I don't believe VP knew Christ. If he did not know Him, how could he possibly have taught him to others? He didn't. Christ was glossed over. He was reduced to an incantation at the end of a prayer. TWI was always about God and the Bible. God's heart - Christ - was missing. I have often thought over the years, the biggest disservice done to people who wanted to know God, who came to TWI, was that they were not taught who truly Christ is. I remember during my time in TWI hearing other Christians, not in TWI, talk about their relationship with Christ. I always wondered - what are they talking about? What am I missing? When I left TWI, the very first thing God taught me was who Christ is. I mulled over this idea, this strange thought for months. I had put my Bible down and also hadn't read it in months. One rainy day, in my little studio apartment on E. 95th Street in Manhattan I read the Gospel of John - fireworks went off in my mind - Oh, I see... I have heard, but now I see. Now, I understand when people talk about their relationship with Christ. He is God's heart, he is the mediator between God and Man. We had God, we had the "Word," but we didn't have the Heart - Christ.
Oh Sunesis, I so hear you. I'm still wrestling with this myself. I have a "God-concept" but not really a "Jesus concept" or "Christ concept" and wonder about this "relationship with Christ."
I have a relationship, sure, but not as fully as some appear to have. It's more like having a relative that you see occasionally (or rarely) - you know they're there and where they fit in your life (like your uncle in another city, say) but the closeness that you might see between siblings or cousins or people who have grown up together and know each other well ... isn't there.
I have often thought over the years, the biggest disservice done to people who wanted to know God, who came to TWI, was that they were not taught who truly Christ is.
I'm mostly inclined to agree with this, but not for the same reasons or from the same perspective.
I remember during my time in TWI hearing other Christians, not in TWI, talk about their relationship with Christ.
I always wondered - what are they talking about? What am I missing?
Even back then, it appeared saying or hearing that it was Christ in you was often far removed from actually believing that it is Christ in you.
When I left TWI, the very first thing God taught me was who Christ is.
It was long after graduating the corps when the reality of Christ's presence took on much more significant meaning.
(But for quite different reasons that it appears it might have been for you.)
Many people can know the Bible, preach it and yet still not believe it, not really.
Yup.
It is the Holy Spirit, the Breath of God, dwelling in us,
The living Christ, as I see it.
VP focused on Paul.
It's not what I recall (at least, it's not how I saw it.) Maybe it's somewhat a matter of semantics. But, I'm also thinking of 1Cor.11:1. Paul was Paul. And I don't believe there will ever be anyone that honestly can (or should ever be) compared to him. Following him is one thing. But putting yourself in place of him (or allowing or encouraging anyone else to put you in that place) is quite another. And anybody that thinks they can or should be... well then, there's a problem brewing.
Perhaps if we really understood and followed more of what Paul (who clearly knew and had a personal relationship with the ascended Christ) taught, rather than having been so gung ho and committed to building a ministry structuring itself akin to the church of James and the apostles that were in Jerusalem, there wouldn't have been anything to become so distracted with or that would "fall apart."
It seems as we all age, its not that we learn "new" things to satisfy itching ears, but I think that I see and understand what I know much deeper.
There's a wonderful "old school" writer named Arthur Pink I discovered a few years ago. His book on the Holy Spirit is one of the best I've ever read - really opened my eyes about what the Holy Spirit does in the world and in our hearts. I got it on Amazon, you might enjoy it.
Thank you for your kind words everyone. It has been a few years since I've been here and I'm glad to see you all :)
Arthur Pink wrote a book, "Why Four Gospels" which I used as a great source for a section on that Tabernacle/Temple class, Sunesis. Interesting that you've run across him too. Lotsa good writing he did.
What made you so ill poor fellow? Pray tell. I await with baited breath the interpretation of your vomitous reaction. Got an attitude? Got milk? :evildenk:/>
Your dissing of the apostle Paul, and the virulency of your post.
Are you better now? I'm sorry you thought I was dissing Paul when it was victor paul I was dissing. Kinda makes the point. Hope you don't get sick again now.
Are you better now? I'm sorry you thought I was dissing Paul when it was victor paul I was dissing. Kinda makes the point. Hope you don't get sick again now.
It wasn't you alone that I viewed as dissing Paul, it was the entire first post (which seemed to stem from your post elsewhere) and the direction the thread appeared to be headed towards. While I don't believe that VP (or Bullinger, for that matter) had it right, I also don't believe that reformation or expansion theology (which Arthur Pink appear to fit with) has it right.
It wasn't you alone that I viewed as dissing Paul, it was the entire first post (which seemed to stem from your post elsewhere) and the direction the thread appeared to be headed towards. While I don't believe that VP (or Bullinger, for that matter) had it right, I also don't believe that reformation or expansion theology (which Arthur Pink appear to fit with) has it right.
Well......since "the entire first post" is my doing, it looks like I'd better step in
and respond to this.
Thanks for being candid, TLC:
1) You don't believe that VP had it right
2) You don't believe that Bullinger had it right
3) You don't believe that reformation theology has it right
4) You don't believe that expansion theology [ie Arthur Pink] has it right
Got it.
Wierwille spent the vast majority of his teachings, pamphlets, retemories, plagiarized books, etc.
in the Pauline epistles. He heavily emphasized dispensationalism, wherein the four gospels were
"Old Testament...for your learning" in pfal and emphasized it to his grave. Oh, sure....he gave
lip-service to Jesus and the anointed Christ, but anyone who sat it hundreds of his teachings and
corps/staff meetings knows the thrust of his core beliefs.
Heck, if this were the doctrinal forum.....we could delve into I Cor. 1_12-30 and SHOW
that the apostle Paul had the SAME PROBLEMS in the early churches.....ie followers wanting to be
"of Paul" or "of Apollos" or "of Cephas." Yet, even Paul directs them to Christ Jesus.
Sure, you might say....."that's what wierwille did."
But many of us are saying......NO, he didn't.
I leave you with Rev. Oral Robert's teaching (below).
Why was wierwille STILL plagiarizing from other ministers
[1978] four years before he retired? [1982] He didn't know Jesus,
the Christ, the son of the Living God.
Rev. Oral Roberts' teaching on "The Fourth Man" schooled wierwille
on the full exhaustive, expansive and exalted Jesus Christ.
In Genesis, he is.........The seed of the woman
In Exodus, he is..........The Passover lamb
In Leviticus, he is.......Our High Priest
In Numbers, he is.........Pillar of Cloud by Day, Pillar of Fire by Night
In Deuteronomy, he is.....The Prophet like unto Moses
In Joshua, he is..........The Captain of our salvation
In Judges, he is..........The Lawgiver
In Ruth, he is............Our Kinsmen Redeemer
.............<snip>
In Revelation, he is......The King of kings and Lord of lords
3) You don't believe that reformation theology has it right
4) You don't believe that expansion theology [ie Arthur Pink] has it right
Got it.
Unless I'm mistaken, reformation theology and expansion theology refer to one and the same thing. (Some calling it one, some calling it the other.) I think it might also be called unity theology. There's something else called replacement theology that I avoided using, as that term seems to be more egregious to some, who claim it's merely straw to be blown down. But, most people follow after one form or another of one of these theologies, whether they either know it or admit it.
Wierwille spent the vast majority of his teachings, pamphlets, retemories, plagiarized books, etc.
in the Pauline epistles. He heavily emphasized dispensationalism, wherein the four gospels were
"Old Testament...for your learning" in pfal and emphasized it to his grave. Oh, sure....he gave
lip-service to Jesus and the anointed Christ, but anyone who sat it hundreds of his teachings and
corps/staff meetings knows the thrust of his core beliefs.
Heck, if this were the doctrinal forum.....we could delve into I Cor. 1_12-30 and SHOW
that the apostle Paul had the SAME PROBLEMS in the early churches.....ie followers wanting to be
"of Paul" or "of Apollos" or "of Cephas." Yet, even Paul directs them to Christ Jesus.
Sure, you might say....."that's what wierwille did."
But many of us are saying......NO, he didn't.
Yeah, maybe I lost sight of primary goal of the thread, to punk wierwille.
Where was I, thinkin' more 'bout what sound doctrine is or might or should be?
But then, how do you honestly assess or measure how much twi's teachings and doctrine skewed the very essence of Christianity, if the very essence of Christianity is never set forth right in the first place?
I don't think anybody has ever had it (i.e., Christianity) exactly right since the apostle Paul. Maybe in certain respects he wasn't perfect either. But in doctrine? Of necessity, that man had it goin' on. Even Peter eventually admitted that.
And it seems rather likely that no man will ever again attain the magnitude of understanding that Paul did. Which is probably a good thing, human nature being what it is and the strong tendency to follow after and brown nose or cling to the charismatic shadow of some other man. Instead, pockets of truth seems to be found in bits and pieces across the board, with no one person having it all, and no power or force so great that it is able to prevent more and more of it from surfacing.
Yeah, maybe I lost sight of primary goal of the thread, to punk wierwille.
Where was I, thinkin' more 'bout what sound doctrine is or might or should be?
But then, how do you honestly assess or measure how much twi's teachings and doctrine skewed the very essence of Christianity, if the very essence of Christianity is never set forth right in the first place?
A lot of people put a lot of trust in Victor Paul Wierwille, and he betrayed them. I don't know how much farther it goes than that.
A lot of people put a lot of trust in Victor Paul Wierwille, and he betrayed them. .
If there was a real place called GreaseSpot Cafe, it would probably have a big neon sign in the front window, flashing brightly, proclaiming this message.
I don't think anybody has ever had it (i.e., Christianity) exactly right since the apostle Paul. Maybe in certain respects he wasn't perfect either. But in doctrine? Of necessity, that man had it goin' on. Even Peter eventually admitted that.
And it seems rather likely that no man will ever again attain the magnitude of understanding that Paul did. Which is probably a good thing, human nature being what it is and the strong tendency to follow after and brown nose or cling to the charismatic shadow of some other man. Instead, pockets of truth seems to be found in bits and pieces across the board, with no one person having it all, and no power or force so great that it is able to prevent more and more of it from surfacing.
And perhaps that's one of the reasons we are as Crhistians encouraged to meet together. So that we can learn from the "pockets of truth" that others have; so that we can see how God is at work in someone else or in some situation; to help us get a bigger picture.
Spend enough time with Christians from other denominations or backgrounds, and you'll see common threads in how they feel God talks to them or shows them things, or works in situations.
God is bigger than one person, one book, one denomination, one culture.
It might not be a bad idea to think about your neighbor, the person next to you in the pew, the colleague at the next desk - and think (with meekness), how does God work in this person's life, and how can I learn from him? This person has Christ in her (the hope of glory); how does that "Christ" serve the world in her life?
or theology......we've moved on. And some, I might add.....have HEEDED the essence of the apostle Paul's
epistle to the Corinthians. So contrary to "dissing Paul".....we've embraced his words to the early church
to not "follow after the flesh" [wierwille], but in that which is noble, mighty, wise and glorious.
But then, how do you honestly assess or measure how much twi's teachings and doctrine skewed the very essence of Christianity, if the very essence of Christianity is never set forth right in the first place?
The very essence of Christianity IS set forth.
In. The. Scriptures.
Wierwille's ministry is an OFFSHOOT of Rev. B.G. Leonard.
Why do people think that wierwille had the "original" on anything?
It might not be a bad idea to think about your neighbor, the person next to you in the pew, the colleague at the next desk - and think (with meekness), how does God work in this person's life, and how can I learn from him? This person has Christ in her (the hope of glory); how does that "Christ" serve the world in her life?
Nearly a year ago I was in critical care in the hospital with pneumonia. An amazing thing I observed while there was that every single person, from the top doctors to the people who were delivering my meals and taking out my trash, exhibited an un-self-conscious heart of service. I think the Lord was showing me that in serving me, they were serving him, because at that time, I was certainly the least of his brothers.
And their hearts of service were of far more importance than any quibbles of "doctrine" that I might have had with them. We often neglect that praxis is more important than doctrine.
We were incredibly arrogant in TWI. It was only because of God's mercy that he didn't strike us all dead...
And perhaps that's one of the reasons we are as Crhistians encouraged to meet together. So that we can learn from the "pockets of truth" that others have; so that we can see how God is at work in someone else or in some situation; to help us get a bigger picture.
Spend enough time with Christians from other denominations or backgrounds, and you'll see common threads in how they feel God talks to them or shows them things, or works in situations.
God is bigger than one person, one book, one denomination, one culture.
It might not be a bad idea to think about your neighbor, the person next to you in the pew, the colleague at the next desk - and think (with meekness), how does God work in this person's life, and how can I learn from him? This person has Christ in her (the hope of glory); how does that "Christ" serve the world in her life?
Well said. Thank you.
It makes no sense whatsoever to live in isolation or in ignorance to what is happening around us.
(And the communal situation at HQ was no small issue.)
We often neglect that praxis is more important than doctrine.
Recommended Posts
Twinky
Oh Sunesis, I so hear you. I'm still wrestling with this myself. I have a "God-concept" but not really a "Jesus concept" or "Christ concept" and wonder about this "relationship with Christ."
I have a relationship, sure, but not as fully as some appear to have. It's more like having a relative that you see occasionally (or rarely) - you know they're there and where they fit in your life (like your uncle in another city, say) but the closeness that you might see between siblings or cousins or people who have grown up together and know each other well ... isn't there.
Not sure what to do about that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Wonderful post Sunesis. TY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I'm mostly inclined to agree with this, but not for the same reasons or from the same perspective.
Even back then, it appeared saying or hearing that it was Christ in you was often far removed from actually believing that it is Christ in you.
It was long after graduating the corps when the reality of Christ's presence took on much more significant meaning.
(But for quite different reasons that it appears it might have been for you.)
Yup.
The living Christ, as I see it.
It's not what I recall (at least, it's not how I saw it.) Maybe it's somewhat a matter of semantics. But, I'm also thinking of 1Cor.11:1. Paul was Paul. And I don't believe there will ever be anyone that honestly can (or should ever be) compared to him. Following him is one thing. But putting yourself in place of him (or allowing or encouraging anyone else to put you in that place) is quite another. And anybody that thinks they can or should be... well then, there's a problem brewing.
Perhaps if we really understood and followed more of what Paul (who clearly knew and had a personal relationship with the ascended Christ) taught, rather than having been so gung ho and committed to building a ministry structuring itself akin to the church of James and the apostles that were in Jerusalem, there wouldn't have been anything to become so distracted with or that would "fall apart."
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
It seems as we all age, its not that we learn "new" things to satisfy itching ears, but I think that I see and understand what I know much deeper.
There's a wonderful "old school" writer named Arthur Pink I discovered a few years ago. His book on the Holy Spirit is one of the best I've ever read - really opened my eyes about what the Holy Spirit does in the world and in our hearts. I got it on Amazon, you might enjoy it.
Thank you for your kind words everyone. It has been a few years since I've been here and I'm glad to see you all :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Arthur Pink wrote a book, "Why Four Gospels" which I used as a great source for a section on that Tabernacle/Temple class, Sunesis. Interesting that you've run across him too. Lotsa good writing he did.
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Your dissing of the apostle Paul, and the virulency of your post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Are you better now? I'm sorry you thought I was dissing Paul when it was victor paul I was dissing. Kinda makes the point. Hope you don't get sick again now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It wasn't you alone that I viewed as dissing Paul, it was the entire first post (which seemed to stem from your post elsewhere) and the direction the thread appeared to be headed towards. While I don't believe that VP (or Bullinger, for that matter) had it right, I also don't believe that reformation or expansion theology (which Arthur Pink appear to fit with) has it right.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Well......since "the entire first post" is my doing, it looks like I'd better step in
and respond to this.
Thanks for being candid, TLC:
1) You don't believe that VP had it right
2) You don't believe that Bullinger had it right
3) You don't believe that reformation theology has it right
4) You don't believe that expansion theology [ie Arthur Pink] has it right
Got it.
Wierwille spent the vast majority of his teachings, pamphlets, retemories, plagiarized books, etc.
in the Pauline epistles. He heavily emphasized dispensationalism, wherein the four gospels were
"Old Testament...for your learning" in pfal and emphasized it to his grave. Oh, sure....he gave
lip-service to Jesus and the anointed Christ, but anyone who sat it hundreds of his teachings and
corps/staff meetings knows the thrust of his core beliefs.
Heck, if this were the doctrinal forum.....we could delve into I Cor. 1_12-30 and SHOW
that the apostle Paul had the SAME PROBLEMS in the early churches.....ie followers wanting to be
"of Paul" or "of Apollos" or "of Cephas." Yet, even Paul directs them to Christ Jesus.
Sure, you might say....."that's what wierwille did."
But many of us are saying......NO, he didn't.
I leave you with Rev. Oral Robert's teaching (below).
Why was wierwille STILL plagiarizing from other ministers
[1978] four years before he retired? [1982] He didn't know Jesus,
the Christ, the son of the Living God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Unless I'm mistaken, reformation theology and expansion theology refer to one and the same thing. (Some calling it one, some calling it the other.) I think it might also be called unity theology. There's something else called replacement theology that I avoided using, as that term seems to be more egregious to some, who claim it's merely straw to be blown down. But, most people follow after one form or another of one of these theologies, whether they either know it or admit it.
Yeah, maybe I lost sight of primary goal of the thread, to punk wierwille.
Where was I, thinkin' more 'bout what sound doctrine is or might or should be?
But then, how do you honestly assess or measure how much twi's teachings and doctrine skewed the very essence of Christianity, if the very essence of Christianity is never set forth right in the first place?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I'll add one thing more to this.
I don't think anybody has ever had it (i.e., Christianity) exactly right since the apostle Paul. Maybe in certain respects he wasn't perfect either. But in doctrine? Of necessity, that man had it goin' on. Even Peter eventually admitted that.
And it seems rather likely that no man will ever again attain the magnitude of understanding that Paul did. Which is probably a good thing, human nature being what it is and the strong tendency to follow after and brown nose or cling to the charismatic shadow of some other man. Instead, pockets of truth seems to be found in bits and pieces across the board, with no one person having it all, and no power or force so great that it is able to prevent more and more of it from surfacing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
A lot of people put a lot of trust in Victor Paul Wierwille, and he betrayed them. I don't know how much farther it goes than that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If there was a real place called GreaseSpot Cafe, it would probably have a big neon sign in the front window, flashing brightly, proclaiming this message.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
And perhaps that's one of the reasons we are as Crhistians encouraged to meet together. So that we can learn from the "pockets of truth" that others have; so that we can see how God is at work in someone else or in some situation; to help us get a bigger picture.
Spend enough time with Christians from other denominations or backgrounds, and you'll see common threads in how they feel God talks to them or shows them things, or works in situations.
God is bigger than one person, one book, one denomination, one culture.
It might not be a bad idea to think about your neighbor, the person next to you in the pew, the colleague at the next desk - and think (with meekness), how does God work in this person's life, and how can I learn from him? This person has Christ in her (the hope of glory); how does that "Christ" serve the world in her life?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
The primary goal of this thread was to point out the blatant error and premise of wierwille's ministry.
When you state that you "don't believe VP had it right"......is that **to punk wierwille** also??
If one holds to account that scripture is "God-breathed" and is profitable for instruction in righteousness,
then that should be the focal point not "of Paul" or "of Cephas" or "of Wierwille."
Throughout the Greasespot Café you will find posters who no longer hold to the "of Wierwille" doctrine
or theology......we've moved on. And some, I might add.....have HEEDED the essence of the apostle Paul's
epistle to the Corinthians. So contrary to "dissing Paul".....we've embraced his words to the early church
to not "follow after the flesh" [wierwille], but in that which is noble, mighty, wise and glorious.
The very essence of Christianity IS set forth.
In. The. Scriptures.
Wierwille's ministry is an OFFSHOOT of Rev. B.G. Leonard.
Why do people think that wierwille had the "original" on anything?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Good post Twinky. TY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Nearly a year ago I was in critical care in the hospital with pneumonia. An amazing thing I observed while there was that every single person, from the top doctors to the people who were delivering my meals and taking out my trash, exhibited an un-self-conscious heart of service. I think the Lord was showing me that in serving me, they were serving him, because at that time, I was certainly the least of his brothers.
And their hearts of service were of far more importance than any quibbles of "doctrine" that I might have had with them. We often neglect that praxis is more important than doctrine.
We were incredibly arrogant in TWI. It was only because of God's mercy that he didn't strike us all dead...
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well said. Thank you.
It makes no sense whatsoever to live in isolation or in ignorance to what is happening around us.
(And the communal situation at HQ was no small issue.)
Right on both points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Yeah......ain't that the truth.
Having grown up in a small-town farming community, with helpful neighbors.....NO ONE quibbles
about "doctrine." Sheeesh. This whole actions speak louder than words AND, most
definitely walking by holy spirit........is why the big-wigs at twi are so plastic, not
genuine.
Teach, pontificate, teach......repeat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
Yes, Steve
We were incredibly arrogant.
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.