Charity

I think you know that twi will have none of the preposterous, pretentious and extreme prophetic phoniness that ministries like Morningstar (and IHOPKC, Gateway Church, Bethel Church, and others) prosper in, but they all do share in twi's history of there being sexual abuse. Now, do they all practice lovebombing like twi - that I do not know.

Yeah, I was kind of hoping for one straight answer as to exactly why you left twi or were you kicked out?

Exactly why did you leave then?

Does anyone know if vpw plagiarized someone's work for the Jesus Christ if Not God book?

I'm listening to the audio tape about William Barlow again and around the 19:00 mark, he talks about vpw's book "Jesus Christ is Not God" and how bad the explanation of John 1:1 was. He went on to list others who had researched both for and against the trinity doctrine and ended up writing a manuscript called "The Only True God." This was before he went into the corps. (Barlow tried to submit the ms through twi's process of doing research but it was rejected; sent it a year later to a former fellowship coordinator that he was still friends with who sent it off to the Ohio State coordinator who reproved Barlow for not following proper procedure [which he had actually done the year before] and yelled at him for an hour, calling him arrogant for thinking he knew more than "dr." w. The SC also said he wanted to talk about the ms with Barlow's branch coordinator first before discussing it with him. What eventually happened with the ms wasn't mentioned at this part of the tape.) Anyway, I'm wondering if there was ever an update done to JCING to improve vp's book. I know John Lynn, John Schoenheit and Mark H. Graeser wrote their own book called "One God and One Lord " which is 650 pages and is FAR better than JCING. I doubt very much twi is making that book available in their bookstore. So if twi is still sticking with this one original book on the topic of the trinity, it shows either laziness on their part to improve/update it and/or some need to keep vpw front and centre. Either way, way followers are missing out on what others have learned on this topic - so much for them being a research ministry.

About the Founder In the first paragraph, they fail to mention the two names he plagiarized the most - J.E. Stiles and Bullinger. I don't recognize most of the other men they do list. Did he publicly credit all of these men in his work? Second paragraph is about his academic credentials. Two links concerning Pike's Peak Bible Seminary (aka Burton College) are Pikes Peak Bible Seminary (which mentions vpw) and GSC Thread Pike's Peak Seminary. Third paragraph lists the colleges in Emporia and in Indiana - neither of which were ever accredited and are both now closed. Does anyone know if the corps program is still run out of Camp Gunnison as well as the headquarters in Ohio? This link talks about the accreditation issues around these two places. Camp Gunnison's Accreditation The University of Life outreach courses, an international Biblical studies correspondence school, is mentioned in the final paragraph but I can't see where that is still available. The article closes with the claim that vp held forth the greatness and the accuracy of God’s Word. So the quote "The Word, the Word and nothing but the Word" also meant the Word of God according to vpw. Yet, how many of the classes offered by twi today are the original ones taught by him?

I don't get this oldiesman, the devil wanted you to....what?

Do you think this applies to the Way International?

Within twi, there was very little, if any, "willingness to agree to disagree." With William Barlow, he shared that it was some fellow believers who complained about him (i.e., ratted him out) to leadership because they determined he was criticizing and mocking vpw (which he later explained to the leader how that was not what was actually happening). With the second quote of WordWolf (highlighting is mine), he laid out how fear based the control in twi was. Questioning twi doctrine was obviously included in these acts of disobedience and qualified you as not being faithful enough. So beware anyone reading this thread who is currently in twi or is considering becoming involved - listen to the tape. On the tape, one leader "seemed willing" to go through William's questions with him but before that could even begin to happen, Rivenbark was told about it, shut it down and kicked William out of the corps solely for this one reason. It seems most likely that twi knows they are not able to defend vpw's teachings when provided with scriptures. They nip it in the bud, accuse you of thinking you know more than weirwille (which happened to me as well and is considered blasphemy in their eyes), and remain faithful to the man who founded the ministry which now belongs to them.

William talks about his parents and other members of his family being in twi for years. However, I don't think he mentioned anyone else being in the corps program. Vince and Sean Finnegan began teaching against once saved/always saved which is a big departure from twi. Myth: Salvation Cannot Be Lost

Questioning Way International Doctrines (William Barlow) In this audio interview done by Sean Finnegan (Vince Finnegan's son), William Barlow covers a lot of topics along with his life experiences leading up to and after his being kicked out of the way corps by Rivenbark about six months before he was to graduate. If I remember correctly, this was around 2017. He speaks on growing up in twi, the treatment he received because he went to his leadership about wanting to privately discuss questions he and another corps brother had about some of vpw's teaching, the control leadership wanted to have over him after leaving the corps, etc. The main issue concerns twi's continued stance to preserve vpw's teachings and confront, belittle and condemn those who dare to question them. The link below is for Barlow's website which he mentions. It contains research teachings he and others have done on dispensationalism, the tithe and giving, the kingdom of God and many others. He encourages questions on all of the teachings. Study Driven Faith

Giving to God—Abundant Sharing Posted on November 14, 2016 by The Way Quote: Tithing (giving one-tenth of one’s increase) to the Lord is established in God’s Word as a basic law of God’s prosperity. In making the tithe our minimum, we open the floodgates for prosperity to ourselves, and we help make available the knowledge of God to others. We also have the joy of giving above and beyond the tithe, which we call abundant sharing. Abundant sharing is a heart-motivated commitment to freely share of our abundance out of love for and thankfulness to God. Two main purposes for abundantly sharing are so that God’s people may give and thus receive the subsequent blessings, and so that the necessary financial and physical means are provided to help move God’s prevailing Word.

Our Legal Rights in Christ to God’s Blessings This article was posted 5 years ago by twi. In it they say "One of these immutable laws is the law of giving."

2 Corinthians 9:5-7 So I considered it necessary to urge the brothers that they go on ahead to you and arrange in advance your previously promised generous gift (blessing) that the same would be ready as a generous gift (blessing) and not as one grudgingly given due to greediness (covetousness). 6 Now I say this: the one who sows sparingly (refraining) will also reap sparingly (refraining), and the one who sows generously (upon blessings) will also reap generously (upon blessings). 7 Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. Sparingly = 5340 pheidomenós (adverb): Sparing, refraining, withholding. This is in the context of verse 5 which says "not as one grudgingly given due to greediness" NASB which is one Greek word - 4124 pleonexia meaning greed, covetousness. So sparingly here isn't about giving a small amount but giving a small amount because of greed (an intense and selfish desire for something). IOW, you don't have to give out of what you need, but out of your blessings. Generously = 2129 ep' eulogia (noun): upon (on the basis of) blessings (See 1909 epi) I know it can be a challenge to get past twi's doctrine and expectations of habitual giving/abundant sharing in order to begin giving according to one's own heart. And again, the purpose for Paul's collection in 2 Cor 8 and 9 is for the poor saints in Jerusalem maybe because of a famine or because of persecution or both. My last word on this is the concept of giving "in order" to receive. Can't see how this is a right attitude to have.

I've obviously extended this thread to include "giving" (aka twi's doctrine of abundant sharing) as well as tithing. If anyone finds this is being , I can start a new thread.

That's how I understand it as well. Apparently, once the temple was destroyed, the transactional tithe in order to receive God's blessings took on a mandatory monetary value according to some religious organizations.

I want to look at the words "generous gift" in 2 Corinthians 9:5 So I considered it necessary to urge the brothers that they go on ahead to you and arrange in advance your previously promised generous gift, that the same would be ready as a generous gift, and not as one grudgingly given due to greediness. (NASB) Translations of 2 Corinthias 9:5 shows parallel verses which used different word(s) instead of "generous gift." They include willing gift, blessing, a matter of bounty, matter of generosity, bountiful gift, etc. However, 2129. eulogia gives the definition of eulogia as meaning "blessing, praise, benefit." It also shows it's specific meaning for 2 Cor 9:5 as "the blessing of a collection sent from Christians to their brethren" (See 5a). The word "generous" is not mentioned. Finally, Verses with eulogia show how this word is translated as "blessing" in all its usages (except Romans 16:18) and 2 Cor 9:5-6 where it is translated in terms of bounty or generosity. Why is this? 2 Corinthians 9:6 is the next verse that should be looked at as well.

(Highlighting and colour of font above is mine) 2 Corinthians 8:7 Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance (logos), and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also. You said that you saw this verse as showing abounding is the "standard that is supposed to underscore our motivation to give." I see it also as "abounding" in all of the areas are necessary in order for any one specific area to be successful in God's eyes. IOW, you need to abound in faith if you want to abound in all the others; you need to abound in speaking the word if you want to abound in all the others; you need to abound in knowledge if you want to abound in all the others, etc. According to BibleHub, "abound" is 4052 perisseuó meaning to abound (exist in large numbers or amounts), to be in abundance (a very large quantity of something), to overflow (the excess or surplus not able to be accommodated by an available space), to excel (to be superior to: surpass in accomplishment or achievement). Is it taking it too far then to say that this abounding in all 6 things is required to receive anything from God as opposed to pfal's list of 5 things to do in order to receive anything from God?

Your last line (highlighting is mine) shows the error in twi's calling giving (tithe/AS) a law. However, in their writings about giving, they do (or at least did) quote the two promises above to support their concept of guaranteed results. Malachi says "bring" and God will "open and pour." 2 Cor 9 says "be a cheerful giver" and God is able to provide "all grace, all sufficiency and an abundance." A promise is defined as "a declaration or assurance that one will do a particular thing or that a particular thing will happen." God's promises are guaranteed according to Isaiah 55:20, "For as many as the promises of God are, in Him they are yes; therefore through Him also is our Amen to the glory of God through us." So, is twi's only error in calling giving and receiving a law whereas God accurately considers giving and receiving a promise? What difference is there really between the two?

Thank you for confirming that they call it the law of giving which lines up with their law of believing. In both cases, however, when the law doesn't work then the giver/believer must be doing something wrong (not cheerful enough, not generous enough, not trusting enough). Been there, done that. Yet, the promises are there in the bible. For tithing, there's Malachi 3:10 10Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and put Me to the test now in this,” says the LORD of armies, “if I do not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows. For giving, there's 2 Corinthians 9:7-8 7Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8And God is able to make all grace overflow to you, so that, always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed; Is a biblical promise and a law not similar in some way?

The reason for this collection in 2 Corinthians 8 is given in Romans 15. 25 but now, I am going to Jerusalem, serving the saints. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem. 27 For they were pleased to do so, and they are indebted to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in their spiritual things, they are indebted to do them a service also in material things. How does this compare to what twi does with their collections from the saints?

There will never be a perfect world, but do you think if humanism was promoted more so that more people could choose to live accordingly (instead of living religiously), this would be a positive thing for societies? Below is some information about what people would learn about humanism. What is Humanism?

I really find your point that man has not changed (I assume you mean mankind and since the beginning of time) interesting and open to various explanations as to why this might be. One would be the theory based on evolution and another would be the doctrine found in the bible. Since we cannot erase the millennia of years where religious beliefs have dominated cultures, looking forward with progressively less religious doctrine to "guide" us would include letting go of the following. Gal 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, 20idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, 21envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. The issue I have with verses 22 and 23 is that non-religious people are quite capable of experiencing what the bible calls “fruit of the spirit.” This is so obvious, and yet the bible claims they are derived from the spirit. (I’ve been told that the fruit of the spirit is of a higher quality, a greater degree of excellence, more supernatural than what humans can experience on their own, but there is no scientific evidence which supports this – only subjective reporting.) So why does Paul call them spiritual fruit when they’re not? I think it is to reinforce his belief stated in Romans 7. Rom 7:14For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold into bondage to sin. 15For I do not understand what I am doing; for I am not practicing what I want to do, but I do the very thing I hate. 16However, if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, that the Law is good. 17But now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me. 18For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I do the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me. In Galatians 5, Paul gives a long list of actions associated with the flesh, actions that mankind has been a slave to since the fall of Adam, if you believe Romans 7, and actions that will prevent one from inheriting the kingdom of God (with the unfortunate alternative being cast into the lake of fire according to Revelation 21:8). Paul is representing man as being evil within, again since the fall of Adam, and upgrading the positive aspects of mankind as being spiritual - originating from a god. The intended purpose is for people to want to follow his teachings to accept Christ as their lord. What would life be like without accepting the above as truth? I think it would mean accepting mankind for simply what it is - made up of human beings capable of change. I think endeavoring to understand why human beings can be so full of greed, pride, envy, hatred, etc., beginning with an evolutionary POV, would be more advantageous.

I'll read the rest of your post later but judging whether my skin is "thick" enough to be on the internet is again focusing on me instead of my POV. I'll continue to point this out to you as long as you continue to do it.

I so appreciate your post. Thank you for taking the time to compose it.