...but my friends had huge issues with it, I never read JCNG because why would I he wasnt? but my buddy went to bat for the trinity up and down and side ways with me and clergy at the time.... my buddy took the class and guess what changed his mind and decided twi was right and left the church much to his family sadness and angry feeling towards me.
This was a best friend and I got many many of my high school chums in but he and his wife stayed and as far as I know and it has been maybe ten years since we last spoke and all he wanted to do was sell twi.. funny i stayed friends with him when he wasnt involved but he would not return the love . sad about that.
he left his family his church everyone he knew and loved because of his now changed position on this trinity bit.
now i told him you know you believed in the trinity and I never even knew what it was yet we were best friends now you switched and decide all of a sudden Jesus is NOT God and wont speak to me because of this doctrine THAT IS MESSED UP!
I'm a bit confused. Why was your friend angry with you, if both you and he believed Jesus is not God?
he went to catholic school and was a very strict trinitarian. read whact was written although I write poorly here.
my point is I loved him when he believed Jesus was God but he could not love me knowing I didnt believe Jesus was God and that is typical trinitarian fare.
they will have issues with those who do not believe Jesus is god because (I guess) to them your dening God altogether, but in addition to my other post.. I will add this thought.
The way denied who Jesus is also, he may not be God in my estimation but He certainly is much more than what the way ever offered as His position.
so I think the strict trinity position and the way position is very much the same and neither one puts what our Saviour puts as our first commandment to Love God and one another etc.. in the place it should be .
Similarly, I think an honest look at JCING is worth doing. Just a few years prior to that book, where did VP stand?
I asked dew, vpw's son a similar question to that once - there was a discussion going on about changing what you taught when new research was discovered. I asked if he previously taught on the trinity how did he handle explaining teaching against it later. He said vpw didn't understand the topic or wasn't resolved on it so would avoid it. If it ever came up as his assignment in a teaching pool in the denomination, he would trade with somebody.
There is a place in PLAF (The Wonder Class) where Wierwille excitedly declares, regarding Christ's second coming, " He's coming back as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He's coming back as Lord God Almighty!" This class was filmed in 1967. To my thinking it appears he held a Trinitarian belief at that time. Then, in the early 1970's, as VP was beginning to promote his JCING theology, we class instructors were specifically told to gloss over that part of the session. We were told to put a spin on it and pass it off as a simple mistake due to "the intense excitement of the moment".
Maybe it should have been called The Way Spinastry.
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?
I consider the book to have been poorly-written. Since he couldn't just plagiarize
it from someone like Bullinger or Stiles, that it's MUCH weaker-because he actually
had to WRITE- is obvious in hindsight.
That having been said, despite having been poorly-written, insufficiently-researched,
and more of an indoctrination than anything else,
I think the position was correct.
This shouldn't be THAT shocking. There were 2 main positions to take.
His odds were 50/50, same as a cointoss.
And his book was about as authoritative as a cointoss.
Were you saying that holding that belief was the same as saying the book was correct?
If so, I disagree. Lots of people of that belief have never been exposed to that book.
There is a place in PLAF (The Wonder Class) where Wierwille excitedly declares, regarding Christ's second coming, " He's coming back as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He's coming back as Lord God Almighty!" This class was filmed in 1967. To my thinking it appears he held a Trinitarian belief at that time. Then, in the early 1970's, as VP was beginning to promote his JCING theology, we class instructors were specifically told to gloss over that part of the session. We were told to put a spin on it and pass it off as a simple mistake due to "the intense excitement of the moment".
Maybe it should have been called The Way Spinastry.
So do you have any supporting reason why you think your theory is true? Or did you just assume that it made sense? Because it looks to me from the clip that it was indeed just a misspeak. So are you saying someone told you to quote "Put a spin on it" Or was that perception now today years later?
So do you have any supporting reason why you think your theory is true? Or did you just assume that it made sense? Because it looks to me from the clip that it was indeed just a misspeak.
It's a VERY specific misspeak.
We also know that vpw was a Trinitarian earlier in his career.
He himself said so, and examples include using a Trinitarian opening to
letters: i.e. "..in the name of God Incarnate, Jesus Christ"
earlier in his career.
If there's a timeframe showing when he no longer was a Trinitarian,
I haven't seen it yet.
So, you think his comment was more from HABIT, that he was going for drama
and misspoke because he went to an old script rather than an update that
reflected his current theology?
Well, that's certainly possible. If he were doing one of his dramatic segment closings-
and his rising voice-volume seconds before the segment ends suggests that-
So do you have any supporting reason why you think your theory is true? Or did you just assume that it made sense? Because it looks to me from the clip that it was indeed just a misspeak. So are you saying someone told you to quote "Put a spin on it" Or was that perception now today years later?
The exact words, unfortunately, have been eroded by time.
However, that was the message that was conveyed, not to me personally, but to a roomful of branch leaders, class instructors, etc., in an officially sanctioned "leaders meeting" by one of the Rev.'s
Those types of meetings were not recorded for posterity like SNS as they were never intended for the ears of the general populace.
On another occasion,(on tape, somewhere, maybe AC) when discussing the work of Bishop K.C. Pillai, Wierwille said the only problem he had with Pillai was that he STILL held to Trinitarian doctrine, as if to say(based on the context of the teaching) that one of the two of them had changed their position.
I don't think there is any doubt that VPW was a Trinitarian at one point. The question is, when did he assume a monotheistic stance? As to the mis-speak: I asked why they simply did not do a retake once the error was discovered. I was told that these sessions were one time only events and the essence of it would be lost if it was redone. That's the kind of thing you expect to hear in a recording studio or movie set, not a class that is supposed to be about Biblical research.
He did say "He's coming back as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He's coming back as the Lord God Almighty! And He's gonna knock some earballs together!" UGH! I hate that I remember that.
If it wasn't a reflection of his own beliefs, it could have been a perfect mimic of what vp himself heard in the class he attended and stole.
Hmmmm, I dunno waysider. This might shed some clarificiation - PFAL has the section on "The Integrity of the Word of God", where the word "logos" is covered. It goes Christ is the Word, the living logos, and the bible is the written Word, logos, which is made known by the preached Word (that's a synopsis)
In that section the word "pros" is covered and defined as "together with yet distinctly independent of". John 1:1 is taught, "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God", etc. and that Christ was "with" God in foreknowledge and he cites the verse in Ephesians that we were also in God's foreknowledge and Christ was in God's foreknowledge, just as we were. He was clearly teaching that Jesus Christ wasn't "the Word" as in God is the Word, the Logos. PFAL was the first presentation of the doctine of Christ as "not being God" in the classic Trinitarian sense (if there is such a thing) I heard from the Way.
There's a typo or two in that section of the syllabus that I received in 1968, but the overall text of that session is consistent with what VPW taught over the years, as far as I can see and remember. And given all the hooplah that JCING received later it's of note that John 1:1 and the rest of what's taught around it is actually contained as a part of a larger topic, the integrity of the "Word" that covers the importance of the bible as a written record and communication that can be studied and understood, with an inherent consistency and reliability that can be recognized. "Logos" is covered from different angles from the bible.
I'd say he didn't have a direct connection to any specific "Trinitarian" doctrine at that time, and since PFAL was the presentation of what he'd been doing for years before that, I'd assume that it all got collated for PFAL. There was an initial attempt at filming that I remember hearing about and saw a few clips that were till floating around for a few years, his own first stab at doing it and they were pretty raw looking, by comparison. I don't know what that contained in it in regards to this topic but by the time he accepted the need to do a professional filming, I think it would be safe to say he held no Trinitarian views, in my view.
That line in PFAL - coming back as "Lord God Almighty" - I remember in context thinking he meant something along the lines of "on behalf of", or "for" and kind of jumbled up what he was trying to say which at that point was one of those bible thumping moments in PFAL. It seemed funny later the more it was pointed out, in contrast to what he'd taught so emphatically about John 1:1 and "the logos".
He was clearly teaching that Jesus Christ wasn't "the Word" as in God is the Word, the Logos. PFAL was the first presentation of the doctine of Christ as "not being God" in the classic Trinitarian sense (if there is such a thing) I heard from the Way.
Good point socks ... I'd sorta forgotten .. but I started "pre-qualifying"/preparing new students with a short meeting where I discussed several items they may be shocked by, in piffle. JCING was one (I'm pretty sure), the easter thing I think, a few others ... and I'd give a couple verses of support. A version of "obviating the objections" I suppose.
I think my area leader got my notes and started doing the same, it may have even become a standard ... but anyway, JCING did seem to be taught in piffle. VP was pretty worked up on the "coming back as lord gawd almighty" bit ... who knows what he really was thinking?
But the trinity started in the third century, so on that point it was the word as it had not been known sine the third century .. ... though many other Christians have held to jcing over the centuries.
Down in the basement is a discussion on this topic. I suspect that in the early 1950's Wierwille started seriously questioning the trinity, due to Lamsa and Leonard's viewpoints, but officially became public teaching with JCING. Might have suggested he should have titled it "Just exactly who is Jesus Christ?" but VPW loved causing controversary to spite people.
Yeah, rhino. That section on John 1:1 could take people by surprise, particularly if they'd heard much teaching on it before as most teachings emphasize the meaning of it being that Jesus Christ was very much "with" God, "in the beginning". VPW's definition that's taught offers the "distinctly independent of" part to pros, although most definitions of the "Koine Greek" word pros include the aspect of movement towards ---> and the idea of a close relationship and companionship. So, to a certain extent it's always seemed to me that the meaning still requires fleshing out, as it were.
I'd say leaning towards "foreknowledge" as the answer is one way to understand it buuuuuut I don't think the words of John 1:1 are an open and shut case on that. Plus, while John is accepted as being written somewhere between 50 and 85 a.d. it's also thought to have been written much later, 140ish a.d. etc. It's different in the presentation of Jesus, from Mark and Luke, and Matthew too. Whenever written it opens with a bang, and the statement seems to put Jesus in a much different position than a man with a mission and someone of infiinite and certainly "divine" significance. But as others have stated here I don't think it's smart to turn one's entire understanding of Jesus around one verse. :)
I used to have some early literature from the Way, and DrW was Trinitarian then. I agree with Socks that by the time the class was filmed, he was not Trinitarian. The Way It Was for me was a staunchly anti-Trinitarian stance, despite the "Lord God Almighty" statement (good synopsis on that, Socks). DrW was hard to put in a box.... I believe there used to be a copy of a letter by him on Waydale in response to a letter that asked about Jesus being prayed to, that was pretty revealing. Something that endeared me to him was his reply several times in the AC to questions (mostly lame questions) of "I don't know." But he did seem to take audacity lessons from Emerson, who he recommended.
I remember that letter, anotherDan. Yes, it circulated online too, if I remember right. It was weird back in the day, I almost thought of it as a "joke" letter, yet it was clearly on Way letterhead and with his signature. There was a question asked once in a 4th Corps meeting where he basically said he didn't want to talk about it, "people" would go in all kinds of directions with it, "you think ab-owd eet", kind of a deal.
The Way, It Was...I remember all the many times we sang "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus" with him-
Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face,
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
In the light of His glory and grace.
and "I Come to the Garden Alone"...
"And the voice I hear, falling on my ear, the Son of God discloses....aaaaaand Heeeeee walks with me and He talks with me, and He tells me I am His own....
and the joy we share as we tarry there, none other has ever known...
He speaks and the sound of His voice...is so sweet the birds hush their singing.
And the melody that He gave to me, within my heart is riii-iingiiiing....."
The exact words, unfortunately, have been eroded by time.
However, that was the message that was conveyed, not to me personally, but to a roomful of branch leaders, class instructors, etc., in an officially sanctioned "leaders meeting" by one of the Rev.'s
Those types of meetings were not recorded for posterity like SNS as they were never intended for the ears of the general populace.
On another occasion,(on tape, somewhere, maybe AC) when discussing the work of Bishop K.C. Pillai, Wierwille said the only problem he had with Pillai was that he STILL held to Trinitarian doctrine, as if to say(based on the context of the teaching) that one of the two of them had changed their position.
I don't think there is any doubt that VPW was a Trinitarian at one point. The question is, when did he assume a monotheistic stance? As to the mis-speak: I asked why they simply did not do a retake once the error was discovered. I was told that these sessions were one time only events and the essence of it would be lost if it was redone. That's the kind of thing you expect to hear in a recording studio or movie set, not a class that is supposed to be about Biblical research.
So we can agree:
1 That there is no doubt that VPW was a Trinitarian at one point.
2 That at some point he changed his view.
3 That none of us know exactly at what point in time exactly that occurred.
That leaves this statement...........
This class was filmed in 1967. To my thinking it appears he held a Trinitarian belief at that time.
You based that assumption on one misspeak in a "windup" at the end of a session. And this is a good case in point why we can not just accept everything someone says as truth. Why factual evidence is important to truth. I doubt that the facts will allow us to pinpoint the exact moment when VP changed his view but it would narrow down the time frame maybe . I'll refer you to SNS 296 recorded 12/6/64 and SNS 297 12/4/66 Both titled One God. Both were done before the date of the PFAL class that was recorded in 1967
In SNS 296 recorded 12/6/64 Is the following quote from VP
"Now someone will say to you Dr. Wierwille does not believe in the trinity. No I don't believe in the Trinity. "
"Why not just believe God's Word where it says there is only one God."
Clearly the facts show that at that time some three years before the date you speculated that he believed in the Trinity he very clearly stated that he did not. Clearly when person testimony is collaborated with hard evidence the picture becomes clear that the personal assumptions were unfounded.
He did say "He's coming back as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He's coming back as the Lord God Almighty! And He's gonna knock some earballs together!" UGH! I hate that I remember that.
If it wasn't a reflection of his own beliefs, it could have been a perfect mimic of what vp himself heard in the class he attended and stole.
Personally, I think this is at LEAST as likely as any other possibility.
vpw loved to get to punctuate with drama, and showed a marked laziness in
diverging from the source material of the Christians he ripped things off from.
For all the material he used, the amount of change was VERY small.
(Name of "administrations" and which times they covered,
"gifts" became "manifestations", and that's most of it.)
Retelling a dramatic point in Leonard's class as a dramatic point in his OWN
class sound EXACTLY like something he would do.
How many folks have access to SNS tapes that are numbered in the 200's??
The earliest one I have is in the 600's, from 1975.
I think I have one from the 300s. The sound quality from the early ones blew chunks,
but they're legible, so to speak. I don't think he mentioned this subject in that one.
I don't understand what the fuss is about, exactly, whether VP believed in the trinity at one point. Someone mentioned DEW saying he wasn't clear on the subject early on.
What was the subject in piffle, vp said he'd always trade with someone when it came up ... was that the manifestations? Maybe he did it with the Trinity.
Anyway ... what VP believed is not significant ... it seems many people here did not believe the Trinity (or at least not perceive it as Jesus IS God) before piffle ... perhaps many have now gone back to their childhood belief, whether that be Trinity or JCING or baseball.
Or they have made informed decisions on what to believe. We can be fairly certain that The Way, It Was ... was merely a compilation of other men's works, largely men that were either "cutting edge", in VP's mind, or that offered something of interest that VP felt would mark him as significant.
Another point I think Juedes misses is that in Lynn's view, the significance of the vp movement was not in numbers, but in pointing out doctrinal error, or bringing old light to light now. Juedes gives numbers as his evidence of other groups being so much more significant, but that was not the significance JAL was referring to ...
A more honest Jalvis approach would have been to say he wanted to get back to the works of those men vp plagiarized ... but he seems more interested in stirring up some memories of Way Daze ...
So you folks out there that are now making much more than minimum wage, put on your old WOW pin, and write good old jal a check for a grand or two ... as you give you'll receive, and god will pour out a blessing upon you.
He really only needs to reach a few such folks to have a nice payday. Or maybe JAL is just still livin' the dream ... it may be unsettling to many to try to change their ways after thirty years.
How many folks have access to SNS tapes that are numbered in the 200's??
The earliest one I have is in the 600's, from 1975.
Ok, I guess I missed your point maybe, but it appears though that you are saying that because someone did not have access to information it justifies that they could just say whatever, as fact. I'd be inclined to think that if one did not know ,they would say nothing or at least offer a theory. Hey I don't have access to the NASA space logs either but I would not say that astronauts had affairs in space just because I did not have access to the information. Sorry but I think that is flawed reasoning.
I bet there are a few people here that have 200 series tapes by the way. I know of some that do! I too started tapes in the early 600s 1973 but also picked up many back tapes along the way. A few survived on reel to reel only they are pre Way International from the old Way of Kansas.. Somewhere along the way maybe 1989? I bought a compiled set of all the SNS and tape of the months to fill in some missing ones, from CA where some people assembled a master set and duplicated them. By the way I think about anyone that wanted to could have access to the tapes now they are on eBay all the time on MP# all of VP's teachings on 14 disks for about $99.00. So it is not a question of having access but if one wanted access. By the way they are cleaned up as much as possible so they actually don't blow chunks ,at least as bad as they used to. (As far as sound that is ) Mark Gl*ck*n did some work on many tapes before he passed away and Barbara and some others have taken up on that project. I could tell you more about both of those projects including how the Wierwille children were involved but since everyone knows that people in Kansas don't know anything past the border I won't bother.
Now if one did not have access to the tapes there is another way to checkout this claim and actually it pinpoints the time line better than the tapes. In Mrs. Wierwilles book Born Again To Serve.
Page 205 On June 10th of 1956 the first board meeting was held. At this meeting the revised constitution and bylaws were read there is a copy in the book ,and among the Way testimonies of belief are #2 We believe in one God manifested as Father ,Son and Holy Spirit. #3 We believe that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, and is true God and true man. So we know as of the 10th of June 1956 VP still held to the Trinity in belief.
Now on page 223 Mrs. Wierwille writes about the boards meeting to decide if they should join the National Association of Evangelicals. VP thought that being a part of a group might be stimulating and add credibility she writes. That was June 15th 1958 but the decision was tabled for more study.
On April 5th of 1959 they again met to consider the joining of the Evangelical Association at which they decided not to, because after a full study of the organization they found that their very basic doctrinal statement included the belief of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Mrs. Wierwille adds "by this time in the ministry, we knew that this was not biblically accurate."
So sometime between the meeting of June 10th of 1956 and the meeting of April 5th of 1959 VP changed his view of the trinity.
I'd lean toward 1957 early 58 for this reason, also in the book was a letter that Uncle Harry wrote about PFAL to people on page 222
Where he wrote " I want to tell you that every time VP teaches a class it gets better and better and these Bible truths that he shows us from the Word of God become more astounding than ever. There are many other truths that God has revealed to him since the original class and he has added them to the other teachings. That letter is dated June 9th 1958.
While it is not concrete it looks like this was the time frame for the trinity change. In any case we do know now from factual accounts that the change came about somewhere between June 10th of 1956 and the meeting of April 5th of 1959 so somewhere in those 34 months is where the change was made. Again a case in point that while personal testimony is all and good it is at times flawed due to various reasons. But when documented with hard facts we can see if indeed it stands the test of truth.
One other thing, regardless of where vp got his teachings, it was easy for him to decide doctrine and change it as he wanted, at least early on. A major denomination is pretty stuck when it comes to the trinity and most other major issues.
There is just no way they can change their brand. For the Catholics to decide against the Trinity would be like Coke deciding that Pepsi really is better ...
Down in the basement is a discussion on this topic. I suspect that in the early 1950's Wierwille started seriously questioning the trinity, due to Lamsa and Leonard's viewpoints, but officially became public teaching with JCING. Might have suggested he should have titled it "Just exactly who is Jesus Christ?" but VPW loved causing controversary to spite people.
In addition to White Dove's quote from Mrs. W's book (which pretty much establishes the timeframe of his change of viewpoint), there was also a booklet called One God published in 1964, as listed in the Complete Writings of VPW section of The Living Word Speaks. It was later included as part of JCING. Also, he taught about "Who is the Word" and the John 1 stuff in PFAL (as mentioned by Socks, above) and there was even a chapter about it in The Word's Way, published in 1971. So the "official public teaching" did not start with JCING, but was expanded and solidified (in their minds) with that book.
(Yes, I still have my TWI books. Sometimes it's nice to be reminded of how far I've come. It also helps to be able to refer to the source when discussing the Way's theology with others.)
In addition to White Dove's quote from Mrs. W's book (which pretty much establishes the timeframe of his change of viewpoint), there was also a booklet called One God published in 1964, as listed in the Complete Writings of VPW section of The Living Word Speaks. It was later included as part of JCING. Also, he taught about "Who is the Word" and the John 1 stuff in PFAL (as mentioned by Socks, above) and there was even a chapter about it in The Word's Way, published in 1971. So the "official public teaching" did not start with JCING, but was expanded and solidified (in their minds) with that book.
(Yes, I still have my TWI books. Sometimes it's nice to be reminded of how far I've come. It also helps to be able to refer to the source when discussing the Way's theology with others.)
Mark good point, In fact he did mention that booklet in the 1964 tape as sugested reading. I had sorta forgotten about the little studies in abundant living booklets. I bought a set at the ROA 73 in the sheep barn where they had the bookstore they were closing them out since the books were in print. . I dug mine out today it is not dated but it was published by the Way Incorporated which was before the Way International I think they changed over in 73 - 74 ?
Page 205 On June 10th of 1956 the first board meeting was held. At this meeting the revised constitution and bylaws were read there is a copy in the book ,and among the Way testimonies of belief are #2 We believe in one God manifested as Father ,Son and Holy Spirit. #3 We believe that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, and is true God and true man. So we know as of the 10th of June 1956 VP still held to the Trinity in belief.
Now on page 223 Mrs. Wierwille writes about the boards meeting to decide if they should join the National Association of Evangelicals. VP thought that being a part of a group might be stimulating and add credibility she writes. That was June 15th 1958 but the decision was tabled for more study.
On April 5th of 1959 they again met to consider the joining of the Evangelical Association at which they decided not to, because after a full study of the organization they found that their very basic doctrinal statement included the belief of the deity of Jesus Christ.
This insertion in Mrs. W's book shows how, by 1996, this information is "sanitized" after the fact.........because vp wierwille was STILL on the payroll of the Van Wert Church when this "board meeting" was held. HOW CONVENIENT......that wierwille stays on the church payroll while *building his ministry.*
Wierwille stole B.G. Leonard's foundational class in 1953......and wierwille is supposedly "building his ministry since 1942" while he stays on the church payroll.
Gee........where was wierwille's BELIEVING?????????????
Mrs. Wierwille adds "by this time in the ministry, we knew that this was not biblically accurate."
Since wierwille LEFT the church payroll in 1957......"by this time" wierwille's ministry was like Two Years Old.
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!
Mark Clarke
I'm a bit confused. Why was your friend angry with you, if both you and he believed Jesus is not God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
he went to catholic school and was a very strict trinitarian. read whact was written although I write poorly here.
my point is I loved him when he believed Jesus was God but he could not love me knowing I didnt believe Jesus was God and that is typical trinitarian fare.
they will have issues with those who do not believe Jesus is god because (I guess) to them your dening God altogether, but in addition to my other post.. I will add this thought.
The way denied who Jesus is also, he may not be God in my estimation but He certainly is much more than what the way ever offered as His position.
so I think the strict trinity position and the way position is very much the same and neither one puts what our Saviour puts as our first commandment to Love God and one another etc.. in the place it should be .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I asked dew, vpw's son a similar question to that once - there was a discussion going on about changing what you taught when new research was discovered. I asked if he previously taught on the trinity how did he handle explaining teaching against it later. He said vpw didn't understand the topic or wasn't resolved on it so would avoid it. If it ever came up as his assignment in a teaching pool in the denomination, he would trade with somebody.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There is a place in PLAF (The Wonder Class) where Wierwille excitedly declares, regarding Christ's second coming, " He's coming back as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He's coming back as Lord God Almighty!" This class was filmed in 1967. To my thinking it appears he held a Trinitarian belief at that time. Then, in the early 1970's, as VP was beginning to promote his JCING theology, we class instructors were specifically told to gloss over that part of the session. We were told to put a spin on it and pass it off as a simple mistake due to "the intense excitement of the moment".
Maybe it should have been called The Way Spinastry.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I consider the book to have been poorly-written. Since he couldn't just plagiarize
it from someone like Bullinger or Stiles, that it's MUCH weaker-because he actually
had to WRITE- is obvious in hindsight.
That having been said, despite having been poorly-written, insufficiently-researched,
and more of an indoctrination than anything else,
I think the position was correct.
This shouldn't be THAT shocking. There were 2 main positions to take.
His odds were 50/50, same as a cointoss.
And his book was about as authoritative as a cointoss.
Were you saying that holding that belief was the same as saying the book was correct?
If so, I disagree. Lots of people of that belief have never been exposed to that book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
So do you have any supporting reason why you think your theory is true? Or did you just assume that it made sense? Because it looks to me from the clip that it was indeed just a misspeak. So are you saying someone told you to quote "Put a spin on it" Or was that perception now today years later?
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's a VERY specific misspeak.
We also know that vpw was a Trinitarian earlier in his career.
He himself said so, and examples include using a Trinitarian opening to
letters: i.e. "..in the name of God Incarnate, Jesus Christ"
earlier in his career.
If there's a timeframe showing when he no longer was a Trinitarian,
I haven't seen it yet.
So, you think his comment was more from HABIT, that he was going for drama
and misspoke because he went to an old script rather than an update that
reflected his current theology?
Well, that's certainly possible. If he were doing one of his dramatic segment closings-
and his rising voice-volume seconds before the segment ends suggests that-
he could easily have done so.
I think either could be the answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The exact words, unfortunately, have been eroded by time.
However, that was the message that was conveyed, not to me personally, but to a roomful of branch leaders, class instructors, etc., in an officially sanctioned "leaders meeting" by one of the Rev.'s
Those types of meetings were not recorded for posterity like SNS as they were never intended for the ears of the general populace.
On another occasion,(on tape, somewhere, maybe AC) when discussing the work of Bishop K.C. Pillai, Wierwille said the only problem he had with Pillai was that he STILL held to Trinitarian doctrine, as if to say(based on the context of the teaching) that one of the two of them had changed their position.
I don't think there is any doubt that VPW was a Trinitarian at one point. The question is, when did he assume a monotheistic stance? As to the mis-speak: I asked why they simply did not do a retake once the error was discovered. I was told that these sessions were one time only events and the essence of it would be lost if it was redone. That's the kind of thing you expect to hear in a recording studio or movie set, not a class that is supposed to be about Biblical research.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
He did say "He's coming back as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He's coming back as the Lord God Almighty! And He's gonna knock some earballs together!" UGH! I hate that I remember that.
If it wasn't a reflection of his own beliefs, it could have been a perfect mimic of what vp himself heard in the class he attended and stole.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Hmmmm, I dunno waysider. This might shed some clarificiation - PFAL has the section on "The Integrity of the Word of God", where the word "logos" is covered. It goes Christ is the Word, the living logos, and the bible is the written Word, logos, which is made known by the preached Word (that's a synopsis)
In that section the word "pros" is covered and defined as "together with yet distinctly independent of". John 1:1 is taught, "in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God", etc. and that Christ was "with" God in foreknowledge and he cites the verse in Ephesians that we were also in God's foreknowledge and Christ was in God's foreknowledge, just as we were. He was clearly teaching that Jesus Christ wasn't "the Word" as in God is the Word, the Logos. PFAL was the first presentation of the doctine of Christ as "not being God" in the classic Trinitarian sense (if there is such a thing) I heard from the Way.
There's a typo or two in that section of the syllabus that I received in 1968, but the overall text of that session is consistent with what VPW taught over the years, as far as I can see and remember. And given all the hooplah that JCING received later it's of note that John 1:1 and the rest of what's taught around it is actually contained as a part of a larger topic, the integrity of the "Word" that covers the importance of the bible as a written record and communication that can be studied and understood, with an inherent consistency and reliability that can be recognized. "Logos" is covered from different angles from the bible.
I'd say he didn't have a direct connection to any specific "Trinitarian" doctrine at that time, and since PFAL was the presentation of what he'd been doing for years before that, I'd assume that it all got collated for PFAL. There was an initial attempt at filming that I remember hearing about and saw a few clips that were till floating around for a few years, his own first stab at doing it and they were pretty raw looking, by comparison. I don't know what that contained in it in regards to this topic but by the time he accepted the need to do a professional filming, I think it would be safe to say he held no Trinitarian views, in my view.
That line in PFAL - coming back as "Lord God Almighty" - I remember in context thinking he meant something along the lines of "on behalf of", or "for" and kind of jumbled up what he was trying to say which at that point was one of those bible thumping moments in PFAL. It seemed funny later
the more it was pointed out, in contrast to what he'd taught so emphatically about John 1:1 and "the logos".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Good point socks ... I'd sorta forgotten .. but I started "pre-qualifying"/preparing new students with a short meeting where I discussed several items they may be shocked by, in piffle. JCING was one (I'm pretty sure), the easter thing I think, a few others ... and I'd give a couple verses of support. A version of "obviating the objections" I suppose.
I think my area leader got my notes and started doing the same, it may have even become a standard ... but anyway, JCING did seem to be taught in piffle. VP was pretty worked up on the "coming back as lord gawd almighty" bit ... who knows what he really was thinking?
But the trinity started in the third century, so on that point it was the word as it had not been known sine the third century ..
... though many other Christians have held to jcing over the centuries.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Down in the basement is a discussion on this topic. I suspect that in the early 1950's Wierwille started seriously questioning the trinity, due to Lamsa and Leonard's viewpoints, but officially became public teaching with JCING. Might have suggested he should have titled it "Just exactly who is Jesus Christ?" but VPW loved causing controversary to spite people.
Edited by Thomas Loy BumgarnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Yeah, rhino. That section on John 1:1 could take people by surprise, particularly if they'd heard much teaching on it before as most teachings emphasize the meaning of it being that Jesus Christ was very much "with" God, "in the beginning". VPW's definition that's taught offers the "distinctly independent of" part to pros, although most definitions of the "Koine Greek" word pros include the aspect of movement towards ---> and the idea of a close relationship and companionship. So, to a certain extent it's always seemed to me that the meaning still requires fleshing out, as it were.
I'd say leaning towards "foreknowledge" as the answer is one way to understand it buuuuuut I don't think the words of John 1:1 are an open and shut case on that. Plus, while John is accepted as being written somewhere between 50 and 85 a.d. it's also thought to have been written much later, 140ish a.d. etc. It's different in the presentation of Jesus, from Mark and Luke, and Matthew too. Whenever written it opens with a bang, and the statement seems to put Jesus in a much different position than a man with a mission and someone of infiinite and certainly "divine" significance. But as others have stated here I don't think it's smart to turn one's entire understanding of Jesus around one verse. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
I used to have some early literature from the Way, and DrW was Trinitarian then. I agree with Socks that by the time the class was filmed, he was not Trinitarian. The Way It Was for me was a staunchly anti-Trinitarian stance, despite the "Lord God Almighty" statement (good synopsis on that, Socks). DrW was hard to put in a box.... I believe there used to be a copy of a letter by him on Waydale in response to a letter that asked about Jesus being prayed to, that was pretty revealing. Something that endeared me to him was his reply several times in the AC to questions (mostly lame questions) of "I don't know." But he did seem to take audacity lessons from Emerson, who he recommended.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I remember that letter, anotherDan. Yes, it circulated online too, if I remember right. It was weird back in the day, I almost thought of it as a "joke" letter, yet it was clearly on Way letterhead and with his signature. There was a question asked once in a 4th Corps meeting where he basically said he didn't want to talk about it, "people" would go in all kinds of directions with it, "you think ab-owd eet", kind of a deal.
The Way, It Was...I remember all the many times we sang "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus" with him-
Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face,
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
In the light of His glory and grace.
and "I Come to the Garden Alone"...
"And the voice I hear, falling on my ear, the Son of God discloses....aaaaaand Heeeeee walks with me and He talks with me, and He tells me I am His own....
and the joy we share as we tarry there, none other has ever known...
He speaks and the sound of His voice...is so sweet the birds hush their singing.
And the melody that He gave to me, within my heart is riii-iingiiiing....."
You tell me. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
So we can agree:
1 That there is no doubt that VPW was a Trinitarian at one point.
2 That at some point he changed his view.
3 That none of us know exactly at what point in time exactly that occurred.
That leaves this statement...........
You based that assumption on one misspeak in a "windup" at the end of a session. And this is a good case in point why we can not just accept everything someone says as truth. Why factual evidence is important to truth. I doubt that the facts will allow us to pinpoint the exact moment when VP changed his view but it would narrow down the time frame maybe . I'll refer you to SNS 296 recorded 12/6/64 and SNS 297 12/4/66 Both titled One God. Both were done before the date of the PFAL class that was recorded in 1967
In SNS 296 recorded 12/6/64 Is the following quote from VP
"Now someone will say to you Dr. Wierwille does not believe in the trinity. No I don't believe in the Trinity. "
"Why not just believe God's Word where it says there is only one God."
Clearly the facts show that at that time some three years before the date you speculated that he believed in the Trinity he very clearly stated that he did not. Clearly when person testimony is collaborated with hard evidence the picture becomes clear that the personal assumptions were unfounded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
How many folks have access to SNS tapes that are numbered in the 200's??
The earliest one I have is in the 600's, from 1975.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Personally, I think this is at LEAST as likely as any other possibility.
vpw loved to get to punctuate with drama, and showed a marked laziness in
diverging from the source material of the Christians he ripped things off from.
For all the material he used, the amount of change was VERY small.
(Name of "administrations" and which times they covered,
"gifts" became "manifestations", and that's most of it.)
Retelling a dramatic point in Leonard's class as a dramatic point in his OWN
class sound EXACTLY like something he would do.
I think I have one from the 300s. The sound quality from the early ones blew chunks,
but they're legible, so to speak. I don't think he mentioned this subject in that one.
I would have noted it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I don't understand what the fuss is about, exactly, whether VP believed in the trinity at one point. Someone mentioned DEW saying he wasn't clear on the subject early on.
What was the subject in piffle, vp said he'd always trade with someone when it came up ... was that the manifestations? Maybe he did it with the Trinity.
Anyway ... what VP believed is not significant ... it seems many people here did not believe the Trinity (or at least not perceive it as Jesus IS God) before piffle ... perhaps many have now gone back to their childhood belief, whether that be Trinity or JCING or baseball.
Or they have made informed decisions on what to believe. We can be fairly certain that The Way, It Was ... was merely a compilation of other men's works, largely men that were either "cutting edge", in VP's mind, or that offered something of interest that VP felt would mark him as significant.
Another point I think Juedes misses is that in Lynn's view, the significance of the vp movement was not in numbers, but in pointing out doctrinal error, or bringing old light to light now. Juedes gives numbers as his evidence of other groups being so much more significant, but that was not the significance JAL was referring to ...
A more honest Jalvis approach would have been to say he wanted to get back to the works of those men vp plagiarized ... but he seems more interested in stirring up some memories of Way Daze ...
So you folks out there that are now making much more than minimum wage, put on your old WOW pin, and write good old jal a check for a grand or two ... as you give you'll receive, and god will pour out a blessing upon you.
He really only needs to reach a few such folks to have a nice payday.
Or maybe JAL is just still livin' the dream ... it may be unsettling to many to try to change their ways after thirty years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Ok, I guess I missed your point maybe, but it appears though that you are saying that because someone did not have access to information it justifies that they could just say whatever, as fact. I'd be inclined to think that if one did not know ,they would say nothing or at least offer a theory. Hey I don't have access to the NASA space logs either but I would not say that astronauts had affairs in space just because I did not have access to the information. Sorry but I think that is flawed reasoning.
I bet there are a few people here that have 200 series tapes by the way. I know of some that do! I too started tapes in the early 600s 1973 but also picked up many back tapes along the way. A few survived on reel to reel only they are pre Way International from the old Way of Kansas.. Somewhere along the way maybe 1989? I bought a compiled set of all the SNS and tape of the months to fill in some missing ones, from CA where some people assembled a master set and duplicated them. By the way I think about anyone that wanted to could have access to the tapes now they are on eBay all the time on MP# all of VP's teachings on 14 disks for about $99.00. So it is not a question of having access but if one wanted access. By the way they are cleaned up as much as possible so they actually don't blow chunks ,at least as bad as they used to. (As far as sound that is
) Mark Gl*ck*n did some work on many tapes before he passed away and Barbara and some others have taken up on that project. I could tell you more about both of those projects including how the Wierwille children were involved but since everyone knows that people in Kansas don't know anything past the border I won't bother. 
Now if one did not have access to the tapes there is another way to checkout this claim and actually it pinpoints the time line better than the tapes. In Mrs. Wierwilles book Born Again To Serve.
Page 205 On June 10th of 1956 the first board meeting was held. At this meeting the revised constitution and bylaws were read there is a copy in the book ,and among the Way testimonies of belief are #2 We believe in one God manifested as Father ,Son and Holy Spirit. #3 We believe that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, and is true God and true man. So we know as of the 10th of June 1956 VP still held to the Trinity in belief.
Now on page 223 Mrs. Wierwille writes about the boards meeting to decide if they should join the National Association of Evangelicals. VP thought that being a part of a group might be stimulating and add credibility she writes. That was June 15th 1958 but the decision was tabled for more study.
On April 5th of 1959 they again met to consider the joining of the Evangelical Association at which they decided not to, because after a full study of the organization they found that their very basic doctrinal statement included the belief of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Mrs. Wierwille adds "by this time in the ministry, we knew that this was not biblically accurate."
So sometime between the meeting of June 10th of 1956 and the meeting of April 5th of 1959 VP changed his view of the trinity.
I'd lean toward 1957 early 58 for this reason, also in the book was a letter that Uncle Harry wrote about PFAL to people on page 222
Where he wrote " I want to tell you that every time VP teaches a class it gets better and better and these Bible truths that he shows us from the Word of God become more astounding than ever. There are many other truths that God has revealed to him since the original class and he has added them to the other teachings. That letter is dated June 9th 1958.
While it is not concrete it looks like this was the time frame for the trinity change. In any case we do know now from factual accounts that the change came about somewhere between June 10th of 1956 and the meeting of April 5th of 1959 so somewhere in those 34 months is where the change was made. Again a case in point that while personal testimony is all and good it is at times flawed due to various reasons. But when documented with hard facts we can see if indeed it stands the test of truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Nice background work dove ...
One other thing, regardless of where vp got his teachings, it was easy for him to decide doctrine and change it as he wanted, at least early on. A major denomination is pretty stuck when it comes to the trinity and most other major issues.
There is just no way they can change their brand. For the Catholics to decide against the Trinity would be like Coke deciding that Pepsi really is better ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
In addition to White Dove's quote from Mrs. W's book (which pretty much establishes the timeframe of his change of viewpoint), there was also a booklet called One God published in 1964, as listed in the Complete Writings of VPW section of The Living Word Speaks. It was later included as part of JCING. Also, he taught about "Who is the Word" and the John 1 stuff in PFAL (as mentioned by Socks, above) and there was even a chapter about it in The Word's Way, published in 1971. So the "official public teaching" did not start with JCING, but was expanded and solidified (in their minds) with that book.
(Yes, I still have my TWI books. Sometimes it's nice to be reminded of how far I've come. It also helps to be able to refer to the source when discussing the Way's theology with others.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Mark good point, In fact he did mention that booklet in the 1964 tape as sugested reading. I had sorta forgotten about the little studies in abundant living booklets. I bought a set at the ROA 73 in the sheep barn where they had the bookstore they were closing them out since the books were in print. . I dug mine out today it is not dated but it was published by the Way Incorporated which was before the Way International I think they changed over in 73 - 74 ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
This insertion in Mrs. W's book shows how, by 1996, this information is "sanitized" after the fact.........because vp wierwille was STILL on the payroll of the Van Wert Church when this "board meeting" was held. HOW CONVENIENT......that wierwille stays on the church payroll while *building his ministry.*
Wierwille stole B.G. Leonard's foundational class in 1953......and wierwille is supposedly "building his ministry since 1942" while he stays on the church payroll.
Gee........where was wierwille's BELIEVING?????????????
Since wierwille LEFT the church payroll in 1957......"by this time" wierwille's ministry was like Two Years Old.
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.