sonofarthur

What exactly qualifies as an "offshoot" of TWI? Has anyone made a list... call me crazy but a "family tree" would be extremely interesting and valuable for historical reasons don't you think? Does being an offshoot mean that the leaders used to be leaders in TWI? OR Does being an offshoot mean that you teach basically the same doctrines as TWI? Also, I've hear someone here mention categories of TWI: as in TWI1, TWI2, and TWI3. What in the world is that? OR does being an offshoot just mean that the majority of your membership are former members of TWI? Over time, if you are growing, that should cease to be don't you think... unless of course you have stagnated... Personally, I would call CFF and the Way of Great Britian (still there?) offshoots. I guess you COULD call CES and offshoot from definitions 2 and 3, but you must admit that they have changed a large body of doctrines. The still hold to a unitarian position on the most central tenet (who is Jesus"?) I would NOT call LMCI an offshoot. Dale Sides's position on the who God is seems to be as close as a person can be to trinitarian without using the word. Of course, I'd love to hear others' perspectives on Dale's theology since it has never seemed that clear to me on this issue. Maybe, he is just not ready to be definitive. I dunno. How many offshoots are there anyWAY?

All these verses show is that Jesus is God... they do not show that we will one day be God, or gods. Respectfully, I don't think we are looking at two sides of the same coin. God is not a contradiction. Either there is only ONE God and thus Jesus IS God and the Father is the same GOD OR there is more than one God OR Jesus is not God. These are mutually exclusive claims and cannot ALL be true. You did not respond to the points I made about the verse from Isaiah 42:8. God not only describes the situation as it is, or was, but as it will (or will not) be. He said he "will not". Thus, He will not promote someone else to Godhood. Are Christians currently children of God and will we one day be declared "sons" of God. YES!! But that is NOT the same thing as being God. I believe that Jesus is God because He is blatantly called that in scripture... He is ALSO called the Son of God... but that is a different matter. WE can identify with his sonship. We cannot and never will be able to identify with his Deity. One attribute of being God is to be uncreated. How can you and I become uncreated if we started out as created?? To be uncreated is to be without a beginning. We may attain to God's everlastingness. But His eternality includes his not having a beginning OR an end. We are not eternal in that sense. Now then, I must go to sleep. Goodnight.

Jesus said that He is the way, the truth, and the life. As the truth, Jesus can teach us a lot of things. Since there is SO MUCH to study and our time IS limited... we should seek our teacher's direction upon what to study. A few years ago, I was led by him to study mormonism. I studied for a while and then was led to other subjects. Just because I studied it does not mean that I believed it was true... but the Lord led me to study it for all sorts of reasons. Some I know, and some I don't yet know. More recently, I have been studying the Hindu religion... I have been slowly growing a vision for reaching out to Indians with the Gospel. God can use my understanding of Hinduism to more effectively share the Gospel with Hindus. I also am currently trying to determine if the Lord wants me to learn a new language (talk about a time consumer). I trust that if the Lord leads me to study something, then He will give me the ability to obey him and thus He will give me the ability to understand, eventually, what I am studying. You never really know what the Lord is going to teach you. Of course, when it comes to determining what is absolute truth, I restrict my determination of that to what I read in the Bible. This is because the Holy Spirit has confirmed the truth of the Bible through signs and wonders well attested to and repeated.

okay Potato, I can respect that. You can be unsure. If you are, then you shouldn't act otherwise. Perhaps you might say that you are 90% sure? Anyway, even if someone is 100% sure, that doesn't mean they should be removed from the conversation or that they are not open-minded to change if given convincing evidence. I used to be 100% sure that Jesus was not God. But I have changed. Thus, relative certainty is not the issue. To say that I am 100% sure of my position only means that I currently have no reasonable doubt. (Of course, I guess if you want to be 100% technical, then we could all be imagining all of this like in the movie The Matrix.... but once you go down the path of anything goes without evidence, then you are stuck in a vicious circle of cynicism from which there is no escape. I choose to believe that there is objective truth in the universe and that it is knowable. That, I guess, would be pure faith on my part. Atleast it is consistent with everything I have witnessed thus far in my limited life.) The funny thing here is that I am inviting someone to give me some doubt. I will decide whether or not it sounds reasonable. At the same time, I would invite all of you to decide whether or not my doubt of your position is reasonable or not. This search for the truth about WHO GOD IS is a pivotal part of loving him with our whole heart, MIND, soul, and strength. This discussion is the mind part. Staying up this late past my bedtime when I need to get up early for work tomorrow is the strength part!

Where should we start... I think we should start with Jesus. The doctrine of the trinity is built on three ideas that I posted recently. 1) There is only one God. I don't think we need to argue on this one do we? 2) The Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. the first and third are generally accepted, but it is the second part that we should discuss. 3) The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit each have distinct wills, knowledge, etc. Unless any oneness pentecostals snuck in when I wasn't looking, then we won't need to argue for this. So then, why don't we narrow our conversation to the issue of the deity of Jesus Christ. Now then, let me first clarify what I mean and don't mean by this claim and then we can talk about the evidence. I believe that Jesus is God. I do not mean by that that He is his own Father, or that He is not man. Jesus is God in that He is the creator of the universe. He is our only savior and redeemer. He is omniscient, omnipresent (uncontained), omnipotent, and perfect in all His ways. As God He is worthy of all of our praise and worship. As God He is not limited except when and where He limits Himself. Philippians 2 tells us that He chose to not utilize his divine attributes as He accomplished our salvation as a man. He saved us as a man, not as God. He did not "lose or give up" His divine attributes, for to do so He would have ceased to be God. But, He willingly chose not to "make use of" his divine attributes. So then, as God, he knows ALL, but he chooses not to know certain things. For example, Jesus does NOT know the timing of His future return. Further, AS God, Jesus, even while on Earth, had all the omnipotence as God. But as our Human Savior he did not use this power but submitted to God's design for ministry. Therefore, He walked in the enpowering of the Holy Spirit, just like Christians today are called to do. When He healed someone, He did this as He was led by the Holy Spirit. Thus it was said that "He could not do many mighty works there [in his hometown] because of their unbelief." God's economy calls for faith and since there was none in his hometown, Jesus was not led by the Holy Spirit to do many works there. Jesus said, "I can only do that which is given to me of the Father". When He said this, he was not speaking from His divine nature (as Philippians 2 explains). He must have been speaking as our Human Redeemer when He said this. It is hard for humans to understand how God can choose not to know something. We can't do that. Once I know something, I might forget it, but I don't know how to choose to forget it. But God the Father chooses to forget all the time. He has forgotten his children's past sins, for example. Does that mean he CANNOT know our past? No. Of course not. But God is all-powerful remember. He is ABLE to forget when He chooses to. thoughts or comments?

Year 2027, you said, "what if I say Jesus was a man but when he received the reward of Christ he became a God but less than the God the creater of the heaven in the earth our father in truth". The problem there would be twofold, 1) This would indeed contradict the Shema... there is only ONE God, not two, or three, or any more. 2) In the OT God declared that He would give his glory to no one (see Isaiah 42:8). If God were to elevate another to Godhood, true Deity, then he would be giving His glory away... Now God does "glorify" Jesus and will do that for His saints. In order to understand He meant when He said that He would not "give his glory to another", we must look at the context of Isaiah 42. The whole chapter is about the worship of false gods. God says that these idols are not worthy of worship and God's stated reason for this conclusion (see even God uses logic) is that He Himself is the ONE AND ONLY GOD and that He will never give this glory (which glory?) the glory of Godhood. Brothers and Sisters in Christ, we will never be Gods. There is and there will always be only one God. 1 John 3:1 and 2 does not say we will be Christ, but that we will become LIKE him. We don't know what that means, as John acknowledges in the same verse saying, "it has not appeared as yet what we shall be...". Therefore, we have a few options: 1) Either Jesus is and has always been God... OR 2) Jesus is NOT God and never was and never will be. We cannot believe Isaiah 42 and also believe the Jesus in any way "became" God, or a god. Therefore, if there are verses that call Jesus GOD, identifying Him as the creator worthy of worship, then He must be THE God, since there is only one. Someone will respond about Moses being refered to as God... but Moses was never referred to as God in the same way that Jesus is repeatedly referred to as God. In fact, God never did call Moses a "god". He merely told him (Moses) that He (God) would make him (Moses) to be "as a God TO pharoah". Cool!!! thanks!!

Potato, I wish I knew how to copy your post into the quote format everyone else is using... I do not feel that people who believe as I once did are deluded. Just because someone believes something that is incorrect does not make them deluded, just wrong. This is not to say that they are being rebellious against God because of their "wrong" belief. Honestly, I hope that you currently think that I am wrong. You have said that you believe something that contradicts something I believe. Therefore, I would be, logically, wrong (or atleast I would be if you are correct). I hope that you recognize that we cannot BOTH be right on this. Either Jesus IS God or he IS NOT God. Those are exclusive statements. That being said, just because I expect that you think that I am wrong doesn't cause me to think you may not have something to teach me. I am eager to hear your perspective. Let me be totally upfront here. Contrary to appearances, I am NOT here to change anyone's minds. Since leaving the offshoot of the Way that I was in back in 1995, I have never had the chance to test the reasons I rejected way theology by running it past any current adherents of Way theology. I would hope to find some of those here. If the arguments and reasonings that led me to reject the conclusions of JCING are not good enough to convince others then either I am weak at communicating them, or maybe I should rethink my conclusions. (I have not yet stated any of these arguments and reasonings... we are still laying the groundwork for a good lengthy discussion I hope...) One of the things that I can say positive about most of the people that came out of the Way... they do think hard about what they believe. I would say most ex-wayfers, as a rule, think more about doctrine than 90% of lifelong trinitarians. How can I test my beliefs in the trinity with people that have not had to struggle through the same teachings and objections to the trinity that I have had to struggle through? As far as soapboxing... lemme say this.. I don't mind doing that but I won't be listening for the cheers.... I wanna understand the boohs! More than that, I would prefer dialogue and I think that we would ALL learn more if we discussed the issues one at a time. Where should we start?

Starbird, To say that Jesus is God (that is what I am saying) is not to say that he is the Father. He certainly is not THE Father, as the verse you quoted demonstrates.

but if you are REALLY believing shouldn't you BELIEVE for twins? but why not stop there... someone else's believing is "stronger" than yours cause they get triplets.... man, with this logic I guess the family that had octuplets need to be put on the BOT!!

Garth, Thank you Henry Clay! Yeah, sort of, I guess! the point is that I think that a person can still have an honest discussion on this topic while believing that the Trinity is Orthodox (right belief) and that to deny it is heretical. I posit that to deny the Trinity IS heretical. To deny the deity of Christ is on the edge of damnable heresy, depending on what you then say about Jesus. I think that when I was saved at the young age of four, I did not call Jesus God. But I did believe in the sum and substance of what it means to believe that He is God. I called him Lord, and not just the Lord, but MY Lord. As a four year old, I said to him (Jesus) that He was the boss of me. He is also the Savior of Me. Do you believe that Jesus is the Boss and Savior of You? Then, you must logically believe that you need a savior... but when you say that you need a Savior, do you mean merely that you need help because you got caught? Jesus is not just our Savior from death and from sin, He is our Savior from ourselves! Even as a 4 year old I understood that I often do bad things. I need someone to deliver me from the penalty of these actions... but I also need Him to deliver me from my future actions. Have you asked Jesus to forgive you for the sins that you might commit in the future? If He is your savior then He already has. I believe that many who embrace TWI doctrine ARE truly saved, but then there are also many that are NOT. If you think that salvation came when you came to a mere mental acceptance of the facts about the resurrection and also ascribed the title of "lord" to Jesus, then you are sorely in error. Romans 10:9 says that we must "believe in your heart". Not merely mental is it?

Oakspear, Good response! As far as where you "mischaracterize", I agree that the formulation of the doctrine into a creed is a harmonization of several distinct points that are found in scripture. It sounded like you were saying that those who already hold this doctrine then twist and redefine other scripture points. If this is what you are saying then I disagree. One example: The Bible NEVER says that God is unable to "become" a man. It doesn't even say that God is not a man unless you cut off the end of that verse ("that he should lie"). Correct quote from the Bible: "God is not a man THAT he should lie." Incorrect quote: "God is NOT a man." ----let's not take things out of context. Taking things out of context is twisting and manipulating scripture. I've said it before, but I think that I might have been unclear: I am not interested in arguing for the validity of the Nicene Creed, but rather the individual elements within it. Having said that, that creed was man-made and NOT God-breathed. I am much more interested in discussing its key points... Why? Because acceptance or denial of the creed only affects ones fellowship with other believers (that is what its original purpose was). On the other hand to deny certain elements of the creed such as the deity of Jesus, the work of the Holy Spirit, the virgin birth, etc, is to deny the key essentials of the Christian faith. If you don't believe like a Christian then one can validly ask if you are one. This is NOT to say that you are not saved if you believe JCING is correct. On the other hand, if you believe that Christians cannot today have a genuine personal relationship with Jesus (as was indeed taught in TWI), then how will you respond when Jesus tells you, "I never knew you."? (See Matthew 7:21-24). Someone said something about the use of terms such as orthodoxy, heresy, and truth. Why does my use of such terms cause the discussion to no longer be "honest"? I would be lying to you if I told you that I didn't believe that JCING is heresy, because I believe that it is. I should briefly digress for clarity: I can identify four types of doctrinal error discussed in the Bible: 1) mistake 2) error 3) heresy 4) damnable heresy Mistakes and Errors are made all the time. I have no doubt that I believe in some mistakes and even errors. Let me take a silly example that you might relate to: I believe (still do) that Jesus died on a Wednesday. But if I am wrong that would be a mistake. My belief in this, or lack thereof, does not in any way affect my level of faith in God or my ability to live for Him. Errors are wrong teachings that are wrong enough that believing in them hinders a persons faith in God. For example, if you believed that God wants everyone to be sick, then you would never dare have the the faith to pray for God to heal you. Heresies are wrong teachings that drive people away from obedience to God. Believing a heresy would cause a person to do something that is contrary to God's will. I think that VPW's private teachings about adultery caused many who believed them to commit sin. This doctrine was a heresy. A damnable heresy is a doctrine that is inconsistent with the Gospel itself. To fully embrace a damnable heresy is to reject the truth of the Gospel. Can Christians believe in damnable heresies. If you believe in once saved always saved then I would have to say yes. I do too. Thus, I believe that many born-again Christians embrace damnable heresies. More later... I need to go for now...

Oakspear, Not to be to blunt, but what are you talking about? I think you are mischaracterizing the doctrine of the trinity... let me try to briefly summarize it. (Other trinitarians can speak up if they disagree with my summarizings.... 1. There is One and only one God. 2. The Bible shows clearly that Jesus is God, The Father is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. 3. These three characters (Jesus, the Father, and the HS) are distinct in will but one in essense.

Oakspear, Not to miss your bigger point, but I will quickly respond to one of your minor points. The doctrine of the trinity doesn't have a problem with the Father and the Son having different "wills".

T-bone, okay... I'll hold back a little. I would say that God used my study of mathematics to help me ferret out the inconsistencies and errors I was taught in TWI. But then that would be a subject for another thread I suppose.

starbird, I don't believe that the Nicene Creed contradicts the Shema. This doctrine, as it has been traditionally accepted, affirms the oneness of God first of all. To be honest, I don't care too much about the creed per se. I would prefer to just say that I accept the Bible. The problem is we might both claim to believe the Bible but disagree about what it says. Creeds, or any other form of faith statement, are human attempts to encapsulize and summarize what the entire Bible says about a particular topic. I think that the Nicene Creed got it right in what they said. Now, that is not to say that they said everything that there is to say about God, or that even more could not be confidently said. All I am saying is that I agree with what they did say in the way they said it. A note on history: From what I have studied, every element within the creed was generally agreed upon as far back as we can study and that takes us all the way back to the writings of Paul, Peter, and John (i.e. the scriptures). The Nicene Creed came out for two main reasons: 1. To combat the heresy of Arianism: one could assume that this wasn't needed before since the entire church was generally in agreement about who God is. 2. The church had believed this doctrine since the first century but it took 300 years for them to figure out how to accurately summarize what they were believing. (It is kinda difficult to summarily describe who God is.) That being said, I don't think that a study of history can reliably point to a conclusion one way or another. Extra-biblical history depends entirely upon who the historian is. Here are my assumptions: 1. The Bible is true and from God in the original. 2. The truth on this subject IS knowable in the sense that we can know the truth of each element of the Nicene Creed (i.e. either Jesus is God or is not, either Jesus and the father are distinct in some way or they are indistinguishable, etc.) Now, to be honest, my second assumption derives from the first so I guess it isn't really an assumption. A corollary of these premises is that the truth that was first delivered to us (i.e. the first time the books of the Bible were written) has not been lost. Jesus said that "the scripture cannot be broken". God has protected His word and we have access to the truth. Since no one will give me a copy of CES's book on the topic (see other forum), I can only refer to VPW's JCING... in it I believe he uses extra-biblical assumptions (outside of what I have stated above) to come to his conclusions. One more note about assumptions and "proof": I believe that VPW actually DID prove his point. Does that shock you? I think that is why it is so hard to convince a diehard wayfer to believe that Jesus is God. When I say that VPW "proved" his point I do NOT mean he was right. I just mean that his logic was sound. The problem was not in his proof. The problem was in his set of assumptions. You see, proof, and I can speak to this since I teach proofs (I am a math teacher by profession) is when you take a set of agreed upon premises and logically derive a new set of conclusions. Proofs are valid when they correctly employ the laws of logic to arrive at the result. Proofs can be valid and at the same point, dead wrong. If the premises are wrong in the first place, the logic can be good, but the results will be just as flawed as the assumptions. Now... at the risk that I have lost someone and lest I get ignored.... is what I am saying clear?

Tbone, I love the way you think!! Thank you for that quote from McGrath. I have never heard that metaphor before. I love it. I agree. It would be foolhardy to think we can be definitive or exhaustive in this format. I didn't want that. I would be blessed just to hear what people currently think and how they came to their conclusions. Of course, I'd like to share my story too. ;) What saddens me most is that some people have given up searching for an answer. Perhaps they have become agnostic. This is truly sad. There are answers in the Bible. We don't have all the answers, but who Jesus is and how we are to respond to Him is clearly laid out.

dmiller said: "If your mind is already convinced -- You needn't check out the "other side"." I disagree with that entirely. We should be constantly learning, always growing, continually seeking to learn more about God and to test that which we think we already know against the Scripture. The truth has nothing to fear from an honest critique. If I was one that agreed with CES's position, I would jump at the opportunity to share this "scholarly book" with anyone and everyone that would listen. I want to listen. If I find that CES is right and I have been wrong on this issue then I will be compelled to change. If I think that CES is wrong in their conclusions (and I will unless they come up with an amazing argument that I have never seen even though I believe I have studied this intently enough to change from my previous position) then I would think that you would want to know why I think so, but changing your opinion is not my goal in reading this book. If you don't believe me... oh well... at least I know who the one is that has made up their mind already.

starbird, I agree that knowledge of Jesus is the main key in our understanding of God and of the rest of scripture and ultimately life itself. I think I disagree with your take on Jesus. That is why I think this topic IS worth exploring. But something further needs to be said here. When I say "knowledge of Jesus" I am not referring to intellectual acceptance of facts about Him. The knowledge here is "experiential knowledge". We need to know (have a personal, real growing trust-based relationship with) Jesus. I know trinitarians and non-trins that both have this real, dynamic growing relationship with Jesus. I also know trins and non-trins that only have a head-knowledge about Jesus. Quite frankly, I doubt that they are even saved. Belief in Jesus IS NOT mental ascent to the facts of his existence, person, power, work, or anything else ABOUT Him. Belief in Jesus IS an absolute, unconditional, transfer of trust to Him for our eternal welfare and direction, both for now and for eternity. This belief (trust) is, of course, informed and guided by our mental acceptance of who He is and what He can and will do. Therefore, many are limited in their ability to grow in Christlikeness when they have an inaccurate understanding of Him.

Okay, It seems my simple request has sparked a little bit of controversy. That was not my intent. My request was in the spirit of "you have not because you ask not". A few years ago I asked John S. for a free copy via email directly and he refused. I think workman ARE worthy of their labor and I do not have a problem paying for things. My concern is that I currently DO NOT agree with most of the conclusions that I have heard that this book comes to. I grew up believing and teaching JCING. My study of scripture since then as led me to concluse that Jesus Christ is indeed God. Having said that, I believe it is ALWAYS healthy to evaluate and test what I believe, and it is in this spirit of meekness that I would like to read CES's work on the subject. Personally, I think $29 is way too much for a book. Then again, I don't have any qualm with people making a profit for their hard work. My concern is that I can not in good conscience give money to support the further preaching of something that I currently find both morally and theologically repulsive. That is why I would be glad to pay a small price for the book to cover shipping and its own production. I would even pay this to CES directly. I just don't want them to make any profit from me. Since the last time I checked we live in a capitalistic free society, it is NOT illegal to resell a used book and it is certainly not illegal or unethical to give it away. Thanks for your understanding. I will be willing to trade some good books that I have and even some that I don't care for anymore. I have thrown away most of TWI books that I once had but I still have a few... anyone interested in a trade?

sirguessalot, You seem to think that the discussion misses the point. I halfway agree, but let me explain. I don't care so much about a creedal statement. I think haggling about one or two letters in a creed can seem ridiculous and for most it is. What matters is the implications that come from the beliefs. I do care about the elements that the creeds bring up though that are important such as, 1. the deity of Christ: Practically, should we worship Him? Should we look to him as our savior? Should we put our complete 100% trust in Jesus if he is just a sinless man? 2. The personhood of the Holy Spirit: Is this relevant to the way we interact with the Holy Spirit and how we are led by HIM? I say yes. 3. The implied relationship within the Godhead: Is there something we can learn about the oneness that we should seek in our relationships: Husbands and wives, leaders and laity, Parents and children, etc. I think this one is EXTREMELY practical. 4. The understanding that this affects our understanding of our own redemption. Now, let me also say... I believe that I was saved while a member of TWI. Contrary to most trinitarians that you might meet, I do not believe that a person has to be a trinitarian to be saved. On the other hand, I believe that non-trinitarian Christians are seriously handicapped spiritually because of their wrong thinking.

hello, 1st, let me say that I grew up in TWI and am well versed in TWI's teaching on this subject. I remember arguing with trinitarian ministers while I was still in high school and making them feel stupid. Atleast, they couldn't respond to the arguments against the deity of Jesus that I gave them. When I tell people from a TWI background that I now whole-heartedly embrace the Nicene Creed they are incredulous. They assume that I have done this for social reasons or to fit in to a church, or the like. I believe that I have rejected Way Doctrine on this issue because my study of the Scriptures compels me to. Further, I believe that everything in the Nicene Creed can be derived from scripture, either directly or by scripture buildup. I believe that the Truth has nothing to fear from honest evaluation and critique. I feel I have done that. What I have not done is present my findings to people from a TWI background. I would truly welcome anyone's honest discussion of this topic with me. In fact, I am asking for it. I am still learning and believe also that I have somethings to share that might just bless someone. Is anyone willing?

okay folks, I get the idea that Uptown is living under the impression that the spiritual descendents of TWI are the first ones and only ones around that believe in the "ministry of reconciliation". I grew up in TWI. Praise God my family left in 1989. Then, I left the offshoot in 1995. In 1997, I realized that I had never learned how to share the Gospel. Then, I realized that I wasn't really all that clear on what "the Gospel" was. Dont misunderstand me. I believed that Jesus died for my sins and that God raised him from the dead. I even went a step further than TWI taught and meant what I said when I called Jesus "Lord". But I couldn't explain that to others and I certainly didn't understand the how to lead someone to Christ. Realizing my lack of knowledge, I prayed that the Lord would teach me about this. He did NOT lead me back to TWI or any offshoot thereof. Instead he led me to a church that is very effective in this area. (I think different churches have been especially gifted by the Holy Spirit in different ways.) The point of this is that I think Upstart thinks that "the gospel" is the "teachings of VPW and his disciples". I don't understand that. It makes me wonder if Upstart even knows the real gospel in the first place. But then I dunno... maybe Upstart could tell us what the Gospel is anyway.

Hello all, I was wondering if any of you people have a copy of the book "One God & One Lord" that CES put out a few years ago that you would be willing to give away? I can't bring myself to give CES $29 of the money that God has put in my care. If you can help let me know... I AM willing to pay for shipping. Thanks!

hello, Does anyone know of or are in contact with Kurt Fiser. The last I heard he was living in Wichita. I have never met him, but my parents gave me the middle name of Kurt after him and I have always been interested in meeting him. Let me know. I am a son of Arthur and Gayle Hannsz from Houston, TX.