Mark Clarke

There aren't many churches that DON'T have classes, advances (except they call them retreats), home fellowships, tapes of services, a book store, 'special' get togethers, and a magazine or newsletter of some kind. Saying that makes them the same as TWI except for a few minor points like THE ENTIRE MESSAGE THEY ARE PROMOTING is like saying, "They have a building, and people come to it and talk about God and the Bible, so there's no difference between them and the Roman Catholic Church."

Instead.. I see the same old thing, offshoot after offshoot... they are rehashing the old foundational class.. around and around in circles they go.. with slight variations on the theme..

"Slight" variations? Have you been reading what I posted?

<_<

I dont understand your reasoning.

No one could survive without him, yet there is no emphasis on him at all?

That doesnt sound congruous to me.

Where is this God that he preaches if they would suddenly be on their own? are they really that dependant on HIM?

Pastors move on from churches and different groups to continue their education all the time without devastating effects ( apparently God still cares for those people apart from the resident pastor).

Is he somehow still 'replacing the absent christ" as Wierwille did? or are people really that dependant on him that they cannot function without him to lead them? (or he cant function without them to listen to him perhaps?)

I really dont care all that much, but it doesnt sound healthy to me

Nobody said they couldn't survive without him, but there is a particular function that a pastor has in any church. As he put it in his introduction, he "continued to work with those in the ministry who wanted my involvement." He never said anything about "replacing the absent Christ" (and Oldiesman is right that VP never did either). But he also didn't claim to have gotten special understanding or revelation from God as VP did, nor has he ever implied that he has all the answers and no one in the church can disagree with him. He functions as a pastor but not as "THE Man of God for our day and time" or any such exclusive title.

"Pastors move on from churches and different groups to continue their education" when there is an organization already in place. But we are talking about a bunch of ex-Way people trying to do their best with what they had, and figure out what worked and what didn't in the Way's structure, since that was what they knew. Not to mention getting used to new doctrines (new to them, that is) which they had to search the Scriptures about, to see if they were right. All of this was a gradual growth process. In its early days its methods and structure may have resembled TWI more, but it has continued to grow and change since then, with the result that the organization that now exists bears very little resemblance to TWI from which it sprang. Is it perfect? Of course not. But is it just a copy of the Way? I don't think so.

Do you know of any groups besides The Way that have "Advances"?

Full Gospel Businessmen Fellowship has a "men's advance" -

http://www.fgbmfi-ga.com/Site/Home/Home.html

And lots of churches have "Family Camps" and even the Boy Scouts have "Campfires." Even "Devotion with Motion" was something TWI got from Camps Farthest Out, I believe, on which their Family Camps were based. There may be some similarity to TWI in terminology, which is just a helpful way of relating to people who are largely ex-TWI, but that doesn't mean the whole organization is the same. There are a great many differences in attitude as well as doctrine.

There is more to the differences than just "several doctrines." The whole foundation of their doctrine is different. While TWI was founded on the supposed revelation to one man of God, Vince makes no such claim. And the whole focus of TWI's doctrine was on "operating power" to have what they considered a "more abundant life." In contrast, Living Hope teaches that the gospel of the coming Kingdom of God ruled by Jesus on earth is central. This foundation puts a different spin on many other things that TWI had wrong, not least of which is TWI's dispensational system of Bible interpretation. Really, about the only thing that Living Hope has in common with TWI now (other than basics like "there is a God" and "the Bible is divinely inspired") is the rejection of the Trinity and the belief that the dead are unconscious.

As for the financial base being a core of faithful followers, that is true of nearly any independent, non-denominational church. A few top contributors provide the greatest percentage of gifts. But he does not hold the kind of control over members and small home fellowships that VPW did. There is none of the focus on him as a "man of God" as there was in TWI, nor is there any reference to VPW as a "past man of God" as there is in many other TWI offshoots.

The closest he comes is when he says in his introduction on his website, "I will always be thankful for Dr. Wierwille (the founder) and those early years in the ministry without which I don’t think I would have lived to see thirty." I think this can be said of many of us. Despite what VPW turned out to be, the effect of God's Word on the lives of many troubled youths in those days literally saved their lives. But I know from personal conversations with Vince that he does not consider VPW to be the "Man of God" we once thought he was. But to go about enumerating VP's faults on his website would serve no purpose. Yet he goes on to say, "The downward spiral could be attributed to many things, with perhaps the most significant being wrong or incomplete doctrine, unqualified and immature leadership, and sinfulness. As a prominent leader in the ministry, I consider myself to have been a part of the problem and deeply regret the many things I did wrong."

Far from being another "Man of God," there are a number of other teachers at Living Hope besides Vince, and they are not required to agree with what he teaches, as was the case in TWI. There isn't the emphasis on classes and money that TWI had either. Many of them are taught by others besides Vince. His newsletter is free. And rather than focusing the whole ministry on "running classes," some of them are available to buy as tape sets, and others are free online.

DWBH said:

"...all he's done, imho, is to effectively remove himself from the filthy legacy of the average twi offshoot..." I'd say that in itself is a good thing.

"...and hitch his star to a different denonimination associated with atlanta bible college..." That is something TWI would never have done. They were always pushing the attitude of "we have the answers and everybody else is wrong." There is a lot more to the Church of God (Abrahamic Faith) than just their small college. The doctrines they teach go back to the 1800's, and rather than rejecting it out of hand because it disagrees with his doctrine (as many other offshoots have done) Vince and the others in his church looked into it and found it to be doctrinally sound.

"...and maximize his former twi contacts to gain attention as some kind of church building "hero" within a segment of christianity that accepts his denial or rejection of his theological roots in exchange for financial and numerical increase." While he has a lot of contacts from TWI, not all of them have accepted his "new" doctrines, and none of them have accepted or rejected them on the basis of any financial or numerical increase. Those that accept them do so because they can see it for themselves in the Bible. Those that do not see it and prefer to hold to TWI dogma don't accept him or the doctrines. And there are even some in the same state who agree with the same doctrines but still maintain very TWI-like attitudes of "we have the truth and nobody else does" and "we must separate from those who disagree with us." Vince has rejected this kind of attitude, and maintains open communication with others from whom he is willing to learn.

As for going back and getting "proper training," Vince's church began as an offshoot of TWI, and later evolved into something very different when it began to accept the teachings about the Kingdom of God. By that point it would not have been practical to say, "You guys are on your own; I'm taking four years off to get a degree." You have to work with a group where they (and you) are at. However, there are others in his church that are getting or have gotten degrees, including his son who is the associate pastor. And others are teaching and/or contributing in various ways. There is not, as I said, an emphasis on Vince as "The Man of God." The emphasis is on the Bible and its message.

I am not a direct member of Vince's church, as I live on the opposite side of the country. I don't even agree with everything he teaches. But I do know that he has endured personal hardship and loss of fellowship for having the courage to embrace the doctrines that he has embraced. I don't know what went on between Vince and DWBH any more than DWBH knows what has gone on between Vince and other individuals. But to judge any person or group based on stuff that happened 20 or 30 years ago without knowing what's going on now seems unfair. And especially so when the "particular concern" is over who he aligned himself with way back then, even though he no longer aligns himself with Geer, Lynn, TWI, or anyone else with whom many of us mistakenly aligned ourselves at the time. But as DWBH said..... it's a free country.

Did you hear about the paranoid dyslexic?

He kept thinking he was following someone.

I know he had a degree in math; did he ever have any degrees in Greek or other Biblical languages?

Here's an interesting link. It gives a historical overview of the different views on the Kingdom of God.

http://www.luthersem.edu/word&world/Ar.../2-2_Duling.pdf

I was particularly interested in its summary of Johannes Weiss and what he wrote.

In 1892, before the heyday of the social gospel movement in the United States, theGerman Johannes Weiss not only questioned any attempt to coordinate the Kingdom with thechurch; he opposed the views of Ritschl and thereby placed a question mark on the liberalinterpretation of the Kingdom as religious experience and ethical action. Indeed, he challenged virtually every conclusion of the liberals in their quest for the historical Jesus! As a New Testament scholar, Weiss accepted a modified Two SourceTheory, but he argued that the few synoptic sayings of Jesus about the Kingdom aspresent—those held most dear by the liberal interpreters—could be best understood in line withthe more prevalent apocalyptic eschatological sayings. Thus, the Kingdom “in the midst of you”(Luke 17:21, for Renan and Harnack, “within you”) was an expression of “propheticenthusiasm”; being “in the Kingdom” (Matthew 11:11) was Jesus’ hypothetical way of speakingabout the reversal of rank in the future Kingdom; “entering the Kingdom” (Matt 21:31) merelymeant that the tax collectors and prostitutes had a head start over the leaders of the people; andthe only real possibility for thinking of the Kingdom as already present, “the Kingdom of Godhas come upon [ephthasen] you [plural]” (Matt 12:28; Luke 11:20), was said in the context of theexorcist’s eschatological battle with Satan; that is, it was an apocalyptic saying. Indeed, Weissargued that ephthasen should be interpreted like engiken (“has drawn near” or “is at hand”) inLuke 10:9 (“The Kingdom of God has come near to you”), and Luke 10:9 (cf. Matt 10:7) is oneof a group of sayings most like Jesus’ most typical utterance, “Repent; for the Kingdom of God isat hand” (the original form of Mark 1:15; cf. Luke 10:11). Thus, Weiss argued, the role of Jesusin establishing the Kingdom was merely preparatory, and the precise time of its future comingwas unknown. He opposed any attempt to establish the Kingdom, especially by revolutionary“men of violence” who “take it by force” (Matt 11:12). Weiss stressed that Jesus in no way leftbehind a Kingdom with a group of disciples; rather, he prayed for its coming to earth in thefuture (Matt 6:10) when he would again drink the fruit of the vine (Luke 22:18). Likewise, Weissargued that in Jesus’ view judgment would not conclude the progressively developing Kingdom,but precede the apocalyptic one, typified by cosmic catastrophes (Mark 13:24-25). Moreover,Jesus believed that he would judge as the exalted Son of man. Salvation, then, is future,unwordly, spiritual; it includes the joys of a messianic banquet, and glory. Ethics are not ethics ofthe Kingdom, but the ethics of preparation, said Weiss, and righteousness is the condition forentrance.

Here is another quote from Weiss on a blog, dealing with Jesus' statement "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you":

http://kingdomready.org/blog/2007/11/21/je...satans-kingdom/

While I'm sure these folks are inspired to share that same message over and over, I have my doubts whether it is God himself that inspired it right that moment for that group of people to hear the same thing 100x over. That is unless people have some thick skulls and really need to know that God has called them before the foundations of the world again and again and again, rather than maybe something more pertinent and specific in which those hearing have the secrets of their hearts revealed and they fall on their knees and proclaim, God is among you!..

Has anyone seen that happen? Maybe 1 Corinthians is wrong, and prophecy really doesn't work like that. Instead, Know that He is God and a rewarder, and he's called you to share the good news.. And umm.. Keep doing that.. A zillion times.. Yeah.. That's my prophetic word for you today, and tomorrow, and ummm every day, since my prophetic skills seem to be coming from a broken record from the 70's rather than a real living God.

My money is on I Corinthians being right. I have my doubts as to whether tongues and prophecy as they are done today is genuinely the same gift that they had in the first century. (And yes, I said gift! :) )

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds. Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. – Matthew 16:27-28 (ASV)

Mark,

From the present historical vantage point, some fundamental assumptions, and a broad consideration of other scriptural passages, some of us infer that the Lord is speaking both of something that was temporally distant and something that was temporally rather near.

I agree, to a point. I think when you examine the (relatively few) passages in which he speaks of something temporally near, you find that it is in the sense of an unforeseen interim period between his first coming and the second coming at which he will inaugurate the Kingdom of God. The nature of this interim period is one of preparation for the coming future kingdom, during which the power of the Kingdom is seen in a token, a foretaste. Also during this period the Word of the Kingdom is implanted in us, and it grows and bears fruit, provided we are the right kind of soil.

This period was unforeseen because it involves what Jesus accomplished on the cross, in contrast to the expectation of the immediate appearing of the Kingdom. The "mysteries" of the Kingdom describe all this. The thing is, none of the passages that talk about that say that the Kingdom has "come" in anything but a preliminary, or preview sense. They speak of the announcement of the Kingdom, the demonstration of its power, the recruiting of disciples, and their growth and preparation for entering into the Kingdom.

I do not think you can identify any people who heard Jesus speak, and who are now more than 1900 years old. I do not think, furthermore, you would consider those who sleep in Christ to qualify as people who have not tasted of death in any wise. I also do not think you can offer a plausible notion of what the Lord is saying in a way that is really consistent with your apparent assumptions.

While Matthew 16:27-28 is a passage that might be initially difficult for all, interaction with it and/or similar passages seems to be something that reveals the teachings and theology of some to be shipwrecked.

There is really no problem with that passage when it is read in context. Ignoring the chapter break, the very next verse tells of Jesus taking them up the mountain and seeing the Transfiguration. The same statement is immediately followed by the Transfiguration in Mark 9 as well. The Transfiguraton was a preview of the future glory that Jesus will have when he returns. Peter speaks in his epistle of being an eyewitness of the majesty of Jesus associated with his power and coming.

II Peter 1:

16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Full preterists, for instance, wildly maintain that Christ returned, that all biblical prophesy was fulfilled, and that the resurrection of the dead occurred in 70 A.D.

John Schoenheit and some others (e.g. Albert Schweitzer), on the other hand, have engaged in commentary that ostensibly portrays Jesus as possessing false expectations about the timing of eschatological events, and erring in some eschatological statements.

The kingdom of God both has come and is yet to come.

I think there is another possible understanding. While "The Kingdom of God" is most often used in its eschatological sense, the term is sometimes used to refer to a preliminary and preparatory stage of God's plan, as I described above. It is not necessary to conclude that the Kingdom has arrived in an invisible form. It all comes down to getting our definition of the Kingdom of God straight, for which we must understand the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e. Old Testament).

Citing scriptures that indicate the kingdom of God to be future does not carry your argument. Doing so supports a non-controversial point (i.e. that the kingdom of God is scripturally referred to as a future eschatological event). Your challenge is to interact with scriptures that indicate the kingdom of God is a present reality.

It's interesting that this has come up at this time, because I am in the process of rewriting some things about this very subject for my web site, which I hope to have completed soon. I don't have time to go into all of the verses, but there are some scholars who see the few Scriptures that speak of the Kingdom as being present in some sense as referring to its anticipation and a preview or foretaste of the Kingdom to come, rather than its arrival in part.

While there are references to a foretaste of the Kingdom's power, and the announcement, or heralding, or preaching, of the Good News about the Kingdom, I don't know if it's correct to say that the Kingdom was inaugurated at the time of Christ. He and the disciples said it was near, not here. Jesus taught us to pray "thy kingdom come" - which wouldn't make sense if it had come. Joseph of Arimathaea was still "waiting for" the kingdom at the time that Jesus was crucified (Mark 15:43). And the cataclysmic signs that will precede Jesus' coming in glory are said to also be signs that "the Kingdom of God is near" (Luke 21:31) - that is, it still won't be here at that time, but about to appear. The vast amount of Scripture clearly refers to the Kingdom of God as the event which will take place at the end of this age, with the return of Christ and the resurrection of the just.

Only a few verses even seem to say that it is present, and they are referring to a previously unforeseen phase of the Kingdom plan, in which the Gospel of the Kingdom is preached, the children of the Kingdom live among the children of the evil one, and the spirit and power of the Kingdom are experienced as a token or pledge, a "down-payment" of the inheritance that is to come in the future. I think any reference to the Kingdom of God being present now must be understood in this way.

See "Kingdom of God: Present or Future?" -

http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/kingdom.htm

I agree with you. It has come in a limited sense, or a "seed" form, as a foretaste, but not fully consummated yet.

I just wanted to qualify that statement. The phrase "Kingdom of God" is used in a few passages to refer to a preliminary, or preparatory stage of God's Kingdom plan. This preliminary phase includes the announcement of the Kingdom, the identification of Jesus as the King, the demonstration of Kingdom power as a foretaste, the suffering and death of Jesus to ratify the New Covenant, and the offering of that Covenant afterward, and the preaching of the Kingdom and preparation of disciples for their part in ruling in the coming Kingdom. But in the vast majority of passages, the Kingdom itself is most often referred to and defined as a future, end-time related event.

Hi What the Hey,

This article might help you to understand what Mark is trying to say. I disagree with him that it hasn't happened yet. . . I think in part it has. We are being readied for the Kingdom. Anyway, John Piper has some great teachings on this topic. If you are interested. . . . .

I agree with you. It has come in a limited sense, or a "seed" form, as a foretaste, but not fully consummated yet.

Acts 1:8. Then why did the disciples ask Jesus to restore again the kingdom for them? If it [the Kingdom of Heaven] didn't end - then it certainly wouldn't have to be or need to be restored now, would it?

The disciples didn't ask him to restore the kingdom "for them." They asked if he was going to restore the kingdom to Israel. They were referring to the fact that Israel at one time had a kingdom on earth, and that the Prophets foretold of a time when it would be restored.

The "Kingdom of Heaven" or "Kingdom of God" as Jesus preached it is not only the restoration of Israel's kingdom, but the promised perfect, world-wide reign of God's Messiah on a restored earth, which is promised in the OT. I didn't say that that ended, because it hasn't started yet. What I said did not end is the preaching of the good news about that Kingdom of God.

Gospel simply means: Good news. There are different types of good news. Of course, part of the good news concerning Jesus' gospel was the fulfilment of the law. Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:18, Luke 24:44). If Jesus' gospel had not ended or had never been fulfilled, we would still be under the law and still be obligated to keep the law. (Romans 2:25-29, Romans 3:20-31, Romans 4:9-16, Ephesians 2:11-14)

If you want to "step backward" into keeping the law - go ahead. But then you are obligated to keep the whole law as the Word of God dictates. (Galatians 2:16, James 2:10)

Yes, gospel means good news. And the good news that Jesus preached was not that he would fulfill the law. Many NT verses speak specifically of Jesus preaching the good news of the kingdom of God. He proclaimed that the long-awaited kingdom promised in the OT was at hand, and he proclaimed himself to be the king of that kingdom.

I never said anything about keeping the Law. Jesus' message was not "keep the Law and you'll be saved." It was "the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel." That is the good news or message that I am saying has not changed since Jesus. He proclaimed that the Kingdom which was promised in the OT was near, and that he himself was the promised king.

TWI said that the gospel about the Kingdom was addressed only to Israel, and then "held in abeyance" while Paul revealed a brand new gospel message, which was different from what Jesus preached. There is no Scripture that says that, however. The disciples, including Paul, continued to preach "the kingdom of God" throughout Acts. Some details were added, such as why the king had to be crucified, how the Gentiles get to partake of the same promises made to Israel, and how we are no longer under the letter of the OT Law. But the basic good news is still that of the kingdom of God, not a new gospel.

sit=bunk

say the our father

isn't that what jc suggested?

Provided you say the gist of it, but from your heart, rather than just reciting words. It's ironic that just before Jesus says "pray this way" he said, "do not use vain repetition as the Gentiles do" and yet so many people just repeat the Lord's Prayer without thinking about or even knowing what it means.

But then, Wierwille misinterpreted the efforts of people like Donnie F. and instituted the WOW program.

I think he saw it as a way to facilitate large scale growth in a short amount of time.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. How did he misinterpret the efforts of people like Donnie F.?

For me, it's not about arguing whose brand of Christianity is most accurate. It's about knowing why one believes something. In the Way we were taught that the Word, as taught in PFAL, was "our only rule of faith and practice." To consider anything else was to open our minds to deception and possible possession. I forget whose, but somebody here has a signature line that quotes from Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom: "The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside."

After going through a crisis of faith several years back, I realized that while I believed certain things, I could not articulate why I believed them. After much searching and praying and considering various viewpoints, I can now articulate what I believe and why I believe it. And it's not because of any superior ability to study theology. It's because God made it really simple, and it's only when people inject foreign ideas into the mix that it becomes complicated. Like Potato, I'm no longer afraid to consider other points of view.

That's why I enjoy discussing theology of all kinds. It helps me to articulate my beliefs, and the reasons for them. When other people do the same, I either agree with them or see the reason why I disagree. I hate to say it, Geisha, but if you can't (or choose not to) explain why you believe something, and refuse to even look at another viewpoint (which doesn't mean you have to accept it or agree with it), then how is that any different from Mike? He makes assertions based on his beliefs too, and refuses to address direct, logical questions about apparent contradictions. There is a huge difference in the source of your beliefs and his, but sadly not in your methodology.

And Spoudazo, you're right, I don't know you, and was not suggesting anything about your Christian duty. I meant no offense, but was just making a statement regarding what you posted. Is it fair to categorize all Adventist churches as being like Coast to Coast or Amway, when one of their major tenets is the subject that was the very heart of Jesus Christ's gospel? This gospel has been conspicuously absent from a lot of preaching in other churches, even by their own admission.

But like I said, I enjoy looking at and discussing other viewpoints, which gets me into discussions that are usually more appropriate for the Doctrinal Forum.

May I presume you've never taken the time to give an honest look at Actual Errors in PFAL?

That says it all. Sins of the Teacher aside, much of the actual doctrine has been proven faulty.

Exactly, Oakspear. Anyone who had come along pointing out Wierwille's errors would have been dismissed or attacked as being possessed. Even the Adultery paper didn't name names or point fingers, but it was enough to get Sch03nhe!t fired.

First of all, Right on, Twinky!!!

Second...

I love the scriptures, I love searching them. I do love reading theology, my favorite is reformed theolgy, but I will look at different things. I love reading, Spurgeon, Moody, Edwards, some of the Puritans, Piper, Ravi Zacharias, Chandler, C.S Lewis. . . . the list goes on and on. I don't rely on these men to guide me into all truth. . . that is the work of the Holy Spirit. Who glorifies the Lord.

Why, then do you not consider the writings of any Biblical Unitarian theologians? There are quite a few of them, but we never heard of them in TWI, because TWI had to have the "monopoly" on truth. But they did themselves a disservice (as well as everyone else) because so many ex-TWI came to think that things like the the Trinity being unbiblical, and the dead being unconscious, were TWI ideas and so rejected them. But in fact there have been many great Christian thinkers throughout the years who have questioned orthodox doctrines, and backed up their questioning with Scripture. It would be worth looking at their ideas, if only to see their errors and be strengthened in your faith, and be able to discuss their ideas knowledgeably. I have learned things from Trinitarian scholars, and don't refuse to listen to anything they say just because I disagree with them on some points.

And third...

I was speaking of Adventist and Sabbatarian churches. A broad brush stroke. I hope this clears it up for you. Thanks for your concern.

That's part of the disadvantage of using broad brush strokes. There are a number of Adventist churches with various views, but what most of them have in common is a belief that Jesus is going to return to earth and set up a kingdom. We don't want to lose sight of Jesus' gospel of the kingdom just because some of these churches preach things we disagree with, such as Sabbaterianism.

In my opinion if anything other than Jesus Christ being the only rule for faith and practice is taught, it is another gospel or doctrines of demons . Once something such as Administrations or Kingdom theology or Numerology or Purpose Driven whatever is considered the glue that holds it all together, you now have something other than the gospel. You might as well be listening to Coast to Coast. It is just words.

I'm not sure what you mean by "kingdom theology," but if by that you mean the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, then it concerns me that you lump it together with "Administrations ... or Numerology or Purpose Driven whatever" and compare it to what one would hear on Coast to Coast. The message of the kingdom is what Jesus preached, and commanded us to preach. You are correct when you say that something that doesn't focus on Jesus Christ is another gospel. But what was Jesus all about? If we are his followers, we should be proclaiming the same message he did, rather than a different gospel.

Spoudazo,

I will say,

Jesus Christ,

I know nothing about the guy. . .

But can you tell me how many people he died between?

All of them!

;)

God wants us to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. If speaking in tongues bypasses the mind, then it couldn't be the ONLY way to worship God, eve if it were perfect prayer.

with vpw it was "the word, the word, and nothing but the word". do you think he was right?

what's different for you? is it the way you approach the bible, the way you think about it, and do you consider ideas from other sources, other points of view on the same subjects?

since starting this thread, I've come to view the maintenance of my moral rule-set differently. rather than just walking away from the bible and trying to assess what I believe, I'm reading a lot and reconsidering my beliefs as I trip over them. that's why I claim to be agnostic, at least for now.

twi was such an intellectual no-man's land. being forced to give up every independent thought didn't make me a better thinker. excluding all influences except the bible didn't make me a better person.

First of all, VPW didn't even get right what "the Word" was. We used it as a synonym for the Bible, when in fact the Bible itself doesn't refer to itself as "the Word." In the Bible, the written Scriptures are referred to as "the Scriptures" but "the Word" most often refers to the message that is communicated in the written Scriptures. The Word, in general, is the mind, plan, wisdom of God, and specifically the Gospel of the Kingdom (compare Mark 4:14 and Luke 8:11 with Matthew 13:18-19).

And of course, when the Word was made flesh, God's purpose and plan came into concretion in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ. He always did the Father's will, and was the perfect representation of God. He is also the King that was promised throughout the OT Prophecies who will come and judge the world, and rule it on God's behalf. And he also offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice so that we could have access to that Kingdom.

If you say his only rule of faith and practice was the written Scriptures, then that discounts all the teachings he did that went beyond the written Scriptures. He didn't contradict anything in the Law, but he often went beyond it, teaching about walking by the Spirit rather than the letter of the Law. I think it would be more accurate to say his only rule of faith and practice was the Word of God, which includes the written Scriptures but also so much more in God's mind and heart. He is the Prophet that Moses said God would raise up and put His Words in his mouth, and those words which Jesus spoke are the ultimate communication of "God's Word" which we must take heed to.

Yes, what's different for me is the way I approach it and think about it. I do consider other sources, other points of view, and I compare them with the overall message of the Bible. It is not wise to limit yourself to the views of one man or one group. When I consider someone's view that doesn't line up with the Scriptures, I can usually see the flaw in their logic, which I would not have seen had I not even considered their view. Looking at other opinions tends to strengthen my faith, and sharpen my understanding of the Bible.

so would you bible folks say that the scriptures are your "only rule of faith and practice"...

Yes.

... as vpw taught?

No.

I certainly understand the difference between Arianism and Dynamic Monarchianism. Paul of Samosata and Theodotus of Byzantium taught that Jesus was a mere man who did not have a pre-existence and "became" the Son of God later in life through being endowed with grace (what TWI/STFI/CES would call "holy spirit") from the Father later in His life. This is Adoptionism, which is closest to what TWI/STFI/CES believes and is often called Dynamic Monarchianism. Arianism, from the name of the bishop Arius of Alexandria, is indeed closer to what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, where Jesus is not cosubstantial or equal with God the Father, but is the first-created creature and is considered to have been used by the Father to create everything else. I think the reason they're lumped together is because they both deny Christ's eternal deity and the belief in the co-eternal, co-substantial, co-equal Trinity.

Actually, "Adoptionism" is only one form of Dynamic Monarchianism. TWI and STFI don't teach that Jesus "became" the Son of God later in life, although he received holy spirit and began his ministry at age 30. They believe he was the Son of God because he was conceived by God in his mother Mary. So while their belief may be a form of dynamic Monarchianism, Adoptionism isn't the closest form.

As for a "special sperm in the fallopian tubes" that was a speculation about the mechanics of it, based on the fact that the Gospels state he was conceived in Mary's womb.

As for the Angel of the Lord, TWI believed (and I think STFI still do) that it was just that - an Angel. This is in contrast to the belief that it was a pre-incarnate appearance of God the Son.

A final thought, for anybody that's still interested. One thing I was trying to get across is that the belief in the holy spirit as God's presence and power, besides being the Hebrew view, is also recognized by many Christian theologians. Many scholars see evidence in the Bible against some traditional views, but because it goes against tradition, it isn't taught at the local church level. That's not to say that it proves the theologians are right, of course. But it should be understood that such views are not limited to "cults" and fringe elements in the Church. The following quotes are from the previously referenced article, Does Everyone Believe in the Trinity?. (Note that several of the sources are standard Catholic reference books.)