and read everything in the Catholic Encyclopedia and all of Augustine's works and studied history from that era to get an understanding of how the trinity came about. Then I lined that all up with what was actually written in the Bible, along with getting a Jewish understanding of Messiah, and concluded that the trinity has no root in the scripture, but was the best that people could come up with in light of the differing views of Jesus during the early years of the church.
I believe that JCING is a reasonably good representation of who Jesus is not and why. However, I don't believe it even begins to accurately address who he is, nor does any other non-trinitarian group besides perhaps the Christadelphians, and ironically CES , because of what Su3 P!3rce and Ra1ph Dub0fsky brought to the table before they got disgusted about other things and left.
After I left TWI, I sat down and went over every major doctrine and thought that JCING was ok, but incomplete not worth arguing over and have actually had flaming trinitarians come to my defense when others have accused me of not being a Christian, because my Christology is well thought through. I think that while Believing = Receiving is probably right, it was wrongly taught, which is why it backfired. I don't believe water is a requirement in baptism, but I've been baptized in the Jordan River and I have the T-shirt. I believe in an open Communion table and have actually been served communion in a Lutheran church with the pastor fully aware that I am not a Lutheran.
I don't believe any stronghold trumps the 2 great commandments and if you've got some belief that does that, you probably ought to reexamine it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yup - fascinating book - she did a very thoughtful job of weaving together what was probably a gazillion hours of historical research...Liked it so much I picked up another one of hers [haven't read it yet...but I'm fixin' to - as they say in Texas]. It's In The Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Well said, penworks and Tzaia.
I didn't believe Jesus was God before TWI, and I still don't after TWI. The teachings by VP and others re: the trinity reinforced what I already believed, but JCNG wasn't a factor for me because I never read more than bits and pieces of it.
When I was in my mid-teens, I had to take a class before being baptized and joining the Congregational Church. There was a quiz. One of the questions was, "What is the Trinity?" My answer was, "Faith, Hope, and Charity." No disrespect to the trinitarians, but that still works for me. (I'm surprised the minister didn't fail me and refuse me membership, but then how could they have sent me those little offering envelopes to use every week and gotten me to pledge a certain amount to stick in 'em?) :D
I believe, and have believed since my youth, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, divinely conceived by God, without sin, perfect, my Lord and Savior, and the Savior and Redeemer of mankind. As others have said, I don't think whether one believes in the trinity or not is as big a deal as some would make of it either way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mod Kirk
The discussion on "Are Unitarian Christians Actually Muslims" has been assigned its own thread, which can be found in the doctrinal forum
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Personally, I don't hold on for dear life to JCING the book. "What if that book was wrong?" On a few points it was wrong. But the overall premise - that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and not God - I still believe in. But not because of what VPW taught about it. I re-evaluated all TWI doctrine, and in looking into the trinity question independently of TWI writings, I found that the Scriptures present God as ONE PERSON, not THREE.
Ironically, I became more convinced of this when I learned more about who Jesus IS rather than who he is not. The more I learned about what the OT prophecies said about the coming Messiah, the more I saw that God coming to earth in human form was just not part of the plan. God promised to send a king, who would be both a descendant of David, and also the Son of God. That king would rule the earth and subdue worldly kingdoms, and set up the Kingdom of God on earth. Jesus came preaching the Kingdom of God, and declaring that it was at hand, and that he was the promised king.
So I don't agree with John Juedes' claim that we just accepted JCING because VP said it. I believe the trinity is a false doctrine, in spite of VP's poor research. I think more ex-Ways should look into who else rejects the Trinity besides TWI, and get their takes on the matter. And as I said before, J. Juedes should understand that there is a long tradition of Biblical Unitarianism that was around long before VP was ever born.
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.