So, I'm sure this is in the wrong section but I've been invited to...

[Brushstroke]

So do you have a gameplan? Questions ready to go? Remember, if you get stuck, you can use one of three lifelines. . .

If they're like twi, nearly any subject can be turned into a "discussion" on the trinity . . .

Ask them how they know that god even exists. It probably has something to do with how they know there is no trinity.

I'm considering asking if they're familiar with any of the early church fathers and theologians, and in particular I'm probably going to focus on the Apostolic Fathers such as St. Polycarp of Smyrna and St. Ignatius of Antioch (who were both taught by the Apostle John), St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Clement of Rome, St. Barnabas (the same Barnabas that traveled with the Apostle Paul in Acts) and his general epistle, and the Didache, otherwise known as the "Teachings of the Apostles." It's a first-century catechism written for Gentile converts, and is said to have been written by the twelve apostles. I might also ask them if they've done any serious and unbiased studying of the history of the Christian Church before Nicaea and after it, such as the subsequent church councils and if they've researched any Church writings from that time period.

My point is this: If STFI/CES accepts the Bible as the Word of God, why then, does it not also accept the ones who wrote, copied, compiled and canonized the Bible as we know it today, as well as their theology? It's like taking the battery out of a car and trying to use it to generate power for your house. It actually can be used for that purpose (weird, I know), but it's not recommended and isn't what the battery was meant for.

And the existence of God? Hah...for fun I might throw out some Nietzsche to make them think a bit.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Brushstroke

[Bolshevik]

I'm not so sure I would go with the existence of God thing.

That would probably lead you straight to a discussion of speaking in tongues.

(Unless that's already a part of the game plan)

which leads to prophecy

which leads to receiving revelaton

which leads to discerning of spirits

which leads to a whole lot of BS.

[Ham]

oh yes.. the tongues with interpretation thingy.. what did you think?

the "message" very well may sound like it's "just for you"..

but one needs to remember the person giving the "message" may know quite a bit more about the new guy at fellowship than the new guy realizes..

[geisha779]

I'm considering asking if they're familiar with any of the early church fathers and theologians, and in particular I'm probably going to focus on the Apostolic Fathers such as St. Polycarp of Smyrna and St. Ignatius of Antioch (who were both taught by the Apostle John), St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Clement of Rome, St. Barnabas (the same Barnabas that traveled with the Apostle Paul in Acts) and his general epistle, and the Didache, otherwise known as the "Teachings of the Apostles." It's a first-century catechism written for Gentile converts, and is said to have been written by the twelve apostles. I might also ask them if they've done any serious and unbiased studying of the history of the Christian Church before Nicaea and after it, such as the subsequent church councils and if they've researched any Church writings from that time period.

My point is this: If STFI/CES accepts the Bible as the Word of God, why then, does it not also accept the ones who wrote, copied, compiled and canonized the Bible as we know it today, as well as their theology? It's like taking the battery out of a car and trying to use it to generate power for your house. It actually can be used for that purpose (weird, I know), but it's not recommended and isn't what the battery was meant for.

And the existence of God? Hah...for fun I might throw out some Nietzsche to make them think a bit.

Spoiler alert: They side with Arius and vilify the church fathers.

I would like to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.

[Brushstroke]

Spoiler alert: They side with Arius and vilify the church fathers.

I would like to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.

Do they even know who Arius is?

[Bolshevik]

I'm considering asking if they're familiar with any of the early church fathers and theologians, and in particular I'm probably going to focus on the Apostolic Fathers such as St. Polycarp of Smyrna and St. Ignatius of Antioch (who were both taught by the Apostle John), St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Clement of Rome, St. Barnabas (the same Barnabas that traveled with the Apostle Paul in Acts) and his general epistle, and the Didache, otherwise known as the "Teachings of the Apostles." It's a first-century catechism written for Gentile converts, and is said to have been written by the twelve apostles. I might also ask them if they've done any serious and unbiased studying of the history of the Christian Church before Nicaea and after it, such as the subsequent church councils and if they've researched any Church writings from that time period.

My point is this: If STFI/CES accepts the Bible as the Word of God, why then, does it not also accept the ones who wrote, copied, compiled and canonized the Bible as we know it today, as well as their theology? It's like taking the battery out of a car and trying to use it to generate power for your house. It actually can be used for that purpose (weird, I know), but it's not recommended and isn't what the battery was meant for.

And the existence of God? Hah...for fun I might throw out some Nietzsche to make them think a bit.

I brought up Polycarp once, and the fact there was earlier talk of the trinity. I got no answer.

Wayfers sometimes will simply tune out. Their mind goes into hiding. They'll just stand there and act like you never asked them anything. I guess they hope you'll forget what you asked. Whole rooms will go silent until the subject is changed.

In their mind, anything you say that does not flow with their own thinking is a trick. It's a direct attack from the adversary. They fight in their mind not to consider anything different. They may spurt out a prewritten statement, which usually has nothing to do with the conversation.

We were taught that "the truth needs no defense". Which means to them they don't need to answer questions, or spend time considering why they believe what they do. Doing so is devilish. (this is in twi).

Good luck tearing down that wall when you come to it.

[geisha779]

Do they even know who Arius is?

Might surprise you, but, yeah probably they do. However, it does get a bit dodgey after that.

[waysider]

I don't think that approach will phase them, Brush.

At least not if they still resemble the TWI that I remember.

First, because Church history holds no particular place of importance in "TWI thinking" other than to delude themselves into thinking they are reliving history by living like the people in The Book Of Acts.

In reality, they are living an antithesis.

Secondly, a large part of TWI doctrine is to discount and disregard what they call "worldly wisdom".

This was actually a big deal in the original PFAL class.

They consider philosophy to be a "counterfeit", meant to lure people away from the genuine.

Believe me, before I got into TWI, I was very interested in many of the same writers as you, as we have discussed before.

They were very skilled at showing me exactly where Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, Camus, etc. were leading me away from "The Truth".

Here's a little blip from PFAL:

"Spiritual weakness and inability can be due only to improper spiritual food or neglect of the Word of God."

(ie: You are spiritually weak because you read Nietzsche.)

"Natural man or the flesh or the senses cannot receive or know God."

(Now, Brushy, surely you want to receive and know God, don't you?) <_<

Edited February 18, 2009 by waysider

[Bolshevik]

They might think something like:

Polycarp, the means "many carps"

a carp is a fish

Dagon was a fish-god

the pope wear's a fish-hat

catholics are the enemy

this Polycarp talk is dangerous

this is an attack from the adversary

say nothing and nobody gets hurt

[Brushstroke]

I don't think that approach will phase them, Brush.

At least not if they still resemble the TWI that I remember.

First, because Church history holds no particular place of importance in "TWI thinking" other than to delude themselves into thinking they are reliving history by living like the people in The Book Of Acts.

In reality, they are living an antithesis.

Secondly, a large part of TWI doctrine is to discount and disregard what they call "worldly wisdom".

This was actually a big deal in the original PFAL class.

They consider philosophy to be a "counterfeit", meant to lure people away from the genuine.

Believe me, before I got into TWI, I was very interested in many of the same writers as you, as we have discussed before.

They were very skilled at showing me exactly where Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, Camus, etc. were leading me away from "The Truth".

Here's a little blip from PFAL:

"Spiritual weakness and inability can be due only to improper spiritual food or neglect of the Word of God."

(ie: You are spiritually weak because you read Nietzsche.)

"Natural man or the flesh or the senses cannot receive or know God."

(Now, Brushy, surely you want to receive and know God, don't you?) <_<

We're talking about STFI here, not TWI. STFI, to me, seems to have done a bit more research than TWI, and it apparently doesn't have much positive regard for Wierwille.

[GrouchoMarxJr]

At this point I'm not even sure I believe in God...at least not how most of you "Christians" believe in it...

...I tend to think that it's nothing at all like some of you expect...but then agin, I'm just a heathen.

[JeffSjo]

And the existence of God? Hah...for fun I might throw out some Nietzsche to make them think a bit.

Isn't Nietzsche dead?

I just hate it when people think that only their Nietzsche doesn't stink!

Sheesh, throwing Nietzsche around again, like the zoo chimps.

[cheranne]

I am not one for giving advice or speeches but I like to express my thinking in music and art.

[Bolshevik]

We're talking about STFI here, not TWI. STFI, to me, seems to have done a bit more research than TWI, and it apparently doesn't have much positive regard for Wierwille.

a spinoff is a spinoff

[Mark Clarke]

They have some positive regard for Wierwille, as witnessed by John Lynn's recent letter. But from what little I've seen they seem to have done more research than he did, at least for their One God One Lord book. I think Schoenheit, Graeser and Lynn (who wrote that book) do know more about the early Church Fathers than those in TWI did, but whether a local STFI fellowship coordinator does or not is another question.

And as for interpretation of tongues, they at one time taught that since SIT was perfect prayer, the interpretation should sound like a prayer, and they all started doing that way. I don't know if they still do it that way now.

[dmiller]

They have some positive regard for Wierwille, as witnessed by John Lynn's recent letter. But from what little I've seen they seem to have done more research than he did, at least for their One God One Lord book. I think Schoenheit, Graeser and Lynn (who wrote that book) do know more about the early Church Fathers than those in TWI did, but whether a local STFI fellowship coordinator does or not is another question.

And as for interpretation of tongues, they at one time taught that since SIT was perfect prayer, the interpretation should sound like a prayer, and they all started doing that way. I don't know if they still do it that way now.

One God, & One Lord (Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith) was indeed one of their better works.

I've several (but not all of their books), and this one is by far the best. Speaking of CES/STFI --- another stellar teaching is:

Did God Really Forsake Jesus Christ On The Cross??

Click the link and check it out. Docvic shoulda heard this one before spewing his $### there in pfal.

[OperaBuff]

One God, & One Lord (Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith) was indeed one of their better works.

I've several (but not all of their books), and this one is by far the best. Speaking of CES/STFI --- another stellar teaching is:

Did God Really Forsake Jesus Christ On The Cross??

Click the link and check it out. Docvic shoulda heard this one before spewing his $### there in pfal.

That is a very interesting teaching, one I had not heard before, thanks for the link. Interesting too, isn't it, how the Word keeps the Aramaic and translates it for us, right there as part of the text. Similar to John 19:13 and 19:17.

[Tzaia]

I have maintained all along that many of the written works of CES are very good. My continued involvement was based on what I believed was the careful thought and analysis of the materials they offered - even after the Momentus debacle made me rethink active fellowship. OGOL forced JJ&M to rethink many of their TWI beliefs, starting with Body, Soul, & Spirit (image of God). When the book was started, that belief was still firmly entrenched

CES is much more aware of the early church father's works and recommends the reading of "How Jesus Became God" by Richard Rubenstein for a unitarian perspective of those formative years.

CES had also dropped the Eli, Eli TWI teaching early on, choosing to embrace the Psalm 22 angle.

Tongues and interpretation had not been done from the beginning. In fact, you can attend many fellowships and not hear tongues. Prophecy had picked up quite a bit and differed in what was heard. Personal Prophecy had more of a "fore-telling" slant while regular prophecy was more "forth-telling".

Abundant sharing was embraced over the tithe.

Believing = receiving was dropped. "Don't Blame God" was embraced.

There is a stressing of Jesus' current functional equality with God, and while CES is dispensational, it is not nearly to the degree that Bullinger and TWI took it.

Where they have not departed from TWI is in the doctrine over relationships aspect. They would disagree, but nearly every "parting of the ways" has been over doctrine. They are also steadfast in promoting the home fellowship concept, which IMO doesn't provide a safe seeker environment. They also tend to attract what I call the walking wounded, or the person who has had little exposure to regular church. While they have not taken the stance against psychology that TWI ha(s)d, I believe they cross an ethical line by doing their own counseling rather than refer to outside resources, apparently not understanding the importance of avoiding bias and conflict of interest. These people were counseling each other, which is what I believe ultimately led to JAL's and EL's divorce and MG's ouster. Even though I kept telling them all that it was a bad idea to get into each other's business to that level, there was still that TWI tendency to meddle in people's business believing they were still being professional. They also use confidential information as a weapon against people. There is entirely too much talk about being possessed whenever someone has a different point of view, which I believe is a throwback to TWI.

What I have never questioned is their sincerity. I never sensed the element of fraud that I sensed while in TWI - at least until the latter half of 2004. Fraud - not in the sense of using people for gain, but in the sense that differences were less tolerated, and the heightened need for "like-mindedness" so there was a lot more going along to get along rather than the honest exchanges that I had been accustomed to.

Those are just a few of my thoughts.

[rascal]

I question their sincerity when one of their founders insists on slamming the people whom were abused as *perpetual victims*. Figuring that the people wounded...their biggest problem is that they need to just move on.

Well that certainly isn`t biblical. If these guys claim to be christian, I`d like to see some Godly sorrow and repentance...rather than just being ....ed off at the people that won`t shut up and go away so that they can go on pretending to be Christians....that they have some sort of spirituality.

I see in ces, what I saw in twi...people who believe that their knowledge makes them spiritual...

Sorry, all I have ever seen the knowledge used for is to puff themselves up, to be used to explain why they have no responsibility to follow the sections of scriptures they don`t like. Why they don`t have to come clean about the abuses.

That is why, as good as the supposed research is, as earnest as the adherents are....it will never be anything more than tinkling cymbles, as far as I can see.

Forever doomed to trying to apply principles .... studying to show themselves approved...never achieving the desired results, and being forced to accept blame for the failures. They will never know the simplicity and beauty of a genuine christian walk, as long as they think it is something that they can achieve through their works.

Edited February 19, 2009 by rascal

[TrustAndObey]

We're talking about STFI here, not TWI. STFI, to me, seems to have done a bit more research than TWI, and it apparently doesn't have much positive regard for Wierwille.

You'd be surprised how much "regard" they have for Wierwille. Heck, aside from a few "minor" mistakes in his doctrine, they adore his stuff. Only now, you've got the new "doctrine" that is much better, so you don't need TWI, you've got CES/STFI to fall down and worship.

Just their "original" name speaks volumes, "Christian Educational Services".. Yup, we are here for the sole purpose of edumacating yu-ons that maght not know da truth, cuz we have da truth!

Well, you are right, they have done more research. But just a word of advice, you can research till the cows come home and even be the most intellectual genius of our day and time and still come up short. In fact, it's guaranteed you still won't understand it all. Because we still only know in part, see through a tinted glass, and as 1 Corinthians says, "The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know."

That's why the standard Christ shared, the same standard Paul lived, and the standard we are to be "known" by is our love for one another, not by our big IQs. Nor by the fake worldly love either, which loves only certain individuals. But Christ said, love your enemy. And shared a parable about the "good samaritan" to share who their neighbor is, someone who was looked down upon by the Jews. Whether they hate you, want to kill you like Saul wanted to kill David, David still loved Saul and wouldn't put his hand forth to hurt him.

So while CES/STFI may have "some" correct doctrine, they have "some" that is not. Just as every religion on the face of this planet. And while they may claim to know "more" of the truth than others, that claim in of itself just oozes with pride, ego, and an I'm better than you are attitude that is the opposite of love, which 1 Corinthians 13 says "love vaunteth not itself".

If someone truly has a relationship with the true God, Paul wrote they will share his love. And it won't be just one of two attributes of love, it will be genuine love all the way around, instead of a wordly love that's been altered to look like the truth and trick those unsuspecting.

So my advice which may mean nothing and that's fine,

Reread 1 Cor 13, "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

And if you see anything otherwise in these brethren, than you can rest assured they have problems, just like we all do, and you can be sure they are just another person with faults like everyone else and not someone to "follow". Since of course, the "man" Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and men, is our only head, and the only one God gave Christians to "follow".

[Tzaia]

I question their sincerity when one of their founders insists on slamming the people whom were abused as *perpetual victims*. Figuring that the people wounded...their biggest problem is that they need to just move on.

Well that certainly isn`t biblical.

You're both right. There comes a point where one needs to acknowledge that the past can't be undone/relived, etc. There comes a time where the past needs to be given a voice and acknowledgment. It's a fine line.

[potato]

You're both right. There comes a point where one needs to acknowledge that the past can't be undone/relived, etc. There comes a time where the past needs to be given a voice and acknowledgment. It's a fine line.

the former usually can't happen if the latter is not allowed. letting go of something is a process, and if you're stuck somewhere where you can ever begin the process by acknowledging it, you never get to let it go.

[Mark Clarke]

Tongues and interpretation had not been done from the beginning. In fact, you can attend many fellowships and not hear tongues.

Have you heard anything about interpretation of tongues being a prayer? This was a long time ago I heard about this.

There is a stressing of Jesus' current functional equality with God, and while CES is dispensational, it is not nearly to the degree that Bullinger and TWI took it.

Even TWI never took it as far as Bullinger did. But CES/STFI seems to embrace it as much as TWI, and it is their foundation for misinterpreting huge portions of Scripture.

Overall, I have gotten the impression from their literature that they want to be The Way, Junior. They still have that "we know the truth and you need us to teach it to you" attitude. And much of their organizational structure and ways of dealing wtih people seem to reflect a failure to learn from The Way's mistakes. They may be sincere, but someone once said, "Sincerity is no guarantee for truth."

[Bolshevik]

. . .

Well, you are right, they have done more research. But just a word of advice, you can research till the cows come home and even be the most intellectual genius of our day and time and still come up short. In fact, it's guaranteed you still won't understand it all. Because we still only know in part, see through a tinted glass, and as 1 Corinthians says, "The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know."

. . .

Don't know what CES does, but I think this is why twi has to torpedo the book of job.

[Tzaia]

Have you heard anything about interpretation of tongues being a prayer? This was a long time ago I heard about this.

No. It wasn't a major point.

Even TWI never took it as far as Bullinger did. But CES/STFI seems to embrace it as much as TWI, and it is their foundation for misinterpreting huge portions of Scripture.

But I totally get why dispensations are done (even though I no longer agree). It's all an attempt to explain in a rational fashion that which can't really be explained.

Overall, I have gotten the impression from their literature that they want to be The Way, Junior. They still have that "we know the truth and you need us to teach it to you" attitude. And much of their organizational structure and ways of dealing wtih people seem to reflect a failure to learn from The Way's mistakes. They may be sincere, but someone once said, "Sincerity is no guarantee for truth."

They want to be a haven for the former way person. They want to be a familiar place for those who have left TWI, but want the same feel, so I do agree with your take. I just don't get a vibe that they do what they do to defraud or be malicious.