Brushstroke

I've read a few of the articles on there...I'm not convinced, even in the least. From what I can see on this site, TWI doctrines and arguments are simplistic at best, and need more explaining, more behind them for me to accept them. All I see is one or two verses taken out of context to support a viewpoint, and no historical records, no credible authors, no explanations of what terms like "the Word of God is the Will of God" or "working the Word" or "fits like a hand in a glove" mean, or an explanation of how doctrines like Jesus Christ not being God, denial of the Trinity, the Law of Believing, the Idiom of Permission and others were understood by the early Christians, and what they mean. Without a clear and logical explanation for the doctrines of TWI that isn't muddled with emotionalism or attacks on other groups, and that can consistently stand on its own, I'm not a taker. So, no Waybrain for me, thank you very much. :)

Yes, I can see how it would be very useful for a lot of people here. For me, it gives me a clearer idea of what exactly TWI teaches, as I was never in TWI, and knowledge of what they believe will prove useful to me later on, considering I have a couple of close friends in TWI. And I have no clue who did all this. ~Phil

So salvation cannot be lost? You're all going to be saved anyway, even though TWI said that God pretty much told you to fu¢k off? That doesn't sound very consistent...

As I've been researching TWI, I've come across this site a few times, and I decided to look into where these articles come from. I guess it's just a TWI/offshoot follower. http://www1.itech.net/~ydl/page2.htm This is the main link that contains an index of other links that contain TWI's teachings, most of which can be found on Google if you look hard enough. Kind of an interesting find, I think. ~Phil

TWI makes sensing, perceiving or communicating with that "other realm" seem so easy... A lot of modern religions teach that that sort of communion with the divine and holiness or purity can be attained with little effort. Such thinking is nothing but delusion...

Mainly we're talking about religious cosmology. What I mean by "cosmology" is the beliefs and perceptions of TWI regarding the spiritual world, and by extension, the spiritual realm in relation to the physical realm. Any perception we humans have of the spiritual will inevitably involve ourselves. As the spiritual world is a part of God's creation, that means that angels, demons and other spiritual entities, and the sometimes very specifically described spiritual realm are just as much a part of the universe we live in as the physical, though the spiritual is imperceptible to us. So the normal use of the word "cosmology" wouldn't work here, as it normally only speaks of the tangible aspect of the universe.

Hm...you're just a year older than I am... So I guess TWI's attitude hasn't changed, eh? This whole discussion makes me think of the Jehovah's Witnesses. :blink:

First of all, no spirit? So could God not talk with Adam and Eve, or did Adam and Eve lose their spirits when they went out from the Garden? And the way you say "had spirit placed upon them on a conditional basis"...what exactly is "spirit"? Is it an energy or force that God plants into us? Wouldn't that mean it's just synonymous with grace? Or is it rather an actual, living component of the human being? If the seed is permanent, then what is one to make of many here at this site who have rejected TWI, the "hedge of protection" and the "one true household"? Does it mean they have lost the seed, which as you point out is contradictory to TWI teaching. And also, the Jews and early Christians and all Christian denominations today believed/believe the spirit (the component of the human being) to be a living entity, not just a gift of "holy spirit" which sounds impersonal. This goes back to my previous question...is the spirit a living component of the human being, or is it just a force, ultimately controlled by God, that drives the body and soul/mind? Steph and I were talking about angels once in passing conversation and she echoed what you've said here. Rather, what I would call demons, TWI calls Devil Spirits...no?

I have some idea of what TWI believes about Jesus. It is not quite Arian, nor is it quite Ebionite, and also not Nestorian. Sort of a combination of the three, in some form or another. That is beside the point. But I have a different question, and I personally find cosmology to be fun to talk about. What does TWI believe about the spirit world? What is it like? I'm talking about things like angels and their hierarchies (such as the nine orders of the holy angels: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels, and Angels etc), demons (devil-spirits?), the spirits of the departed, saints, heaven and hell, where people go when they die, the final resurrection, and other things. How does their cosmology tie into their beliefs, especially the Law of Believing, which I'm told is the cornerstone of TWI doctrine? ~Phil

I think the survey pegged me pretty well, but the numbers were pretty messed up lol. Apparently I'm "The Artist" with a twelve on it, and the next highest is a zero on "The Thinker." The rest are all negatives. The highest negative though, was Type 1, "The Reformer."

As I read this post, it made me wonder... Has anyone inside or outside of TWI ever considered that the problem with biblical inerrancy lies not in the problematic explanations of inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies, but rather in the concept of Sola Scriptura itself?

A poster here in a recent topic mentioned something about "forbidden" songs...that one couldn't sing at a fellowship meeting I'm assuming. I'm sorry that's so vague, but I can't remember the exact post. It made me wonder, what else was/is forbidden of TWI followers? What did your Branch/Limb Coordinators and the Board of Directors tell you you could and could not do? ~Phil

I never said it's bad. But in a religious context, many times it can be.

This is a question that can be related to a lot of religious groups, but it especially applies to TWI. Recently I've noticed some posters here in About the Way talking about the zeal they had as young followers in TWI. I assume this is why TWI grew so fast. People were attracted by the youthful enthusiasm that Solomon says is vanity (Eccl. 11:10), and in Proverbs it says "the ways of undiscerning me are right in their own eyes, but a wise man hearkens to counsels." [Prov. 12:17 LXX (12:15 MT)] Emotionalism and self-assurance isn't always good, and often hinders a true understanding. I've always thought this sort of zeal to be very disturbing. I'm not saying we shouldn't "rejoice in the Lord always" (Phil. 4:4), but this sort of rejoicing to the point of a dangerous zeal and self-righteous arrogance that you see in TWI seems counter to the spirituality that Christ commanded (Matt. 18:3-5). Where does this zeal come from, and why is it so prevalent in modern religion in general, and in TWI in particular?

TWI's research seems to be highly misplaced. If Wierwille really wanted to know about what the Bible teaches, why didn't he look into what the early Christians and the Jews of the Old Testament believed? That would give him an answer as to what a lot it means, rather than just interpreting a few words this way or that way, and changing another word here, etc.

I've wondered this as well. If TWI is really a biblical "research and teaching" ministry, then, to me, it would follow that there would be genuine, scholarly research that is not backed by any preconceived doctrinal notions. Or if there are certain doctrinal notions, those notions would have a historical basis and would not be a conglomeration of doctrine from various different religious denominations and sects. TWI claims to be able to help people better understand the Bible. If there were a college class that claimed to be able to help better understand the Bible (I'm sure there is), it would be about history, archeology, critical examination of religious beliefs and stories, examining the dating and authorship of the text, of the cities where events happened, battles, everything...but TWI focused on applying the Bible to the lives of TWI followers, gave their own spin on certain passages, and really pushed certain doctrinal viewpoints. These are not what make true unbiased research. So...what exactly were they looking for? The search for authenticity to support their notions, the class offered as a way to better understand scripture...I think it was all just something to sell to people to get money. ~Phil

I think my faith in humanity dropped a few points when I saw this. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php From their FAQ: ROFL!!! ~Phil

Why does it surprise me that they would not give you clear answers to all the inconsistencies, contradictions, and flat-out lies in TWI doctrine and history? I guess it's because I was never in TWI that I can't understand how a religious group, a group that claims to teach what God wants us to know, could be so deceptive. And the fact that that happened in 2001...it is very telling to me that they have not changed at all.

Type "gegufyzu" into Google and you'll get a ton of links to various random stuff on a "Gegufyzu Journal." Hmm...interesting... I have a feature on Firefox that allows me to view the content of a page before I actually click the link. The page reads: Yeah...complete gibberish. O_o

Eastern Orthodox chant, in Greek: More chant: And this, is some stuff by Demon Hunter, one of my favorite bands. This song is called Undying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5fPB0nVS3A Another song by Demon Hunter, called Follow the Wolves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA0xEZcfAuA And here are the lyrics to Undying: And to Follow the Wolves:

FYI, I'm not Catholic. And for you to assert that comparing TWI's theology to Arianism and Ebionitism is in some sense derogatory comprises a misunderstanding of the heresies themselves. Arianism, in its various forms, states that Jesus is not God, and is a created being. Most Arians held an Adoptionist view of Jesus, in that He was endowed with the Father's grace and through His cooperation with His Father's will, He attained divinity, though not equality with God, over a period of time. The Ebionites, according to the Church Fathers, believed Jesus to be the Messiah, but a prophet, indeed the greatest of the prophets and a perfect man who fulfilled and obeyed the Law better than anyone ever could, but nothing more than a man, and certainly not divine. St. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, says of the Ebionites: And also St. Hippolytus of Rome, who expounds the doctrine of the Ebionites concerning Christ, in his book The Refutation of All Heresies: And about Arius, this is an epistle of Pope St. Alexander of the Church of Alexandria, who was elected Pope of Alexandria instead of Arius because of Arius' heretical views. This is from his Catholic Epistle, to the entire Church, where he quotes the Arians in their statements of belief: Chockfull, can you give me a reputable source that would show that Church history prior to 1000AD is unreliable? And what exactly do you mean by "It's not a compelling argument. 2000 year old views are not current views as modern viewpoints more reflect the advancement of academic achievement of mankind. Arian didn't have GPS satellites to influence his perception of the world."? ~Phil

Haha, I was quite sure my post wouldn't be so well received. Thank you! Dynamic Monarchianism...that's a perfect description for what TWI's theology is. Well, actually I think TWI's would better be described as a form of Arianism or perhaps a variation of the Ebionite heresy. This leads me to question...how does TWI view Jesus, exactly? I know they don't view Him as God, but is He a divine being but not God, or is He just a human who attained a certain state of holiness or enlightenment from God, like Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha? Or rather, is He one of the Prophets, as Muslims view Him? Is He just a good moral teacher as the Jews view Him? What, in TWI's view, does the title "Son of God" mean? What does "Son of Man" mean?

I am afraid my post will be, in the words C.S. Lewis used often, "quite unpopular." 1. What is your understanding of the Trinity? The Trinity...ahh...a hard subject. Essentially, my understanding is summed up in the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds, and which was decided on by the seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787 AD), and which is confessed by many Church Fathers before and after Nicea: The Nicene Creed: "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages: Light of Light, God of God, begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; and was crucified for us also under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; and His kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets; and I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. I expect the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the world to come. Amen." The Chalcedonian Creed, adopted by the Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451: "We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos (Mother of God), according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us." "For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty ...and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit." [st. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:1] "There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image: perfect Begetter of the perfect Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, Only of the Only, God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word, Wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and Power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal. And there is One Holy Spirit, having His subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to wit to men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever." [st. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Declaration of Faith] "Do your utmost to stand firm in the precepts of the Lord and the Apostles, so that everything you do, worldly or spiritual, may go prosperously from beginning to end in faith and love, in the Son and the Father and the Spirit, together with your most reverend bishop and that beautifully woven spiritual chaplet, your clergy and godly minded deacons. Be as submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to His Father, and as the Apostles were to Christ and the Father and the Spirit; so that there may be complete unity, in the flesh as well as in the spirit." [st. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 13] My understanding of the Trinity certainly goes beyond any creed of the Church, even though I affirm them to be true declarations of the Faith. There is one essence (ousia), and three persons (hypostasis). These three Hypostases share this one divine Ousia, Substance or Nature. They do not each have a part of it, but they each have the Essence in its totality. It is not that the Persons comprise the Essence, nor that the Persons each have a part of the Essence, but each Person has the Essence as a whole. The Persons describe the "Threeness" of God, and the Essence describes the "Oneness" of God. The Threeness and Oneness are the same, because in Threeness we have Oneness because the three Persons are said to be a perechoresis, meaning they mutually indwell within one another, and in Oneness of Essence we have Threeness, because the three Persons each contain the complete Essence. Because the Essence is not divided among the three Persons and because the Persons are within one another, the doctrine of Divine Simplicity would explain the Trinity further. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus up above explains it well. He clearly states that there is one God, the Father, but then he goes on to say that the Son is "Only of Only, God of God, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal." Then he says of the Holy Spirit, that He gets His being from God the Father, and is made manifest or revealed to man by the God the Son. Just as the Son is the Image of the Father, the Spirit is said to be the "Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect," in whom we see God the Father and God the Son because they are in the Spirit and the Spirit is in them, and vice versa. Many see the Trinity to be just one big compilation of confusing Neo-Platonic formulas. While it is true that the Church Fathers, especially St. Justin Martyr, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, St. John the Apostle/Evangelist/Theologian, St. Athanansius, Origen, and others, used Neo-Platonic terminology to describe God's activity within Himself and within the world, they used this terminology because it was the only way to explain their belief in the Father and the Son and the Spirit as God, without falling into a strange sort of polytheism, and also because it explained most clearly what the Church experienced in its worship and saw in Scripture. I see the Trinity as more than just a compilation of philosophical formulas. It explains the experience of a God who not only loves, but is love, and contains love and is the source of love: God loves because He is a family. So the Trinity is a divine perichoresis of love between the three Persons, and God's infinite love expands from within Himself to across the whole of His creation. 2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian? Yes and No. Can one outright deny the Trinity and claim to be a Christian? No. Can one believe in the Trinity and not understand all the complex theology behind it, and be a Christian? Of course. Can one not believe in the Trinity and be closer to God than one who does believe in the Trinity? Certainly. God is everywhere and in everything and everyone. Some people are just...closer...to Him, than others, believers or non-believers. Can a non-Christian be saved? I think so. God judges what's in the heart, and He's the only judge: I'm not going to judge who will be saved and will won't, I can't. 3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"? If one, as I said before, "outright denies" the Trinity and Jesus' divinity, then I would say one does believe in "another Jesus." 4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate? I haven't read it, so I wouldn't know. I've read excerpts from it from a few sources on the internet, and from what I can see, he seems to have many misconceptions of Christian history and Trinitarian doctrine. 5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out? I was never in TWI.

Oh yes, many Christians looked for martyrdom. In fact, even St. Paul did. Read Acts 20:13-21:16, Philippians 1:19-26, and II Timothy 4:6-18. But I'd have to do a bit more research myself to get some other extra-biblical records. Most of the records of martyrdom are in the lives of saints or hagiographies (see Synaxarion) recorded by Church historians.

I don't know if I would agree that martyrdom became simply the "in" thing to do, and technically a martyr is anyone who is killed for their faith, regardless of whether they seek death or not. The early Christians of the first three centuries and of the centuries after, clergy and laymen alike, had a faith in God much unlike what we see in people today. It was a harsher world, they had more things to worry about, like invading armies and for the early Christians the Roman persecutions were an obvious thing to worry about. To say it was simply something that was "in" is to say that their faith was nothing more than an outward show, which for them, it was much more; much more than people see Christianity as today, anyway.