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

[Mark Clarke]

Nah, I'm in Arkansas. And yeah, I know what he was talking about. He seemed to make a distinction between what is commonly thought as unitarianism and called their unitarianism, biblical unitarianism. I guess he meant to imply that their unitarian beliefs can somehow be supported by Scripture. I would agree. I say this, because with the general ambiguity (though certainly leaning towards the concept of His deity) of the New Testament concerning Christ's deity compared to other Christian writings of the same time period, a case can be made either way: for Jesus being God, or for Him not being God, for the Trinity, or not for the Trinity.

Just to clarify, STFI and others who don't believe in the Trinity refer to themselves as "Biblical Unitarians" to differentiate themselves from Unitarian Universalists, whose beliefs are quite different.

[Mark Clarke]

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.

Actually it can be explained. Most theologies prior to the 1800s said that the Kingdom as Jesus preached it was "spiritualized" and fulfilled by the Church. Dispensationalism came along and said that the Kingdom was actually literal, but only addressed to Israel, and is currently "held in abeyance" until the future. But there is a third alternative that neither side usually considers. The Kingdom is literal and future, but is not just for Israel. It is the central message that Jesus and his disciples preached, and the Church is supposed to be announcing it, but is not the fulfillment of it. Check out this page on my website for details if you're interested.

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.

I don't get that either. I think it's more ego than maliciousness. They really believe people can't understand the Bible without them. But they didn't learn from the Way's mistakes when it comes to trying to control people's lives.

[geisha779]

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.

Well said. .. really well said.

[rascal]

An honest apology would go a long way....anything less is unbiblical and therefor renders the perpetrators and those promoting the doctrine of the men whom were so harmful to so many ... as not trustworthy.

John Lynns letters have told me all I need to know about how he feels about the carnage inflicted in twi. I have no doubt that he and the other leaders really DO wish that we would move on and shut up...who wants to be confronted with the ominous implications of their actions??

My God, how much would it take to apologize...to say I am SORRY that you were mistreated? But hey that takes love, kindness, compassion, understanding...These guys are too busy being tinkling cymbles with their great knowledge and works.

[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.

I am not sure about STFI but TWI could kinda/sorta be termed Dynamic Monarchianism. It seems STFI is similar in their beliefs.. .. similar I think to the JW's and Christadelphians if any of that helps.

I went to see JAL once after I left TWI. . . that was enough.

I never liked him in TWI. . . he embarassed me at Emporia from the podium during lunch. That was special.

[Mark Clarke]

I am not sure about STFI but TWI could kinda/sorta be termed Dynamic Monarchianism. It seems STFI is similar in their beliefs.. .. similar I think to the JW's and Christadelphians if any of that helps.

While they both reject the Trinity, the JW's and Christadelphians have somewhat different theologies. Christadelphians are more like TWI and STFI, and closer to Dynamic Monarchianism, although they would disagree with the usual definition of that view which says that Jesus was a "mere" man.

On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was created by Jehovah, and that Jehovah then created everything else by means of Jesus. They believe that references in the Bible to the Archangel Michael and "the Word" also refer to Jesus. This is actually more like Arianism than Dynamic Monarchianism.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Mark Clarke

[geisha779]

While they both reject the Trinity, the JW's and Christadelphians have somewhat different theologies. Christadelphians are more like TWI and STFI, and closer to Dynamic Monarchianism, although they would disagree with the usual definition of that view which says that Jesus was a "mere" man.

On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was created by Jehovah, and that Jehovah then created everything else by means of Jesus. They believe that references in the Bible to the Archangel Michael and "the Word" also refer to Jesus. This is actually more like Arianism that Dynamic Monarchianism.

Gee, Mark, maybe that is why I said. . . kinda/sorta. I wasn't trying to pigeonhole an EXACT belief system, but use theological terms Brushstroke is probably familar with. They are all similar but in differing ways. I assumed he understood it to be Arianism.

Thanks so much for "correcting" me.

I don't recall TWI teaching about a preincarnate Christ.

[Bolshevik]

no preincarnite christ,

special sperm was created in a fallopian tube . . .

how they know this? I don't know.

[geisha779]

no preincarnite christ,

special sperm was created in a fallopian tube . . .

how they know this? I don't know.

That IS very secific isn't it? LOL

Do you remember what they said about the angel of the Lord in the OT accounts?

I really don't remember anymore. Maybe that is a good sign! All my books and notes went into a dumpster in Winston-Salem NC. . . .

[Tzaia]

Thanks so much for "correcting" me.

I guess it's too late to ask you not to take offense.

Mark's point (I believe) was to ensure that STFI's particular beliefs were not simply lumped in with all non-trinitarian groups as there are differences between the doctrines that matter (to us).

[geisha779]

I guess it's too late to ask you not to take offense.

Mark's point (I believe) was to ensure that STFI's particular beliefs were not simply lumped in with all non-trinitarian groups as there are differences between the doctrines that matter (to us).

I am not trying to define anyones beliefs. . . or lump them together. . . I drew a distinction. . . I understand there is a slight variation between the groups. Perhaps they are more similar than different, but I still was just trying to define them in theological terms. . . and rather loosely at that. That is what "I think" means and "kinda/sorta" and "similar" mean.

I do know it matters to you and I was trying to be respectful.

Thanks again for correcting me.

[Mark Clarke]

Indeed, I meant no offense. My point was to clarify, more than "correct." As Tzaia said, I was pointing out the difference between JW's and various Unitarian positions such as STFI and Christadelphians, since they are sometimes lumped together. In fact I noticed, as I was looking for definitions, that CARM.org (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) lumped JWs together with Christadelphians and Unitarians as present day groups in the category of Monarchianism. But I think adherents to both categories would agree they are not more similar than different.

[Brushstroke]

I certainly understand the difference between Arianism and Dynamic Monarchianism. Paul of Samosata and Theodotus of Byzantium taught that Jesus was a mere man who did not have a pre-existence and "became" the Son of God later in life through being endowed with grace (what TWI/STFI/CES would call "holy spirit") from the Father later in His life. This is Adoptionism, which is closest to what TWI/STFI/CES believes and is often called Dynamic Monarchianism. Arianism, from the name of the bishop Arius of Alexandria, is indeed closer to what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, where Jesus is not cosubstantial or equal with God the Father, but is the first-created creature and is considered to have been used by the Father to create everything else. I think the reason they're lumped together is because they both deny Christ's eternal deity and the belief in the co-eternal, co-substantial, co-equal Trinity.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Brushstroke

[Tzaia]

I think the reason they're lumped together is because they both deny Christ's eternal deity and the belief in the co-eternal, co-substantial, co-equal Trinity.

Well now that you put it like that... <_<

[Brushstroke]

Well now that you put it like that... <_<

What? It's true. I didn't mean any offense in my statement. I was just saying they deny the belief that Christ is eternally God and that the Persons of the Trinity are equal in every way. :blink:

[Tzaia]

What? It's true. I didn't mean any offense in my statement. I was just saying they deny the belief that Christ is eternally God and that the Persons of the Trinity are equal in every way. :blink:

All (I think I can say that) of us deny that the scriptures overtly teach or imply that God is triune. Most of us would believe it if we thought it was in the scriptures. Some of us don't care too much anymore either way - but that is a discussion for the doctrinal forum.

[geisha779]

All (I think I can say that) of us deny that the scriptures overtly teach or imply that God is triune. Most of us would believe it if we thought it was in the scriptures. Some of us don't care too much anymore either way - but that is a discussion for the doctrinal forum.

I would agree with you Tzaia, it is not overt, rather some might called it revealed. Some call it searching the scriptures . . . some call it made up. I was thinking today about theology and this thread. . . and other discussions. I was thinking about how you describe something. Say the color blue to a blind man who has never known color. You would have to come up with words and concepts he could relate to.

TWI did us a great wrong with such a narrow view of understanding God and scripture. It is crazy, we are speaking of describing a hidden, infinite, eternal, pure being. May get wordy. May get messy! :)

I have grown to love theology. I can relate the ideas and concepts and understanding of what I, me, mine, see.. . . . paints a picture with words. I really enjoy it.

Used to think it was the devil's handiwork. But then again, I used to think devil spirits lived in certain books and every third human being I encountered.

If we shy away from controversial doctrine. . . nothing left. . . it is all controversial.

I also love to look at the paticular heresies from a historical perspective. . . cultural influences.. . I think I might be a geek.

[potato]

I do not want to be pigeon-holed for what I don't believe in, because it's what I DO believe in that matters to me.

one man's heresy is another man's truth.

[geisha779]

I do not want to be pigeon-holed for what I don't believe in, because it's what I DO believe in that matters to me.

one man's heresy is another man's truth.

You are right potato, and I make no value judgement when I use that word. How could I, I believed the same way for years. It would be a bit hypocritical on my part.

When I mentioned studying different heresies it was in relation to herisology. A theological study. It is in no way a personal indictment or pejorative. If you saw that, I am sorry.

The idea or term does come from WITHIN an established Orthodoxy. Maybe, I should use the word. . . non-conformist. Sounds better. :)

It is an historical study on my part, not a contemporary study. I am interested in history. That is my degree.

That is all I meant. Hope it is okay!

[potato]

You are right potato, and I make no value judgement when I use that word. How could I, I believed the same way for years. It would be a bit hypocritical on my part.

When I mentioned studying different heresies it was in relation to herisology. A theological study. It is in no way a personal indictment or pejorative. If you saw that, I am sorry.

The idea or term does come from WITHIN an established Orthodoxy. Maybe, I should use the word. . . non-conformist. Sounds better. :)

It is an historical study on my part, not a contemporary study. I am interested in history. That is my degree.

That is all I meant. Hope it is okay!

yes Geisha, I understood you meant it from a historical point of view :) I studied some of the "heresies" myself.

it's just that the word "heresy" is a loaded word from a modern, right-wing religious point of view, while it is not (at least usually) when used in historical context.

I do like the term "non-conformist", I think in this world it describes some of us better :)

[Mark Clarke]

I certainly understand the difference between Arianism and Dynamic Monarchianism. Paul of Samosata and Theodotus of Byzantium taught that Jesus was a mere man who did not have a pre-existence and "became" the Son of God later in life through being endowed with grace (what TWI/STFI/CES would call "holy spirit") from the Father later in His life. This is Adoptionism, which is closest to what TWI/STFI/CES believes and is often called Dynamic Monarchianism. Arianism, from the name of the bishop Arius of Alexandria, is indeed closer to what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, where Jesus is not cosubstantial or equal with God the Father, but is the first-created creature and is considered to have been used by the Father to create everything else. I think the reason they're lumped together is because they both deny Christ's eternal deity and the belief in the co-eternal, co-substantial, co-equal Trinity.

Actually, "Adoptionism" is only one form of Dynamic Monarchianism. TWI and STFI don't teach that Jesus "became" the Son of God later in life, although he received holy spirit and began his ministry at age 30. They believe he was the Son of God because he was conceived by God in his mother Mary. So while their belief may be a form of dynamic Monarchianism, Adoptionism isn't the closest form.

As for a "special sperm in the fallopian tubes" that was a speculation about the mechanics of it, based on the fact that the Gospels state he was conceived in Mary's womb.

As for the Angel of the Lord, TWI believed (and I think STFI still do) that it was just that - an Angel. This is in contrast to the belief that it was a pre-incarnate appearance of God the Son.

[Bolshevik]

So are you going to fellowship again?

[Ham]

I still want to know if they still do the tongues with interpetation or prophecy thingy..

and if the "custom tailor made" "messages" to that *unique* body sound hauntingly similar to what one heard in twig thirty years ago.. all with thee's and thou's..

or is it all "closet prophecy" now.. corner some poor slob off on his own, and rip out some kinda ambiguous "message" for his life..

[TrustAndObey]

I still want to know if they still do the tongues with interpetation or prophecy thingy..

and if the "custom tailor made" "messages" to that *unique* body sound hauntingly similar to what one heard in twig thirty years ago.. all with thee's and thou's..

or is it all "closet prophecy" now.. corner some poor slob off on his own, and rip out some kinda ambiguous "message" for his life..

Don't worry Ham, if you are ever a little nostalgic and care to reminisce about those good ol' days, then most STFI fellowships will provide the SIT and Prophecy like most ex-Wayfers are used to.

However, STFI fellowships are given a bit more freedom, so each can be somewhat unique. Only, since we are talking about most of those going are ex-Wayfers, the happenings don't fall too far short of the original bucket, since most still cling to much of the Way theology.

Even take SIT for example, STFI teaches it is more a prayer language rather than a message from God to the people. Yet, you will find many still hold to this ol' style SIT and interpret and perform it that way at STFI functions. Just the "doctrinally correct" guys of STFI will claim that person just SIT and didn't interpret but instead gave a prophecy after their SIT..

And yes, the messages are very eerily close to those found at Way functions. Same ol', same ol'.

While I'm sure these folks are inspired to share that same message over and over, I have my doubts whether it is God himself that inspired it right that moment for that group of people to hear the same thing 100x over. That is unless people have some thick skulls and really need to know that God has called them before the foundations of the world again and again and again, rather than maybe something more pertinent and specific in which those hearing have the secrets of their hearts revealed and they fall on their knees and proclaim, God is among you!..

Has anyone seen that happen? Maybe 1 Corinthians is wrong, and prophecy really doesn't work like that. Instead, Know that He is God and a rewarder, and he's called you to share the good news.. And umm.. Keep doing that.. A zillion times.. Yeah.. That's my prophetic word for you today, and tomorrow, and ummm every day, since my prophetic skills seem to be coming from a broken record from the 70's rather than a real living God.

[Mark Clarke]

While I'm sure these folks are inspired to share that same message over and over, I have my doubts whether it is God himself that inspired it right that moment for that group of people to hear the same thing 100x over. That is unless people have some thick skulls and really need to know that God has called them before the foundations of the world again and again and again, rather than maybe something more pertinent and specific in which those hearing have the secrets of their hearts revealed and they fall on their knees and proclaim, God is among you!..

Has anyone seen that happen? Maybe 1 Corinthians is wrong, and prophecy really doesn't work like that. Instead, Know that He is God and a rewarder, and he's called you to share the good news.. And umm.. Keep doing that.. A zillion times.. Yeah.. That's my prophetic word for you today, and tomorrow, and ummm every day, since my prophetic skills seem to be coming from a broken record from the 70's rather than a real living God.

My money is on I Corinthians being right. I have my doubts as to whether tongues and prophecy as they are done today is genuinely the same gift that they had in the first century. (And yes, I said gift! :) )