I am a latecomer to this thread, but John S. had a bachelor's degree in Philosophy from ECU before entering the Way Corps.
Mark G. is working on his PhD from Earlham.
Ross T was a United Methodist Minister for a number of years before his involvement with the way. After leaving the way, in the late 80's, he went back to the UM church, and is again a minister there.
In order for anyone to be adjunct faculty at the Way C of E, they had to have a bachelor's degree from an accredited university.
Chip S was a pretty good "scholar," but I don't know what his qualifications were pre-way.
John Z (who taught Greek to the corps at Emporia) got his master's degree while working on staff at the Way C of E.
Uh, that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
But to answer your original question, Mark, I don't think any "scholars" who were already there, got involved with the way. My opinion and experience, of course.
John S was running the Way home on Farrior Rd in Raleigh NC when I first got into the ministry. This would have been either 1974 or 1975. I know at the time that he did not have any degrees, and was going to UNC I am pretty certain. He may have later graduated from ECU, this I don't know. I spent alot of time in those days at the wayhome, and ended up living in it myself the following summer. John was pretty knowledgeable with the word in those days, but not as much so as he seemed to have become in later years. I am certain that he got his education after joining the ministry.
But to answer your original question, Mark, I don't think any "scholars" who were already there, got involved with the way. My opinion and experience, of course.
That was my original opinion. I was frankly a bit surprised to hear that there had been a couple of United Methodist Church ordained clergy within TWI.
I am very glad to hear that so many folks have gone to get an actual formal education in theology post-TWI. That is a hopeful sign.
I would find us hard pressed to find a theologian more brilliant than was Bullinger. My premise is that when we say that "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit", and that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God.'" I believe this and I never heard it before PFAL. I have since read it in Bullingers works as well as Kenyon's and even Smith Wigglesworths, so there is a thread that is common to those of us that believe that the bible is the inspired Word and Will of God. I am not saying Wierwille was right in everything he taught but again I remember him saying that we were to check it out for ourselves and I took him up on that. I am very thankful to see the many other works of men of God who even though people accuse VPW of plaguirism, at least you see that a lot of this stuff was 'worked by other people. I can say that reading PFAL is close to 'How to enjoy the bible' by Bullinger. Or RTHST is like reading BG Leonards 'Gifts of the Spirit', sure there are difference in some of the terminology but the gist is there. I guess I feel good about what Wierwille did because I do not know if I would have had the experience to study some of what these other men put down on paper. To get ba ck to the 'theologian' stuff. Some of the most incredible 'sermons' I have ever read have been by Wigglesworth and that man had absolutely no formal theological training, so I would wonder where he got it? But I know because it is the same source where I get it.
I would find us hard pressed to find a theologian more brilliant than was Bullinger. My premise is that when we say that "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit", and that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God.'" I believe this and I never heard it before PFAL. I have since read it in Bullingers works as well as Kenyon's and even Smith Wigglesworths, so there is a thread that is common to those of us that believe that the bible is the inspired Word and Will of God. I am not saying Wierwille was right in everything he taught but again I remember him saying that we were to check it out for ourselves and I took him up on that. I am very thankful to see the many other works of men of God who even though people accuse VPW of plaguirism, at least you see that a lot of this stuff was 'worked by other people. I can say that reading PFAL is close to 'How to enjoy the bible' by Bullinger. Or RTHST is like reading BG Leonards 'Gifts of the Spirit', sure there are difference in some of the terminology but the gist is there. I guess I feel good about what Wierwille did because I do not know if I would have had the experience to study some of what these other men put down on paper. To get ba ck to the 'theologian' stuff. Some of the most incredible 'sermons' I have ever read have been by Wigglesworth and that man had absolutely no formal theological training, so I would wonder where he got it? But I know because it is the same source where I get it.
Welcome, again, to gsc.
You do realize that this is not a TWI, CES, or other single-faith group site, right?
I would find us hard pressed to find a theologian more brilliant than was Bullinger.
[You've got to press harder than that if you want to make an impression on
the paper.
I like Bullinger's stuff too-but he skills as a THEOLOGIAN weren't the best.
He was excellent at SOME things, and overdid it at others.
That's how he managed some mistakes like expounding at length on the
differenct between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God,
and how "katabole" meant an overthrow when that's not consistent with
ALL usages of the Greek word,
and so on.
Accepting his limitations and not making him THE man is a step towards
personal excellence. You've got to think for YOURSELF.
Otherwise, you'll remain a "spiritual hitchhiker or cripple",
as vpw put it.]
My premise is that when we say that "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit", and that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God.'"
[That's 1/2 a sentence.
"My premise: 'When we say 'this' and 'that',...."
You're missing your conclusion.
What are you claiming about when this and that are said?
Are you asserting that when we say both, it's rhetoric?
Are you asserting that when we say both, we should all take a drink?
What ARE you saying about both claims?]
I believe this and I never heard it before PFAL.
[bully for you.
In some circles, you would have heard it all the time.]
I have since read it in Bullingers works as well as Kenyon's and even Smith Wigglesworths, so there is a thread that is common to those of us that believe that the bible is the inspired Word and Will of God.
[Thank you for proving the case.
Lots of people heard it and hear it when vpw and twi figure not at all into the equation.
[bTW, Kenyon not only lacked formal education,
but he gave HIMSELF a doctorate.
"In 1924, Kenyon moved to Oakland, California to continue his independent ministry. It was during this time he gave himself as 'Dr. E.W. Kenyon of Massachusetts.' Much like many modern Word of Faith teachers, Kenyon had no formal theological training and in his case his doctorate was self-instituted."
Amazing what you find when you look...]
I am not saying Wierwille was right in everything he taught but again I remember him saying that we were to check it out for ourselves and I took him up on that.
[And if your conclusions had differed from what he'd said and wanted,
you would have faced the same EXIT those guys did.
And exits weren't limited to that.
When vpw kicked out Heefner and Doop, it was while they were the BEST guys
in the ministry-which was no longer what he wanted....
since they were so good, they outperformed him-and that was a capital crime
in vpw's eyes.
I am very thankful to see the many other works of men of God who even though people accuse VPW of plaguirism,
[We also accuse the sun of being hot and giving off light.
vpw plagiarized nearly everything except his sick sex doctrines.
And if he got THEM from another source, us Christian types don't
have the expertise HE had to find them...]
at least you see that a lot of this stuff was 'worked by other people. I can say that reading PFAL is close to 'How to enjoy the bible' by Bullinger.
[And reading the New King James Version is close to reading the King James Version.
That's because one took directly from the other-and did so openly.
And "Babylon Mystery Religion" is close to "The Two Babylons."
That's because one took directly from the other-and did so openly.
If you'd REALLY looked things up for yourself like you claimed,
you'd have FOUND this stuff....]
Or RTHST is like reading BG Leonards 'Gifts of the Spirit', sure there are difference in some of the terminology but the gist is there.
[You mixed up your names.
RTHST was taken directly from JE Stiles' "Gift of the Holy Spirit,
complete with entire paragraphs lifted without attribution.
Differences in wording were introduced in later versions because
they were TOO close.]
I guess I feel good about what Wierwille did because I do not know if I would have had the experience to study some of what these other men put down on paper.
[Or, you know, he could have given the credit to the guys who DID the work,
rather than remove their names and add his own to their work.]
To get ba ck to the 'theologian' stuff.
[Hey, YOU were the one who decided to grab the microphone and demonstrate
an absence of understanding of what vpw did.
But let's get back to what we actually WERE discussing...]
Some of the most incredible 'sermons' I have ever read have been by Wigglesworth and that man had absolutely no formal theological training, so I would wonder where he got it? But I know because it is the same source where I get it.
"Smith Wigglesworth placed great emphasis on purity and holiness, like all true Revivalists. He said, "You must every day make higher ground. You must deny yourself to make progress with God. You must refuse everything that is not pure and holy. God wants you pure in heart. He wants you to have an intense desire after holiness... Two things will get you to leap out of yourselves into the promises of God today. One is purity, and the other is FAITH, which is kindled more and more BY PURITY."
This one statement contains what is probably the key secret to Smith Wigglesworth's outstanding success in God. And it is obviously a key that is well worth remembering for us also. Another point to remember is that Smith was very aware of the dangers of money, and guarded himself carefully against the possibility of covetousness entering in. He was truly beyond reproach in this area also."
Smith Wigglesworth was BEYOND REPROACH,
beyond any coveting of money,
and emphasized PURITY.
You insult Wigglesworth by invoking his name in the same breath as
a man who showed pornographic videos to his students,
raped members of his congregation and covered his tracks,
drugged members of his congregation and covered his tracks,
exposed himself to members of his congregation,
made arrangements to do all the above,
and presented the quality work of other Christians as his own.]
[Oh,
and welcome to the GSC.
Please read the pinned/sticky topic which you've obviously ignored.
When you play baseball, you play by the baseball rules.
Dr. McConaughy is also actively involved with the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at the Claremont School of Theology. He is internationally recognized for his discovery of an extremely ancient Syriac manuscript in Egypt that serves as a unique witness to the text of the New Testament. In his spare time, he rides his Colnago racing bicycle and builds astronomical telescopes and reads Greek and Syriac.
Dr. McConaughy has two PhD degrees: He received his PhD in Finance at the University of Cincinnati and his PhD and MA degrees in Syriac and Greek Studies at the University of Chicago, where he was the first individual to earn MA or PhD degrees on the Committee for the Ancient Mediterranean World. He earned his BS in Business Administration at the College of Charleston, where he also studied ancient Greek.
Well, that's the thing isn't it ? What makes for a scholar versus someone whose 'eyes of understanding enlightened' versus someone 'devilishly influenced' ??
I guess we could ask if John Paul is a scholar, was Joseph Smith a scholar etcc..
For me, Paisano 'hit it on the head'... "truth is truth is truth" (for some it appears to be in the 'eye of the beholder').
It still blows my mind how ex-twiers who have now 'moved on' to other denominational beliefs with just as much (if not more) glaring inconsistencies as twi ever had/has, are so quick to hurl the stones, so to speak.!!
I'm glad the mods have me on 'go slow', I only have to peruse some of this junk without the urge now to post whilst 'emotionally charged'...but come on guys, some of these theads must be pretty close to the definition of flagrant hypocrisy, surely ??
I guess I feel good about what Wierwille did because I do not know if I would have had the experience to study some of what these other men put down on paper.
This argument crops up periodically; that we should be thankul for Wierwille because he unveiled heretofore hidden secrets to the world at large, and that without him, the works of Bullinger et al would remain hidden. What we don't usually see is that even at its peak TWI was no more than a pimple on the foot of Christianity. TWI looms large for us, since we were in the middle of it, but ask the next 100 people that you see if they have ever heard of TWI...you'll be lucky if you find any, let alone any who know what any of the unique doctrines are.
If most of us weren't so lazy we could have found the answers without following a alcohol abusing, lying hypocrite. Instead we preferred to be spoon-fed our beliefs in the guise of learning "keys".
I remember him saying that we were to check it out for ourselves and I took him up on that
How exactly did you do that? If you used Wierwille's definitions and assumptions to check anything out, your "research" was severely limited, even crippled, doomed from the start to come up with only answers that agreed with Wierwille. (We've got a thread down in doctrinal "PFAL Colored Glasses" where this is discussed)
As far as biblical scholars go, I think Dan is my man. McConaughy, that is. He has my immense respect for staying true to what research is all about. He sat at the feet of the greatest Syriac scholar in the world, Dr. Arthur Voobus. He not only learned from him, but traveled with him and they were good friends. And when TWCE would not allow him to actually do biblical research and fired him, he was a man and walked. And he has continued pursuing standards of academic excellence. His wife is a great woman as well, and I miss our little outings to The Museum of Science and Industry with our girls. Jenny speaks of Jessica often, and that museum remains her favorite.
Well, that's the thing isn't it ? What makes for a scholar versus someone whose 'eyes of understanding enlightened' versus someone 'devilishly influenced' ??
Scholar: one who has completed a properly-accredited set of coursework with the accompanying
degrees.
Non-Scholar: one who has not.
It's like the difference between a surgeon and a nut with a set of surgical tools.
Would you let someone perform major surgery (or minor surgery, for that matter)
on you without knowing their qualifications?
Would you trust your lawsuit or defense to a guy who does not have a legal
degree in plain sight in his office?
Entirely different question between
"devilishly-influenced" and "eyes of understanding enlightened."
That's a subject for Doctrinal.
I guess we could ask if John Paul is a scholar, was Joseph Smith a scholar etcc..
For me, Paisano 'hit it on the head'... "truth is truth is truth" (for some it appears to be in the 'eye of the beholder').
Since this is "about the way" and not "about the RCC" or "about the LDS",
we could ask either in the Doctrinal forum at most, but neither is "about the way."
Oversimplifying truth is how people get fooled.
The Devil quoted Scripture to Jesus.
Can't get more "True" than Scripture.
Was what the Devil said, then, truth?
If you want to get into this, again, Doctrinal.
It still blows my mind how ex-twiers who have now 'moved on' to other denominational beliefs with just as much (if not more) glaring inconsistencies as twi ever had/has, are so quick to hurl the stones, so to speak.!!
It still blows my mind that some people seek to excuse the capital offenses committed
by-and advocated by- vpw, but can strain at a gnat as to how many people were crucified
when Jesus was. The only cross that mattered on that hill was the one Jesus was on.
I'm glad the mods have me on 'go slow', I only have to peruse some of this junk without
the urge now to post whilst 'emotionally charged'...but come on guys, some of these theads must be pretty close to the definition of flagrant hypocrisy, surely ??
Some of the posts certainly are. However, the staff won't stop you from posting no
matter how much your posts exemplify it. They're made of finer clay.
Allan, I think the question being asked here (that most everyone else seems to understand) is not "was veepee good or bad, right or wrong"... it's did TWI have anyone who was taught "outside of PFAL"...
We see it happen here all of the time, people use one of the "PFAL maxims" to define or test a thought... the point being, if only PFAL taught logic is used to define the meaning of something, if only PFAL taught methods are used to explain things, do you really have a clear picture of anything? ...or do you simply have PFAL? ...which often times asks the thinker to suspend logic and throw away centuries of teaching because it doesn't agree with the logic of PFAL...
(which is repeating, I guess, what WW and others just said)
As far as biblical scholars go, I think Dan is my man. McConaughy, that is. He has my immense respect for staying true to what research is all about. He sat at the feet of the greatest Syriac scholar in the world, Dr. Arthur Voobus. He not only learned from him, but traveled with him and they were good friends. And when TWCE would not allow him to actually do biblical research and fired him, he was a man and walked. And he has continued pursuing standards of academic excellence. His wife is a great woman as well, and I miss our little outings to The Museum of Science and Industry with our girls. Jenny speaks of Jessica often, and that museum remains her favorite.
But here's the question of the hour...
Was he the eminent scholar before he got involved with TWI or did he become one while in TWI or did he become one AFTER he left TWI?
Why do I keep harping on this point?
As anybody who's read my posts for any length of time will recall, I believe that Wierwille taught a bankrupt theology. (No, getting into WHY I believe that is out of scope) This theology was communicated based on a pseudo-intellectualism that resembled actual academic thought, but was not.
I, along with most everybody who posts here, fell victim to that bankrupt theology because I was not thoroughly educated enough in an orthodox Christian theology before I heard this pseudo-intellectual tripe. In other words, my own ignorance caused me to fall victim to a rational-sounding way of thinking...that turned out to be completely indefensible and logically in error.
This is not to point a finger at anybody...but if it is borne out by the facts, that working theory would explain a lot.
What facts would undermine the theory? If we had some trained, eminent theologians, exegetes, etc., who, upon hearing Wierwillism for the first time, believed it enough to convert.
Here's another 'question of the hour' for you to mentally munch on. Since when was unorthodoxy necessarily identical/tied in with 'pseudo-intellectualism' or being 'theologically bankrupt'; ie., in being in all forms dishonest. Yes, yes, I know, orthodoxy is rendered as THE final and official version of what (in this case) Christian theology is all about, but when were things unorthodox necessarily pseudo, dishonest, or false?
Hint: Simple and devoted loyalty to one's denomination doesn't suffice for an answer. Sorry.
I think its rather obvious that Weirwille was a fraud for a lot more real reasons than that he was unorthodox, don't you think?
No I did not misspeak. I am aware of JE STiles Book but BG's and VPW are two peas in a pod. JE Stiles if memory serves me right did not have 'definitions' of the manifestations as do vpw and leonard. And as to your snide remark of looking things up on our own, hell man all you have to do is read. You people can poke at dead men's ministries all day, but when people who have received true deliverance because these men believed God (of course you will dispute this as well but John G. Lake was investigated by the feds and they could not refute the healings that were done. Again I will take faith as opposed to snide arrogant self proclaimed theology any day. I think Paul spoke of these things too regarding the simplicity of faith in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. I do not know of anyone who brought deliverance to a soul because of their theology. It has only brought religion and has kept people under bondage. If understanding God's Word takes a theologian's mind then we are all screwed. But I think not because Gift ministries are never aquired in universities but are given as the Lord sees fit. Every man of God in our time has suffered from armchair christian quarterbacks like John Judas. Dowie, Branam, Wigglesworth, Lake, Leonard, All these men raised the dead and the little finger pointers like J. Judas yack and yack because all that bastard wants to do is lable everything and everyon as a cultist. He would no doubt attack the Lord himself if he lived 2000 years ago. So pick away boys. I pray to God that thousands rise up who would be 'marked' as word of faith tea chers and preachers. Hannegraff can have a party with Judas because in 30 years I have seen great deliverance on the faith side of the coin but none on the other. Christianity is about deliverance it always has been and always will be. What a sad day when all you do is pick apart people and yack about their degrees and where they went to school Who gives a damn, I bet they all are doing a lot more than you bone picking buzzards. Wierwille went the way of John Dowie and that is preciesely why the ministry fell. That by the way happened in the late 70's. If you are curious about it you can read about Dowies ministry in a book called God's General's by Roberts Lairdon.
HEY PAISANO!!----You gonna stay for lunch? The special today is beef stew but there's lots of other stuff on the menu too. I hope you at least take a glance at the dessert menu.
Here's another 'question of the hour' for you to mentally munch on. Since when was unorthodoxy necessarily identical/tied in with 'pseudo-intellectualism' or being 'theologically bankrupt'; ie., in being in all forms dishonest. Yes, yes, I know, orthodoxy is rendered as THE final and official version of what (in this case) Christian theology is all about, but when were things unorthodox necessarily pseudo, dishonest, or false?
Hint: Simple and devoted loyalty to one's denomination doesn't suffice for an answer. Sorry.
I think its rather obvious that Weirwille was a fraud for a lot more real reasons than that he was unorthodox, don't you think?
There is a major difference between the term "unorthodox" and the ones that I used.
Unorthodox merely implies a lack of conventional approach. Me, personally, I would use the term "heterodox" -- which implies that the conclusion strays from the accepted norm.
But I actually used neither.
I used "bankrupt" theology...(bankrupt used as an adjective)...meaning that, as a theology, it was without redemptive value.
The reason for this is because of the inconsistencies within his theology that render it logically incapable of operating as a system within itself. Therefore, bankrupt.
There are any number of systematic theologies out there. Heterodoxy versus orthodoxy is not the issue that I'm raising. Consistency and logic are.
Frankly, although this comment goes out of scope for this thread (I'm providing it because you asked the question), I'm still one that believes that the underlying theology, with its inconsistencies that resulted from the cherry-picking that generated it, was the underlying root cause for many of the frauds and abuses committed. So I'd say that the theology was as real as any of the other frauds he perpetrated.
Awww, why not just ban them from entering the seminary, ... George Wallace style? You know, standing at the entrance of the college and forbidding them to enter?
Really bites you in the foot that there is a Unitarian/Socinian student getting a theology degree from a 'Reformed' (yeah! <_< ) college/university, doesn't it, Cynic? Schoenheit is minding his own business and getting his degree, and here you are getting your panties in a knot about it, ... and they are being polemic?
Yeah, yeah, I know. "There goes the neighborhood!" ... Famous last words, ehh?
Ever the laugh-a-minute you are.
Garth has implicitly but significantly compared the discrimination that would go with making subscription to doctrinal standards (concerning no less an issue than Christology) a requisite for seminary admission to discrimination involved in historical educational disenfranchisement of blacks in the South.
Garth's conjuring up of such an analogy is an exercise in tarring his opponent, rather than an exercise in making some substantive and capably reasoned evaluation. It involves a parasitical gleaning of some moral and emotional capital from the history of racism, and basely using it as a denunciatory tool.
On the bright side, the raging little hack is not still going on about nonexistent lynchings of heretics by Baptists.
For some folks, vacuous denunciations and parasitical analogies are actually a step up.
I vaguely recall John S mentioning he had been an archeologist in the Mideast at one time. This gave him first hand experience with eastern history and culture. I may be wrong though.
Disclaimer: I don't know John Schoenheit. My beef with him is theological, not personal. Aside from his errant theology and teachings, Schoenheit might be a quite likable fellow.
It still blows my mind that some people seek to excuse the capital offenses committed by-and advocated by- vpw, but can strain at a gnat as to how many people were crucified when Jesus was. The only cross that mattered on that hill was the one Jesus was on.
If the only cross that mattered was the one that Jesus was on, then why did the gospel writers bother to write about the others that were crucified - regardless if one believes there were only 2 or 4 crucified with him? The argument you are making just proves some people only care about capitalizing on and magnifing the sins and the weaknesses common to all men, rather than magnifying the Word of God and what the Lord has done.
But hey - that's the Gospel according to the great Talk Show host.
(They're all over don't you know.)
But we are supposed to believe all those Talk Show hosts are somehow "reaching out" and doing God's will & work for Him today. I imagine that, in their eyes, they honestly think they are.
If Schoenheit were training to be a minister affiliated with the denomination/church of said school, your supposed argument of the discrimination being justified would have merit. Ie., the denomination would be well within its ethical (and legal) rights to keep him from attenting training for that specific position.
However, since he is (or was) taking courses and attaining for the degree for more general purposes such as academic achievement and the like, they would have no bearing (ethical and quite possibly legal; consult with your attorney for more details) to prohibit him from doing so, or of even requiring him to come forward with his unitarian/socinian beliefs.
Thus my snide comparison with the discrimination of blacks in the past, (a snide remark which Cynic (again) tries to make bigger than it really is). And since they have no bearing nor right to keep Mr. Schoenheit from accomplishing his doctorate, the complaint against said discrimination still stands. (Cynics' desperate attempt to still raise an old, and long dead, argument about "Baptist lynchings" notwithstanding.)
Grow up. There are far more important issues in real life than the 1600+ year old trinitarian/unitarian argument, an argument that only concerns ecclesiastical, academic old farts (and their middle aged dweeb groupie rejects from TWI, ... hint hint) who think of themselves as 'biblical scholars' because of it.
"How many actual qualified/credentialed scripture scholars, theologians, etc., ever joined TWI? (i.e., those who were scholars prior to their initial encounter with TWI)"
My guess is probably none, depending upon how you define scholar.
A true "scholar" could not have lasted in TWI under either Wierwille or Martindale unless they sold out their scholarship for loyalty to VPW or LCM. What real scholar would have supported or endorsed the sloppy and kindergarten level research done by VPW or LCM ?
I don't know much about the actual Research Department at TWI under VPW, except that sources have told me that all research had to conform to VPW's teachings and any research findings that contracdicted or disagreed with VPW's was summarily squashed or discredited without evaluation. I find it hard to believe that any true scholar would continue under those conditions.
I can only imagine the frustration of those that truly wanted to do good research under VPW while hoping againt hope that someday TWI would change. Then they got LCM ....
It is a sad state of affairs when the most acclaimed research that came from someone out of TWI was a paper condemning adultery -- like it takes a PHD to figure that out.
In all fairness though, I agree that scholarship, degrees, etc, (like sincerity) are no guarantee for truth, neither do they necessarily result in faith. So it seems that TWI and its top MOG's were lacking in all of these.
Christian faith should be in God, Christ and the Word, not in blind loyalty to the teachings of a certain man or denomination. Give credit for deliverance to God and Christ not to Wierwille or any other man/organization.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
11
11
7
Popular Days
Aug 16
19
Aug 14
18
Aug 15
17
Aug 17
17
Top Posters In This Topic
GarthP2000 11 posts
WordWolf 11 posts
markomalley 11 posts
dmiller 7 posts
Popular Days
Aug 16 2006
19 posts
Aug 14 2006
18 posts
Aug 15 2006
17 posts
Aug 17 2006
17 posts
ex10
I am a latecomer to this thread, but John S. had a bachelor's degree in Philosophy from ECU before entering the Way Corps.
Mark G. is working on his PhD from Earlham.
Ross T was a United Methodist Minister for a number of years before his involvement with the way. After leaving the way, in the late 80's, he went back to the UM church, and is again a minister there.
In order for anyone to be adjunct faculty at the Way C of E, they had to have a bachelor's degree from an accredited university.
Chip S was a pretty good "scholar," but I don't know what his qualifications were pre-way.
John Z (who taught Greek to the corps at Emporia) got his master's degree while working on staff at the Way C of E.
Uh, that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
But to answer your original question, Mark, I don't think any "scholars" who were already there, got involved with the way. My opinion and experience, of course.
Edited by ex10Link to comment
Share on other sites
way2much
John S was running the Way home on Farrior Rd in Raleigh NC when I first got into the ministry. This would have been either 1974 or 1975. I know at the time that he did not have any degrees, and was going to UNC I am pretty certain. He may have later graduated from ECU, this I don't know. I spent alot of time in those days at the wayhome, and ended up living in it myself the following summer. John was pretty knowledgeable with the word in those days, but not as much so as he seemed to have become in later years. I am certain that he got his education after joining the ministry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
That was my original opinion. I was frankly a bit surprised to hear that there had been a couple of United Methodist Church ordained clergy within TWI.
I am very glad to hear that so many folks have gone to get an actual formal education in theology post-TWI. That is a hopeful sign.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paisano
I would find us hard pressed to find a theologian more brilliant than was Bullinger. My premise is that when we say that "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit", and that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God.'" I believe this and I never heard it before PFAL. I have since read it in Bullingers works as well as Kenyon's and even Smith Wigglesworths, so there is a thread that is common to those of us that believe that the bible is the inspired Word and Will of God. I am not saying Wierwille was right in everything he taught but again I remember him saying that we were to check it out for ourselves and I took him up on that. I am very thankful to see the many other works of men of God who even though people accuse VPW of plaguirism, at least you see that a lot of this stuff was 'worked by other people. I can say that reading PFAL is close to 'How to enjoy the bible' by Bullinger. Or RTHST is like reading BG Leonards 'Gifts of the Spirit', sure there are difference in some of the terminology but the gist is there. I guess I feel good about what Wierwille did because I do not know if I would have had the experience to study some of what these other men put down on paper. To get ba ck to the 'theologian' stuff. Some of the most incredible 'sermons' I have ever read have been by Wigglesworth and that man had absolutely no formal theological training, so I would wonder where he got it? But I know because it is the same source where I get it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Welcome, again, to gsc.
You do realize that this is not a TWI, CES, or other single-faith group site, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf in boldface and brackets.]
[Hm, what did Wigglesworth say?
http://windandfire.org/2005/Main/Spiritual...igglesworth.htm
"Smith Wigglesworth placed great emphasis on purity and holiness, like all true Revivalists. He said, "You must every day make higher ground. You must deny yourself to make progress with God. You must refuse everything that is not pure and holy. God wants you pure in heart. He wants you to have an intense desire after holiness... Two things will get you to leap out of yourselves into the promises of God today. One is purity, and the other is FAITH, which is kindled more and more BY PURITY."
This one statement contains what is probably the key secret to Smith Wigglesworth's outstanding success in God. And it is obviously a key that is well worth remembering for us also. Another point to remember is that Smith was very aware of the dangers of money, and guarded himself carefully against the possibility of covetousness entering in. He was truly beyond reproach in this area also."
Smith Wigglesworth was BEYOND REPROACH,
beyond any coveting of money,
and emphasized PURITY.
You insult Wigglesworth by invoking his name in the same breath as
a man who showed pornographic videos to his students,
raped members of his congregation and covered his tracks,
drugged members of his congregation and covered his tracks,
exposed himself to members of his congregation,
made arrangements to do all the above,
and presented the quality work of other Christians as his own.]
[Oh,
and welcome to the GSC.
Please read the pinned/sticky topic which you've obviously ignored.
When you play baseball, you play by the baseball rules.
When you play GSC, you play by the GSC rules.
Please review the GSC rules.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
may be an old link
http://www.usxchinaindex.com/bio_mcconaughly.cfm
but in any case
and he's a real nice fella
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
there were two people i really loved
chip stansbury and korey christensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Well, that's the thing isn't it ? What makes for a scholar versus someone whose 'eyes of understanding enlightened' versus someone 'devilishly influenced' ??
I guess we could ask if John Paul is a scholar, was Joseph Smith a scholar etcc..
For me, Paisano 'hit it on the head'... "truth is truth is truth" (for some it appears to be in the 'eye of the beholder').
It still blows my mind how ex-twiers who have now 'moved on' to other denominational beliefs with just as much (if not more) glaring inconsistencies as twi ever had/has, are so quick to hurl the stones, so to speak.!!
I'm glad the mods have me on 'go slow', I only have to peruse some of this junk without the urge now to post whilst 'emotionally charged'...but come on guys, some of these theads must be pretty close to the definition of flagrant hypocrisy, surely ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
If most of us weren't so lazy we could have found the answers without following a alcohol abusing, lying hypocrite. Instead we preferred to be spoon-fed our beliefs in the guise of learning "keys".
How exactly did you do that? If you used Wierwille's definitions and assumptions to check anything out, your "research" was severely limited, even crippled, doomed from the start to come up with only answers that agreed with Wierwille. (We've got a thread down in doctrinal "PFAL Colored Glasses" where this is discussed)Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
As far as biblical scholars go, I think Dan is my man. McConaughy, that is. He has my immense respect for staying true to what research is all about. He sat at the feet of the greatest Syriac scholar in the world, Dr. Arthur Voobus. He not only learned from him, but traveled with him and they were good friends. And when TWCE would not allow him to actually do biblical research and fired him, he was a man and walked. And he has continued pursuing standards of academic excellence. His wife is a great woman as well, and I miss our little outings to The Museum of Science and Industry with our girls. Jenny speaks of Jessica often, and that museum remains her favorite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Scholar: one who has completed a properly-accredited set of coursework with the accompanying
degrees.
Non-Scholar: one who has not.
It's like the difference between a surgeon and a nut with a set of surgical tools.
Would you let someone perform major surgery (or minor surgery, for that matter)
on you without knowing their qualifications?
Would you trust your lawsuit or defense to a guy who does not have a legal
degree in plain sight in his office?
Entirely different question between
"devilishly-influenced" and "eyes of understanding enlightened."
That's a subject for Doctrinal.
Since this is "about the way" and not "about the RCC" or "about the LDS",we could ask either in the Doctrinal forum at most, but neither is "about the way."
Oversimplifying truth is how people get fooled.
The Devil quoted Scripture to Jesus.
Can't get more "True" than Scripture.
Was what the Devil said, then, truth?
If you want to get into this, again, Doctrinal.
It still blows my mind that some people seek to excuse the capital offenses committed
by-and advocated by- vpw, but can strain at a gnat as to how many people were crucified
when Jesus was. The only cross that mattered on that hill was the one Jesus was on.
Some of the posts certainly are. However, the staff won't stop you from posting no
matter how much your posts exemplify it. They're made of finer clay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Allan, I think the question being asked here (that most everyone else seems to understand) is not "was veepee good or bad, right or wrong"... it's did TWI have anyone who was taught "outside of PFAL"...
We see it happen here all of the time, people use one of the "PFAL maxims" to define or test a thought... the point being, if only PFAL taught logic is used to define the meaning of something, if only PFAL taught methods are used to explain things, do you really have a clear picture of anything? ...or do you simply have PFAL? ...which often times asks the thinker to suspend logic and throw away centuries of teaching because it doesn't agree with the logic of PFAL...
(which is repeating, I guess, what WW and others just said)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
But here's the question of the hour...
Was he the eminent scholar before he got involved with TWI or did he become one while in TWI or did he become one AFTER he left TWI?
Why do I keep harping on this point?
As anybody who's read my posts for any length of time will recall, I believe that Wierwille taught a bankrupt theology. (No, getting into WHY I believe that is out of scope) This theology was communicated based on a pseudo-intellectualism that resembled actual academic thought, but was not.
I, along with most everybody who posts here, fell victim to that bankrupt theology because I was not thoroughly educated enough in an orthodox Christian theology before I heard this pseudo-intellectual tripe. In other words, my own ignorance caused me to fall victim to a rational-sounding way of thinking...that turned out to be completely indefensible and logically in error.
This is not to point a finger at anybody...but if it is borne out by the facts, that working theory would explain a lot.
What facts would undermine the theory? If we had some trained, eminent theologians, exegetes, etc., who, upon hearing Wierwillism for the first time, believed it enough to convert.
So that's why I keep asking "why?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
MarkO,
Here's another 'question of the hour' for you to mentally munch on. Since when was unorthodoxy necessarily identical/tied in with 'pseudo-intellectualism' or being 'theologically bankrupt'; ie., in being in all forms dishonest. Yes, yes, I know, orthodoxy is rendered as THE final and official version of what (in this case) Christian theology is all about, but when were things unorthodox necessarily pseudo, dishonest, or false?
Hint: Simple and devoted loyalty to one's denomination doesn't suffice for an answer. Sorry.
I think its rather obvious that Weirwille was a fraud for a lot more real reasons than that he was unorthodox, don't you think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paisano
No I did not misspeak. I am aware of JE STiles Book but BG's and VPW are two peas in a pod. JE Stiles if memory serves me right did not have 'definitions' of the manifestations as do vpw and leonard. And as to your snide remark of looking things up on our own, hell man all you have to do is read. You people can poke at dead men's ministries all day, but when people who have received true deliverance because these men believed God (of course you will dispute this as well but John G. Lake was investigated by the feds and they could not refute the healings that were done. Again I will take faith as opposed to snide arrogant self proclaimed theology any day. I think Paul spoke of these things too regarding the simplicity of faith in the knowledge of Jesus Christ. I do not know of anyone who brought deliverance to a soul because of their theology. It has only brought religion and has kept people under bondage. If understanding God's Word takes a theologian's mind then we are all screwed. But I think not because Gift ministries are never aquired in universities but are given as the Lord sees fit. Every man of God in our time has suffered from armchair christian quarterbacks like John Judas. Dowie, Branam, Wigglesworth, Lake, Leonard, All these men raised the dead and the little finger pointers like J. Judas yack and yack because all that bastard wants to do is lable everything and everyon as a cultist. He would no doubt attack the Lord himself if he lived 2000 years ago. So pick away boys. I pray to God that thousands rise up who would be 'marked' as word of faith tea chers and preachers. Hannegraff can have a party with Judas because in 30 years I have seen great deliverance on the faith side of the coin but none on the other. Christianity is about deliverance it always has been and always will be. What a sad day when all you do is pick apart people and yack about their degrees and where they went to school Who gives a damn, I bet they all are doing a lot more than you bone picking buzzards. Wierwille went the way of John Dowie and that is preciesely why the ministry fell. That by the way happened in the late 70's. If you are curious about it you can read about Dowies ministry in a book called God's General's by Roberts Lairdon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
HEY PAISANO!!----You gonna stay for lunch? The special today is beef stew but there's lots of other stuff on the menu too. I hope you at least take a glance at the dessert menu.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
There is a major difference between the term "unorthodox" and the ones that I used.
Unorthodox merely implies a lack of conventional approach. Me, personally, I would use the term "heterodox" -- which implies that the conclusion strays from the accepted norm.
But I actually used neither.
I used "bankrupt" theology...(bankrupt used as an adjective)...meaning that, as a theology, it was without redemptive value.
The reason for this is because of the inconsistencies within his theology that render it logically incapable of operating as a system within itself. Therefore, bankrupt.
There are any number of systematic theologies out there. Heterodoxy versus orthodoxy is not the issue that I'm raising. Consistency and logic are.
Frankly, although this comment goes out of scope for this thread (I'm providing it because you asked the question), I'm still one that believes that the underlying theology, with its inconsistencies that resulted from the cherry-picking that generated it, was the underlying root cause for many of the frauds and abuses committed. So I'd say that the theology was as real as any of the other frauds he perpetrated.
But, again, that's my opinion. Yours may differ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Garth has implicitly but significantly compared the discrimination that would go with making subscription to doctrinal standards (concerning no less an issue than Christology) a requisite for seminary admission to discrimination involved in historical educational disenfranchisement of blacks in the South.
Garth's conjuring up of such an analogy is an exercise in tarring his opponent, rather than an exercise in making some substantive and capably reasoned evaluation. It involves a parasitical gleaning of some moral and emotional capital from the history of racism, and basely using it as a denunciatory tool.
On the bright side, the raging little hack is not still going on about nonexistent lynchings of heretics by Baptists.
For some folks, vacuous denunciations and parasitical analogies are actually a step up.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
MountainTopCO
I vaguely recall John S mentioning he had been an archeologist in the Mideast at one time. This gave him first hand experience with eastern history and culture. I may be wrong though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Disclaimer: I don't know John Schoenheit. My beef with him is theological, not personal. Aside from his errant theology and teachings, Schoenheit might be a quite likable fellow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
If the only cross that mattered was the one that Jesus was on, then why did the gospel writers bother to write about the others that were crucified - regardless if one believes there were only 2 or 4 crucified with him? The argument you are making just proves some people only care about capitalizing on and magnifing the sins and the weaknesses common to all men, rather than magnifying the Word of God and what the Lord has done.
But hey - that's the Gospel according to the great Talk Show host.
(They're all over don't you know.)
But we are supposed to believe all those Talk Show hosts are somehow "reaching out" and doing God's will & work for Him today. I imagine that, in their eyes, they honestly think they are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Cynic,
If Schoenheit were training to be a minister affiliated with the denomination/church of said school, your supposed argument of the discrimination being justified would have merit. Ie., the denomination would be well within its ethical (and legal) rights to keep him from attenting training for that specific position.
However, since he is (or was) taking courses and attaining for the degree for more general purposes such as academic achievement and the like, they would have no bearing (ethical and quite possibly legal; consult with your attorney for more details) to prohibit him from doing so, or of even requiring him to come forward with his unitarian/socinian beliefs.
Thus my snide comparison with the discrimination of blacks in the past, (a snide remark which Cynic (again) tries to make bigger than it really is). And since they have no bearing nor right to keep Mr. Schoenheit from accomplishing his doctorate, the complaint against said discrimination still stands. (Cynics' desperate attempt to still raise an old, and long dead, argument about "Baptist lynchings" notwithstanding.)
Grow up. There are far more important issues in real life than the 1600+ year old trinitarian/unitarian argument, an argument that only concerns ecclesiastical, academic old farts (and their middle aged dweeb groupie rejects from TWI, ... hint hint) who think of themselves as 'biblical scholars' because of it.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
The original question was:
My guess is probably none, depending upon how you define scholar.
A true "scholar" could not have lasted in TWI under either Wierwille or Martindale unless they sold out their scholarship for loyalty to VPW or LCM. What real scholar would have supported or endorsed the sloppy and kindergarten level research done by VPW or LCM ?
I don't know much about the actual Research Department at TWI under VPW, except that sources have told me that all research had to conform to VPW's teachings and any research findings that contracdicted or disagreed with VPW's was summarily squashed or discredited without evaluation. I find it hard to believe that any true scholar would continue under those conditions.
I can only imagine the frustration of those that truly wanted to do good research under VPW while hoping againt hope that someday TWI would change. Then they got LCM ....
It is a sad state of affairs when the most acclaimed research that came from someone out of TWI was a paper condemning adultery -- like it takes a PHD to figure that out.
In all fairness though, I agree that scholarship, degrees, etc, (like sincerity) are no guarantee for truth, neither do they necessarily result in faith. So it seems that TWI and its top MOG's were lacking in all of these.
Christian faith should be in God, Christ and the Word, not in blind loyalty to the teachings of a certain man or denomination. Give credit for deliverance to God and Christ not to Wierwille or any other man/organization.
Men do not deliver people, God does.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.