This is related to the Trinity thread in About The Way.
1) I'm not a Christian, therefore I'm not for or against or believe in The Trinity/Unitarianism/Anti-Trinity stances.
2) My main interests are understanding how a Wayfer's minds thinks (in general), how to approach them, and VPW's motives and consequences of his actions. And other topics related to those points.
Based on those two points alone, I'd be left wondering why you'd want to try understand how anyone's mind thinks concerning such a convoluted subject such as the Trinity.
However, if and when the subject ever does comes up (rare are the times I would think to initiate any discussion of it), my thoughts fairly quickly turns towards assessing what impact or place of importance the subject holds in the other person's mind. IF (and this a mighty big if) it appears to be (in their thinking):
1) An issue of salvation, or
2) A probable issue of salvation, or
3) A possible issue of salvation, or
4) A probable point of contention.
Then, I'll probably (and typically) avoid the subject altogether.
3) I assume everyone here agrees a person's belief about The Trinity guarantees nothing about their character.
4) My background is being raised in TWI. I have followed no other religion/belief system.
It's probably dangerous to assume much of anything related to this subject... lol.
5) VPW can be agreed with or disagreed with here. I'd prefer to refrain from blatant bashing.
I happen to agree with the thinking that Jesus Christ is not God. However, the reasons for it extend beyond what vpw or twi taught.
I'm hoping some Christians (or some who understand) can explain why The Trinity is important to many Christians,...
It's been debated (and fought over) for hundreds of years (long, long before twi). Maybe you've heard that vpw once said that he thought Isalm wouldn't even exist today if it hadn't been for the Trinity. Whether or not that's true, or whether it's an original thought, I don't know. Perhaps. Maybe somebody else knows more or wants to add to it.
...why VPW's anti-Trinity stance was significant,...
As mentioned once already, I think there's far more significance attributed to it than ever should have been. (For reasons that might be less than noble. It's far, far easier for me to learn to separate truth from error than it is to determine and/or separate motives of the heart.)
...and how the non-Trinity view may have affected other doctrines of Christianity in TWI. (What might have been intended and unintended consequences.)
Well, my opinion is that it can affect (intentionally or unintentionally) how (or whether) some number of other issues or doctrines of Christianity are perceived, regardless of any association with (or knowledge of) twi or vpw.
Based on those two points alone, I'd be left wondering why you'd want to try understand how anyone's mind thinks concerning such a convoluted subject such as the Trinity.
It takes the same type of thinking to believe in any type of God at all, doesn't it?
However, if and when the subject ever does comes up (rare are the times I would think to initiate any discussion of it), my thoughts fairly quickly turns towards assessing what impact or place of importance the subject holds in the other person's mind. IF (and this a mighty big if) it appears to be (in their thinking):
1) An issue of salvation, or
2) A probable issue of salvation, or
3) A possible issue of salvation, or
4) A probable point of contention.
Then, I'll probably (and typically) avoid the subject altogether.
. . .
Let's assume it's unavoidable. It comes up.
It's been debated (and fought over) for hundreds of years (long, long before twi). Maybe you've heard that vpw once said that he thought Isalm wouldn't even exist today if it hadn't been for the Trinity. Whether or not that's true, or whether it's an original thought, I don't know. Perhaps. Maybe somebody else knows more or wants to add to it.
As mentioned once already, I think there's far more significance attributed to it than ever should have been. (For reasons that might be less than noble. It's far, far easier for me to learn to separate truth from error than it is to determine and/or separate motives of the heart.)
. . .
Well, my opinion is that it can affect (intentionally or unintentionally) how (or whether) some number of other issues or doctrines of Christianity are perceived, regardless of any association with (or knowledge of) twi or vpw.
Feel free to expound on what you mean. This IS doctrinal.
One aspect of subscribing to The Way's anti-trinity based dogma is that it insures the subscriber is less likely to veer from the core tenets of The Way and be more prone to associate with individuals who are already on the same page, theologically. "Pickles in a jar labeled 'peaches'" is the analogy that comes to mind.
Of course, that phenomena is not unique to The Way or even religion, in general.
The topic of the Trinity comes up when talking with followers of The Way International.
It also comes up on this website.
I should probably begin by asking you TLC, were you at some point fellowshipping with The Way International?
???
Do you honestly need to ask that?
I prepare for arguments and conflicts that I know are coming. That is something that makes sense to me.
But why? Where are you "trying to go" with them or what are you trying to accomplish? To "prove" them wrong? Are you trying to lead them somewhere? I don't get it, and I guess it just doesn't make any sense to me. So, it seems to be nothing that I can offer any other comments on.
Your previous comment I found condescending. So I asked a rhetorical question hoping it would help us understand each other.
I'm quite aware of what a rhetorical question is, and how to use it. Yours just didn't come across as being one.
Furthermore, it's actually not at all uncommon or unusual for someone (i.e., myself) who's primary method of learning and/or teaching (which can sometimes be extremely difficult to distinguish) is Socratic to be mistaken as being condescending. Which is, at least in part, why I've tried to reveal that about myself. I do try to make certain adjustments for it (depending on the discussion), but it can be (and often is) difficult for me to suppress. So, my apologies for appearing as such, it's a known issue with me.
I, at least, had the impression you were wanting to go into doctrinal aspects in order to explain your viewpoints in a previous thread. Am I wrong?
Not necessarily, as that is often where I see or think a conversation might (or should) naturally lead or progress to, which would incline me to say certain things that I otherwise wouldn't. But, it seemed to be a presumption on my part. As mentioned in my previous post, I wasn't itching to get up on some soapbox and talk about the Trinity.
One aspect of subscribing to The Way's trinity based dogma is that it insures the subscriber is less likely to veer from the core tenets of The Way and be more prone to associate with individuals who are already on the same page, theologically. "Pickles in a jar labeled 'peaches'" is the analogy that comes to mind.
Of course, that phenomena is not unique to The Way or even religion, in general.
Questions about the identity of Jesus Christ are almost as old as Christianity itself. The gospels and epistles are, at least in part, a rebuttal to early claims about exactly who Jesus was, both before and after his resurrection.
He's the Son of God. Why? In Mark it's at his baptism. In Luke and Matthew it's by virtue of him not having an earthly father. In John it's a relationship that predates his birth. All answers are Biblically defensible. The inescapable conclusion from the gospels: he is the Son of God.
But John is the only gospel that explicitly appears to make the case that he is actually God as well (although John would probably be denounced as a heretic for claiming that the Father is in any way greater than the Son).
The Trinity as a doctrine developed over time.
That Christ was a being who existed prior to his earthly life can reasonably be deduced from the writings of Paul.
We in TWI made the mistake of thinking there was something Biblically unreasonable about a doctrine like "the incarnation," as though there were no Biblical support for it. To the contrary, the Biblical support is strong and must be addressed for a Socinian model (his existence began at conception/birth, just like ours) to hold water.
It should be noted that the biggest controversy around the time of Nicea was whether Jesus pre-existed as God or as an angel. That he was "just a man" was not even a finalist.
You could (and we did) make a Biblical case that because he is not God (John 14:28) and he was not an angel (Hebrews 1), then he must have been a man, although an extraordinary one. But the case for Jesus as God is far from non-existent. And the case for Jesus as a pre-existing angel is perhaps even stronger (that's the Jehovah's Witness position).
For what it's worth, I find it interesting that after he became an agnostic, Bart Ehrman (very recently) began subscribing to the belief that the earliest Christians were Arian (that is, they believed Jesus to be an angel prior to his birth, "the firstborn of all creation" in a very literal sense.
My personal belief is that you can't get to one answer because there isn't one answer at the core of the argument. Finding out what the Bible says about who Jesus really was is complicated, perhaps irreparably, by the fact that the Bible's writers don't seem to agree with each other on the subject.
My personal belief is that you can't get to one answer because there isn't one answer at the core of the argument. Finding out what the Bible says about who Jesus really was is complicated, perhaps irreparably, by the fact that the Bible's writers don't seem to agree with each other on the subject.
Hi Raf,
I'm sure if a God existed, he would be bigger than a book. JMO.
VPW chose the non-trinity; God, Jesus, holy spirit, being completely separate or Holy Spirit being a synonym with God. He could have chose to add to the Trinity. Maybe making 7 parts to a God? (The Septuanity Although more aspects would certainly make more sense for an infinite God.) The World only sees a Three-part God, we see Seven, behold our knowledge in TWI!
If those beliefs (trinity vs. non-trinity) have no affect on other beliefs, or practices, it would not be that important, IMO. It's just a belief that stand alone as is not really part of a greater system.
My personal belief is that you can't get to one answer because there isn't one answer at the core of the argument. Finding out what the Bible says about who Jesus really was is complicated, perhaps irreparably, by the fact that the Bible's writers don't seem to agree with each other on the subject.
I'm not persuaded that the difficulty should be pinned solely or completely to the writers either not speaking of it in the same way or not agreeing with each other. I think the mind of man (courtesy of Adam) has a difficult time grasping spiritual realities, and compensates for it with imaginations. In other words, if there is an inherent (or seemingly) "blank spot" in the reality that man formulates in his mind, he might use whatever intellectual capability he has to project other known images onto (or into) it. If various scriptures are (divinely) designed to expose a "blank spot" (so to speak) in man's perception of reality, any effort by the intelligence of man to "fill it in" apart from his acknowledgement and acceptance of other spiritual truths will result in contradictions from what are probably "equally intelligent" men. Hence, scholars will continue to disagree, and the writers (as you've indicated) will continue to be perceived as being in disagreement.
This may not make much sense, but I am not saying that I think there is no way to correctly fill in the blanks. But it's how they're filled in, not what they filled with that merits attention. For lack of any better way to say it, the missing (or invisible) pieces inevitably construct a "theological system" (right or wrong), or a "spiritual framework" of sorts, within our mind. In other words, they work together to paint a certain picture of "spiritual reality" (or, just plain "spiritual" if you don't think it's real.)
It's been a long time since I've thought much about it, but years ago (as a result of a protracted discussion with another person) I was amazed to see a certain logical unity between several major "components" (or ingredients) of their belief system. Break one, and you break them all. Or, prove one, and you prove them all. But, on the other hand, if none are broken, then neither can the logic that binds them together be shown to be faulty. Most will probably think this silly or incredulous (and refuse to believe it), but (at least at the time) I honestly couldn't pinpoint or find "the break" between these various concepts: Reincarnation, The Trinity, Universalism, and there being no devil.
I looked a few years back and apparently the (online) discussion (where we went down more than a few rabbit holes) was deleted. But, it was sure rather interesting at the time...
If you're saying there's facts everyone can see and the rest is inferred based on those facts, and there can be many opposing inferences, than, yes, that makes sense.
If you're saying there's facts everyone can see and the rest is inferred based on those facts, and there can be many opposing inferences, than, yes, that makes sense.
Well, that's part of what was said, but not all of it. (And it's the other part which I thought would be more difficult to make sense of.)
I guess that supports the idea that VPW chose a non-Trinitarian view because he was looking for certain types of minds. TWI was not for just any type of mind.
It takes the same type of thinking to believe in any type of God at all, doesn't it?
Let's assume it's unavoidable. It comes up.
Feel free to expound on what you mean. This IS doctrinal.
I know I wasn't asked, but I just clicked on reply. I figure it is impossible to put God into a doctrinal box, and man's ultimate precipitous,prideful point of decline to try to do so. Concerning Jesus Christ, doing so precludes any further revelation about him whom I most desire to know.
I'm hoping some Christians (or some who understand) can explain why The Trinity is important to many Christians, why VPW's anti-Trinity stance was significant, and how the non-Trinity view may have affected other doctrines of Christianity in TWI. (What might have been intended and unintended consequences.) What role does the Trinity play and what did VPW disrupt?
Short answer: they believe disagreement with their doctrine to be an offense to their God by the damned.
I'm hoping some Christians (or some who understand) can explain why The Trinity is important to many Christians, why VPW's anti-Trinity stance was significant, and how the non-Trinity view may have affected other doctrines of Christianity in TWI. (What might have been intended and unintended consequences.) What role does the Trinity play and what did VPW disrupt?
Short answer: they believe disagreement with their doctrine to be an offense to their God by the damned.
In my limited contact with non-TWI Christians, it seems to be impossible for many to consider that Jesus was man (yes, the Son of God, but man and not God incarnate) who did not sin.
It seems that, to trinitarians, the only way this was possible was that Jesus Christ had to be God. Yet, the Bible clearly states that God cannot be tempted, neither does He tempt any man.
Yet Jesus was tempted, in many many instances. But did not sin.
It seems to me that trinitarians attribute His non-sinning to him being God, yet do not look at the other part of the picture. That if he is God then he cannot be tempted, which Satan already knows, so why did Satan try so hard to get Jesus to sin?
It also seems, that many believe that if you do not confess Jesus as God you are not saved.
It is still my firm conviction that Romans 10:9-10 is so simply stated as to eliminate that last argument. Of course, I have heard those twist even this simple scripture toward a trinitarian viewpoint.
This is related to the Trinity thread in About The Way.
1) I'm not a Christian, therefore I'm not for or against or believe in The Trinity/Unitarianism/Anti-Trinity stances.
2) My main interests are understanding how a Wayfer's minds thinks (in general), how to approach them, and VPW's motives and consequences of his actions. And other topics related to those points.
3) I assume everyone here agrees a person's belief about The Trinity guarantees nothing about their character.
4) My background is being raised in TWI. I have followed no other religion/belief system.
5) VPW can be agreed with or disagreed with here. I'd prefer to refrain from blatant bashing.
I'm hoping some Christians (or some who understand) can explain why The Trinity is important to many Christians, why VPW's anti-Trinity stance was significant, and how the non-Trinity view may have affected other doctrines of Christianity in TWI. (What might have been intended and unintended consequences.) What role does the Trinity play and what did VPW disrupt?
Also, if you are Anti/Non Trinity. The question is the same or similar, but from your doctrinal perspective.
I haven't browsed thru doctrinal in a while so for me you raise some new and interesting points about the Trinity and TWI. I'm afraid I don't have anything noteworthy to say about the five points in your list but I would like to say something about and the long-lasting effect the non-Trinity view (I highlighted your statement bold red) had on me - - perhaps even to present day.
I'm not bringing this up as a way to bash VP – rather it's a way for me to assess the damage to my faith; I am a Trinitarian - - although for me that has bearing more on the practical side than the doctrinal side.
In Understanding the Trinity Alister McGrath talks about the tendency of those who are philosophically inclined may tend to talk about God as if He was some sort of concept. McGrath suggests it may be more accurate to think of God as someone we experience or encounter – God as a living reality makes contact with us and perhaps in varying degrees transforms us with each experience. That makes me think of the way we experience other relationships; I may write or email a friend to stay in touch but nothing is quite as enriching as when we do something together – go to a movie, go camping, work on a project or support each other through a crisis.
Chapter 16 of John appears to hold great promise of what the Father, Son and Holy Spirit provide for the believer – I'm just not sure how that all works out technically speaking – who does what – when – how ? Now returning to my aforementioned damaged faith – I think I got that TWI thing of "the word takes the place of the absent Christ" so ingrained in my head that I still feel like Jesus Christ is a friendly stranger to me. And coupled with TWI's relegating the gospels to an inferior status because they were not addressed to the church tended to exacerbate my limited understanding of him.
I found some interesting ideas in More Than Redemption: A Theology of Christian Counseling by Jay Adams; in the chapter on Counseling and the Trinity, he says the gospel of John most fully explains the theological relationship between the Father and the Son and forms the basis for the teaching by discipleship that ought to undergird all levels of Christian education; Jesus made it clear (in John 14 for instance) that he and the Father were connected – and that his words and works were the Father's – this was the real impetus for discipleship – the way in which the Son says that he learned from the Father.
Having experienced in-residence corps training I've come to realize (since leaving TWI long ago) it was training as a disciple of VP….uggghhh! Though there may be similarities in any discipleship program I think the practical consequences of TWI's corps program tend to have a deleterious effect. Jesus philosophy of education was clearly expressed in Luke 6:40 – a student ….a disciple when properly trained will be like his teacher. The Way Corps program was successful in replicating a lot of mini-VPs. We all know Trinitarian doctrine was not just absent from corps training – it was anathema to the nth degree! And in a practical sense the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were also absent in the corps training.
That old WWJD (what would Jesus do) may be worn out in popularity - but to me there's nothing worse than the mindset of what would VP do which was so popular when i was in the corps....How's that for the practical consequences of an absent Christ? what's that they say about a true vacuum cannot exist because something will try to fill it. Seems like VP had plenty of skewed doctrine and lascivious intentions to fill any "voids" in theology.
I don't get into self-pity or languish inside jail walls of way-baggage; but I do acknowledge the many aspects of what the TWI experience has done to my faith; in some ways it's been damaging – in the doubts I have about the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. In some ways I feel more of a kinship with most Grease Spotters than with any other group just because of the mutual experience. Yeah it's kind of weird – but it works for me.
That old WWJD (what would Jesus do) may be worn out in popularity - but to me there's nothing worse than the mindset of what would VP do which was so popular when i was in the corps....How's that for the practical consequences of an absent Christ? what's that they say about a true vacuum cannot exist because something will try to fill it. Seems like VP had plenty of skewed doctrine and lascivious intentions to fill any "voids" in theology.
. . .
I like your insight T-Bone. VPW seemed to create and then fill voids. Almost of as if there was a power-struggle he had the solution for.
From my personal memory of reading JCING, "The Trinity" is generally presented as dirty-playing an aggressor. Implying that aggressive tactics are needed to fight back.
The conflict in the 4th century AD had seen Arian and Nicene factions struggling for control of the Church. In contrast, in the Arian German kingdoms established on the wreckage of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, there were entirely separate Arian and Nicene Churches with parallel hierarchies, each serving different sets of believers. The Germanic elites were Arians, and the Romance majority population was Nicene. Many scholars see the persistence of Germanic Arianism as a strategy that was followed in order to differentiate the Germanic elite from the local inhabitants and their culture and also to maintain the Germanic elite's separate group identity.[citation needed]
Most Germanic tribes were generally tolerant of the Nicene beliefs of their subjects. However, the Vandals tried for several decades to force their Arian beliefs on their North African Nicene subjects, exiling Nicene clergy, dissolving monasteries, and exercising heavy pressure on non-conforming Nicene Christians.
I find it interesting both creeds have been guilty of aggressive tactics toward the other. Also, it appears there have been times where both lived side by side in peace. And I would think true students (of the Word) would welcome multiple views to ponder and apply. Otherwise, why call oneself a "student of the Word"?
This is related to the Trinity thread in About The Way.
1) I'm not a Christian, therefore I'm not for or against or believe in The Trinity/Unitarianism/Anti-Trinity stances.
2) My main interests are understanding how a Wayfer's minds thinks (in general), how to approach them, and VPW's motives and consequences of his actions. And other topics related to those points.
3) I assume everyone here agrees a person's belief about The Trinity guarantees nothing about their character.
4) My background is being raised in TWI. I have followed no other religion/belief system.
5) VPW can be agreed with or disagreed with here. I'd prefer to refrain from blatant bashing.
I'm hoping some Christians (or some who understand) can explain why The Trinity is important to many Christians, why VPW's anti-Trinity stance was significant, and how the non-Trinity view may have affected other doctrines of Christianity in TWI. (What might have been intended and unintended consequences.) What role does the Trinity play and what did VPW disrupt?
Also, if you are Anti/Non Trinity. The question is the same or similar, but from your doctrinal perspective.
If the main characters of any novel are not correctly identified it would be difficult to make any sense out of the story. To make the two main characters one is even more confusing, not to mention impossible.
If the main characters of any novel are not correctly identified it would be difficult to make any sense out of the story. To make the two main characters one is even more confusing, not to mention impossible.
If the main characters of any novel are not correctly identified it would be difficult to make any sense out of the story. To make the two main characters one is even more confusing, not to mention impossible.
Pehaps that’s a matter of perspective....many Trinitarians and Unitarians have no problem making sense of the Gospel story. But I can’t speak for either group since there’s so many variations and nuances when explaining who Jesus Christ was/is and his connection with God the Father. I do see your point though about how making Jesus and God as one would be confusing and an impossible feat to accomplish. But that’s not what the biblical data suggests.
John 1 talks about the Word being in the beginning WITH God. wierwille’s incompetency with biblical Greek is never more evident than in his twisted explanation of the Greek word pros in his study of Who Is the Word – in the Blue Book I believe.
To make a long story short (I’ve covered this on many other threads in a longer form) every biblical Greek lexicon and critical Greek text commentary on John 1 and the word pros in every other occurrence state that pros has the idea of close proximity and an intimate relationship. wierwille said the only way that Jesus could have been with God was in his foreknowledge – in the mind of God. So I choose to ignore wierwille’s inept research skills and I go with what real biblical scholars say about defining biblical Greek. Therefore it seems apparent to me John 1 is speaking of the divinity of Jesus Christ…but wait…there’s more !
You might think it’s impossible to combine the human and the divine – but that’s exactly what we find in the first chapter of John - “The Word became flesh”! Perhaps this mindboggling combination – this amazing aspect of Jesus Christ’s uniqueness was never more sublimely expressed than in John 3:16 where it says God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son – the words “only begotten” in Greek is monogenes and can be translated as “the one and only”. Truly Jesus Christ is unique – one of a kind – a hybrid – both human and divine. Anyway that’s how I see it – but that’s only my opinion – just trying to make sense of the biblical data and respect one of the original languages of the Bible.
Pehaps that’s a matter of perspective....many Trinitarians and Unitarians have no problem making sense of the Gospel story. But I can’t speak for either group since there’s so many variations and nuances when explaining who Jesus Christ was/is and his connection with God the Father. I do see your point though about how making Jesus and God as one would be confusing and an impossible feat to accomplish. But that’s not what the biblical data suggests.
John 1 talks about the Word being in the beginning WITH God. wierwille’s incompetency with biblical Greek is never more evident than in his twisted explanation of the Greek word pros in his study of Who Is the Word – in the Blue Book I believe.
To make a long story short (I’ve covered this on many other threads in a longer form) every biblical Greek lexicon and critical Greek text commary on John 1 and the word pros in every other occurrence state that pros has the idea of close proximity and an intimate relationship. wierwille said the only way that Jesus could have been with God was in his foreknowledge – in the mind of God. So I choose to ignore wierwille’s inept research skills and I go with what real biblical scholars say about defining biblical Greek. Therefore it seems apparent to me John 1 is speaking of the divinity of Jesus Christ…but wait…there’s more !
You might think it’s impossible to combine the human and the divine – but that’s exactly what we find in the first chapter of John - “The Word became flesh”! Perhaps this mindboggling combination – this amazing aspect of Jesus Christ’s uniqueness was never more sublimely expressed than in John 3:16 where it says God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son – the words “only begotten” in Greek is monogenes and can be translated as “the one and only”. Truly Jesus Christ is unique – one of a kind – a hybrid – both human and divine. Anyway that’s how I see it – but that’s only my opinion – just trying to make sense of the biblical data and respect one of the original languages of the Bible.
I see what you are saying. For the record I never bought everything VP said. I always verified to the best of my ability. If I didn't see it clearly for myself I just didn't know. I never just took anybody's word for it. Now some of the things I say may actually agree with VP, but it's never VP channeling through me.
I also can't emphasize enough that I'm not trying to convert you. I'm not asking you to believe one single word I say. All of that is totally up to you. We are discussing the Bible and nothing more than that. I'll have my take-away and you'll have yours.
So with that in mind I offer the following.
1) The Bible makes sense. We in this age of grace are told many times that God wants us to know. He never really asks for blind faith. The Bible story is very plausible to any person who understood the language.
2) John 1:1 says that the word was God and then it said the word was with God. That doesn't make sense in normal language. You can't be you and be with you. You can only be you. Other people can be with you but normally you don't go around telling people you are with yourself. They would say something like, "that guy is crazy." So, I would suggest that perhaps we have a figure of speech here. It grabs your attention because it doesn't make sense if taken as written.
3) This verse, by using this figure of speech, is emphasizing how God and the word, the Bible, are in complete and in perfect harmony. If you want to know God, learn the word. You can't learn about him any other way.
4) The word became flesh is also another figure of speech. Again, in normal speech words have nothing in common with flesh. Words don't normally become flesh. Jesus was as much of a reflection of that word as God himself. That has a rather incredible ramification. If Jesus was a man and not God that would be some feat indeed. No other man ever followed God perfectly from start to finish. Big deal for a god to follow his own law! But a man, that's another thing altogether. Just a side not there.
5) I offer the above in the light of many, many clear verses that very plainly makes Jesus and God two different individuals altogether. Jesus told God in the garden that he was willing to subject his will to God's will. Two wills, two people. Then there is the 47 times Jesus is called the son of Gog but not once, God the son. Too many to cover here right now, but maybe a study of it is called for.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
41
26
22
19
Popular Days
Mar 8
23
Jul 8
21
Mar 9
17
Mar 10
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Bolshevik 41 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 22 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 19 posts
Popular Days
Mar 8 2018
23 posts
Jul 8 2017
21 posts
Mar 9 2018
17 posts
Mar 10 2018
17 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
What experience with churches today exactly do you have? Aren't you one of the ones that isolated and studied PFAL collaterals for a decade plus not attending churches? In my experience the trin
Raf
Questions about the identity of Jesus Christ are almost as old as Christianity itself. The gospels and epistles are, at least in part, a rebuttal to early claims about exactly who Jesus was, both befo
Bolshevik
We're not really trying to prove or disprove existence of anything in this thread. If many people over generations talk about it, that's good enough. It exists. Do the various views of trinity/
TLC
Based on those two points alone, I'd be left wondering why you'd want to try understand how anyone's mind thinks concerning such a convoluted subject such as the Trinity.
However, if and when the subject ever does comes up (rare are the times I would think to initiate any discussion of it), my thoughts fairly quickly turns towards assessing what impact or place of importance the subject holds in the other person's mind. IF (and this a mighty big if) it appears to be (in their thinking):
1) An issue of salvation, or
2) A probable issue of salvation, or
3) A possible issue of salvation, or
4) A probable point of contention.
Then, I'll probably (and typically) avoid the subject altogether.
It's probably dangerous to assume much of anything related to this subject... lol.
I happen to agree with the thinking that Jesus Christ is not God. However, the reasons for it extend beyond what vpw or twi taught.
It's been debated (and fought over) for hundreds of years (long, long before twi). Maybe you've heard that vpw once said that he thought Isalm wouldn't even exist today if it hadn't been for the Trinity. Whether or not that's true, or whether it's an original thought, I don't know. Perhaps. Maybe somebody else knows more or wants to add to it.
As mentioned once already, I think there's far more significance attributed to it than ever should have been. (For reasons that might be less than noble. It's far, far easier for me to learn to separate truth from error than it is to determine and/or separate motives of the heart.)
Well, my opinion is that it can affect (intentionally or unintentionally) how (or whether) some number of other issues or doctrines of Christianity are perceived, regardless of any association with (or knowledge of) twi or vpw.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well, you do know how to break up a post.
It takes the same type of thinking to believe in any type of God at all, doesn't it?
Let's assume it's unavoidable. It comes up.
Feel free to expound on what you mean. This IS doctrinal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
One aspect of subscribing to The Way's anti-trinity based dogma is that it insures the subscriber is less likely to veer from the core tenets of The Way and be more prone to associate with individuals who are already on the same page, theologically. "Pickles in a jar labeled 'peaches'" is the analogy that comes to mind.
Of course, that phenomena is not unique to The Way or even religion, in general.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Same type of thinking as what? I don't get what you're trying to ask.
If the assumption is that it's unavoidable, then why go there? It would make no sense to me.
If I said something you didn't understand, you're free to ask. Given my engrained (probably genetic) socratic nature, I'm really not into soliloquys.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The topic of the Trinity comes up when talking with followers of The Way International.
It also comes up on this website.
I should probably begin by asking you TLC, were you at some point fellowshipping with The Way International?
I prepare for arguments and conflicts that I know are coming. That is something that makes sense to me.
I asked a rhetorical question. <---- See Link.
Your previous comment I found condescending. So I asked a rhetorical question hoping it would help us understand each other.
I, at least, had the impression you were wanting to go into doctrinal aspects in order to explain your viewpoints in a previous thread. Am I wrong?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
???
Do you honestly need to ask that?
But why? Where are you "trying to go" with them or what are you trying to accomplish? To "prove" them wrong? Are you trying to lead them somewhere? I don't get it, and I guess it just doesn't make any sense to me. So, it seems to be nothing that I can offer any other comments on.
I'm quite aware of what a rhetorical question is, and how to use it. Yours just didn't come across as being one.
Furthermore, it's actually not at all uncommon or unusual for someone (i.e., myself) who's primary method of learning and/or teaching (which can sometimes be extremely difficult to distinguish) is Socratic to be mistaken as being condescending. Which is, at least in part, why I've tried to reveal that about myself. I do try to make certain adjustments for it (depending on the discussion), but it can be (and often is) difficult for me to suppress. So, my apologies for appearing as such, it's a known issue with me.
Not necessarily, as that is often where I see or think a conversation might (or should) naturally lead or progress to, which would incline me to say certain things that I otherwise wouldn't. But, it seemed to be a presumption on my part. As mentioned in my previous post, I wasn't itching to get up on some soapbox and talk about the Trinity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yeah . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Questions about the identity of Jesus Christ are almost as old as Christianity itself. The gospels and epistles are, at least in part, a rebuttal to early claims about exactly who Jesus was, both before and after his resurrection.
He's the Son of God. Why? In Mark it's at his baptism. In Luke and Matthew it's by virtue of him not having an earthly father. In John it's a relationship that predates his birth. All answers are Biblically defensible. The inescapable conclusion from the gospels: he is the Son of God.
But John is the only gospel that explicitly appears to make the case that he is actually God as well (although John would probably be denounced as a heretic for claiming that the Father is in any way greater than the Son).
The Trinity as a doctrine developed over time.
That Christ was a being who existed prior to his earthly life can reasonably be deduced from the writings of Paul.
We in TWI made the mistake of thinking there was something Biblically unreasonable about a doctrine like "the incarnation," as though there were no Biblical support for it. To the contrary, the Biblical support is strong and must be addressed for a Socinian model (his existence began at conception/birth, just like ours) to hold water.
It should be noted that the biggest controversy around the time of Nicea was whether Jesus pre-existed as God or as an angel. That he was "just a man" was not even a finalist.
You could (and we did) make a Biblical case that because he is not God (John 14:28) and he was not an angel (Hebrews 1), then he must have been a man, although an extraordinary one. But the case for Jesus as God is far from non-existent. And the case for Jesus as a pre-existing angel is perhaps even stronger (that's the Jehovah's Witness position).
For what it's worth, I find it interesting that after he became an agnostic, Bart Ehrman (very recently) began subscribing to the belief that the earliest Christians were Arian (that is, they believed Jesus to be an angel prior to his birth, "the firstborn of all creation" in a very literal sense.
My personal belief is that you can't get to one answer because there isn't one answer at the core of the argument. Finding out what the Bible says about who Jesus really was is complicated, perhaps irreparably, by the fact that the Bible's writers don't seem to agree with each other on the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hi Raf,
I'm sure if a God existed, he would be bigger than a book. JMO.
VPW chose the non-trinity; God, Jesus, holy spirit, being completely separate or Holy Spirit being a synonym with God. He could have chose to add to the Trinity. Maybe making 7 parts to a God? (The Septuanity
Although more aspects would certainly make more sense for an infinite God.) The World only sees a Three-part God, we see Seven, behold our knowledge in TWI!
If those beliefs (trinity vs. non-trinity) have no affect on other beliefs, or practices, it would not be that important, IMO. It's just a belief that stand alone as is not really part of a greater system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I'm not persuaded that the difficulty should be pinned solely or completely to the writers either not speaking of it in the same way or not agreeing with each other. I think the mind of man (courtesy of Adam) has a difficult time grasping spiritual realities, and compensates for it with imaginations. In other words, if there is an inherent (or seemingly) "blank spot" in the reality that man formulates in his mind, he might use whatever intellectual capability he has to project other known images onto (or into) it. If various scriptures are (divinely) designed to expose a "blank spot" (so to speak) in man's perception of reality, any effort by the intelligence of man to "fill it in" apart from his acknowledgement and acceptance of other spiritual truths will result in contradictions from what are probably "equally intelligent" men. Hence, scholars will continue to disagree, and the writers (as you've indicated) will continue to be perceived as being in disagreement.
This may not make much sense, but I am not saying that I think there is no way to correctly fill in the blanks. But it's how they're filled in, not what they filled with that merits attention. For lack of any better way to say it, the missing (or invisible) pieces inevitably construct a "theological system" (right or wrong), or a "spiritual framework" of sorts, within our mind. In other words, they work together to paint a certain picture of "spiritual reality" (or, just plain "spiritual" if you don't think it's real.)
It's been a long time since I've thought much about it, but years ago (as a result of a protracted discussion with another person) I was amazed to see a certain logical unity between several major "components" (or ingredients) of their belief system. Break one, and you break them all. Or, prove one, and you prove them all. But, on the other hand, if none are broken, then neither can the logic that binds them together be shown to be faulty. Most will probably think this silly or incredulous (and refuse to believe it), but (at least at the time) I honestly couldn't pinpoint or find "the break" between these various concepts: Reincarnation, The Trinity, Universalism, and there being no devil.
I looked a few years back and apparently the (online) discussion (where we went down more than a few rabbit holes) was deleted. But, it was sure rather interesting at the time...
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
If you're saying there's facts everyone can see and the rest is inferred based on those facts, and there can be many opposing inferences, than, yes, that makes sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, that's part of what was said, but not all of it. (And it's the other part which I thought would be more difficult to make sense of.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well okay.
I guess that supports the idea that VPW chose a non-Trinitarian view because he was looking for certain types of minds. TWI was not for just any type of mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I know I wasn't asked, but I just clicked on reply. I figure it is impossible to put God into a doctrinal box, and man's ultimate precipitous,prideful point of decline to try to do so. Concerning Jesus Christ, doing so precludes any further revelation about him whom I most desire to know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I'm hoping some Christians (or some who understand) can explain why The Trinity is important to many Christians, why VPW's anti-Trinity stance was significant, and how the non-Trinity view may have affected other doctrines of Christianity in TWI. (What might have been intended and unintended consequences.) What role does the Trinity play and what did VPW disrupt?
Short answer: they believe disagreement with their doctrine to be an offense to their God by the damned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Geiger
In my limited contact with non-TWI Christians, it seems to be impossible for many to consider that Jesus was man (yes, the Son of God, but man and not God incarnate) who did not sin.
It seems that, to trinitarians, the only way this was possible was that Jesus Christ had to be God. Yet, the Bible clearly states that God cannot be tempted, neither does He tempt any man.
Yet Jesus was tempted, in many many instances. But did not sin.
It seems to me that trinitarians attribute His non-sinning to him being God, yet do not look at the other part of the picture. That if he is God then he cannot be tempted, which Satan already knows, so why did Satan try so hard to get Jesus to sin?
It also seems, that many believe that if you do not confess Jesus as God you are not saved.
It is still my firm conviction that Romans 10:9-10 is so simply stated as to eliminate that last argument. Of course, I have heard those twist even this simple scripture toward a trinitarian viewpoint.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I haven't browsed thru doctrinal in a while so for me you raise some new and interesting points about the Trinity and TWI. I'm afraid I don't have anything noteworthy to say about the five points in your list but I would like to say something about and the long-lasting effect the non-Trinity view (I highlighted your statement bold red) had on me - - perhaps even to present day.
I'm not bringing this up as a way to bash VP – rather it's a way for me to assess the damage to my faith; I am a Trinitarian - - although for me that has bearing more on the practical side than the doctrinal side.
In Understanding the Trinity Alister McGrath talks about the tendency of those who are philosophically inclined may tend to talk about God as if He was some sort of concept. McGrath suggests it may be more accurate to think of God as someone we experience or encounter – God as a living reality makes contact with us and perhaps in varying degrees transforms us with each experience. That makes me think of the way we experience other relationships; I may write or email a friend to stay in touch but nothing is quite as enriching as when we do something together – go to a movie, go camping, work on a project or support each other through a crisis.
Chapter 16 of John appears to hold great promise of what the Father, Son and Holy Spirit provide for the believer – I'm just not sure how that all works out technically speaking – who does what – when – how ? Now returning to my aforementioned damaged faith – I think I got that TWI thing of "the word takes the place of the absent Christ" so ingrained in my head that I still feel like Jesus Christ is a friendly stranger to me. And coupled with TWI's relegating the gospels to an inferior status because they were not addressed to the church tended to exacerbate my limited understanding of him.
I found some interesting ideas in More Than Redemption: A Theology of Christian Counseling by Jay Adams; in the chapter on Counseling and the Trinity, he says the gospel of John most fully explains the theological relationship between the Father and the Son and forms the basis for the teaching by discipleship that ought to undergird all levels of Christian education; Jesus made it clear (in John 14 for instance) that he and the Father were connected – and that his words and works were the Father's – this was the real impetus for discipleship – the way in which the Son says that he learned from the Father.
Having experienced in-residence corps training I've come to realize (since leaving TWI long ago) it was training as a disciple of VP….uggghhh! Though there may be similarities in any discipleship program I think the practical consequences of TWI's corps program tend to have a deleterious effect. Jesus philosophy of education was clearly expressed in Luke 6:40 – a student ….a disciple when properly trained will be like his teacher. The Way Corps program was successful in replicating a lot of mini-VPs. We all know Trinitarian doctrine was not just absent from corps training – it was anathema to the nth degree! And in a practical sense the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were also absent in the corps training.
That old WWJD (what would Jesus do) may be worn out in popularity - but to me there's nothing worse than the mindset of what would VP do which was so popular when i was in the corps....How's that for the practical consequences of an absent Christ? what's that they say about a true vacuum cannot exist because something will try to fill it. Seems like VP had plenty of skewed doctrine and lascivious intentions to fill any "voids" in theology.
I don't get into self-pity or languish inside jail walls of way-baggage; but I do acknowledge the many aspects of what the TWI experience has done to my faith; in some ways it's been damaging – in the doubts I have about the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. In some ways I feel more of a kinship with most Grease Spotters than with any other group just because of the mutual experience. Yeah it's kind of weird – but it works for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I like your insight T-Bone. VPW seemed to create and then fill voids. Almost of as if there was a power-struggle he had the solution for.
From my personal memory of reading JCING, "The Trinity" is generally presented as dirty-playing an aggressor. Implying that aggressive tactics are needed to fight back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
If the main characters of any novel are not correctly identified it would be difficult to make any sense out of the story. To make the two main characters one is even more confusing, not to mention impossible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Like Bruce Wayne and Batman?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Or Peter Parker and that Spidey Dude.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Ad infinitum.
This is an old thread and is no longer relevant. Some other posters have some better threads on the topic that are available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Pehaps that’s a matter of perspective....many Trinitarians and Unitarians have no problem making sense of the Gospel story. But I can’t speak for either group since there’s so many variations and nuances when explaining who Jesus Christ was/is and his connection with God the Father. I do see your point though about how making Jesus and God as one would be confusing and an impossible feat to accomplish. But that’s not what the biblical data suggests.
John 1 talks about the Word being in the beginning WITH God. wierwille’s incompetency with biblical Greek is never more evident than in his twisted explanation of the Greek word pros in his study of Who Is the Word – in the Blue Book I believe.
To make a long story short (I’ve covered this on many other threads in a longer form) every biblical Greek lexicon and critical Greek text commentary on John 1 and the word pros in every other occurrence state that pros has the idea of close proximity and an intimate relationship. wierwille said the only way that Jesus could have been with God was in his foreknowledge – in the mind of God. So I choose to ignore wierwille’s inept research skills and I go with what real biblical scholars say about defining biblical Greek. Therefore it seems apparent to me John 1 is speaking of the divinity of Jesus Christ…but wait…there’s more !
You might think it’s impossible to combine the human and the divine – but that’s exactly what we find in the first chapter of John - “The Word became flesh”! Perhaps this mindboggling combination – this amazing aspect of Jesus Christ’s uniqueness was never more sublimely expressed than in John 3:16 where it says God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son – the words “only begotten” in Greek is monogenes and can be translated as “the one and only”. Truly Jesus Christ is unique – one of a kind – a hybrid – both human and divine. Anyway that’s how I see it – but that’s only my opinion – just trying to make sense of the biblical data and respect one of the original languages of the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
I see what you are saying. For the record I never bought everything VP said. I always verified to the best of my ability. If I didn't see it clearly for myself I just didn't know. I never just took anybody's word for it. Now some of the things I say may actually agree with VP, but it's never VP channeling through me.
I also can't emphasize enough that I'm not trying to convert you. I'm not asking you to believe one single word I say. All of that is totally up to you. We are discussing the Bible and nothing more than that. I'll have my take-away and you'll have yours.
So with that in mind I offer the following.
1) The Bible makes sense. We in this age of grace are told many times that God wants us to know. He never really asks for blind faith. The Bible story is very plausible to any person who understood the language.
2) John 1:1 says that the word was God and then it said the word was with God. That doesn't make sense in normal language. You can't be you and be with you. You can only be you. Other people can be with you but normally you don't go around telling people you are with yourself. They would say something like, "that guy is crazy." So, I would suggest that perhaps we have a figure of speech here. It grabs your attention because it doesn't make sense if taken as written.
3) This verse, by using this figure of speech, is emphasizing how God and the word, the Bible, are in complete and in perfect harmony. If you want to know God, learn the word. You can't learn about him any other way.
4) The word became flesh is also another figure of speech. Again, in normal speech words have nothing in common with flesh. Words don't normally become flesh. Jesus was as much of a reflection of that word as God himself. That has a rather incredible ramification. If Jesus was a man and not God that would be some feat indeed. No other man ever followed God perfectly from start to finish. Big deal for a god to follow his own law! But a man, that's another thing altogether. Just a side not there.
5) I offer the above in the light of many, many clear verses that very plainly makes Jesus and God two different individuals altogether. Jesus told God in the garden that he was willing to subject his will to God's will. Two wills, two people. Then there is the 47 times Jesus is called the son of Gog but not once, God the son. Too many to cover here right now, but maybe a study of it is called for.
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.