I don't know if this will help. PFAL was filmed in 1967. In one of the sessions, VPW says, "When Christ returns, he'll be coming back as King of King and Lord of Lords. He'll be coming back as Lord God Almighty!" This is a trinitarian viewpoint. I took PFAL in the summer of 1972. By that time, the "Jesus Christ is not God" doctine was being promoted. So, I would say it was sometime within that 5 year stretch. As class instructors, we were told to smooth over students' questions by stating that VP used to be trinity oriented but new research had changed that and he merely had a slip of the tongue. I asked why he didn't just rerecord that session and was told that the session was so perfect as it was it couldn't be duplicated with the needed correction. I call B.S. on that. I think what happened is VP latched onto this new (to him) stance in order to make his product both unique and controversial.
One thing that I never knew until I went back to school recently and took a class on it is that there are TWO doctrines of the Trinity, the economic doctrine and the ontological doctrine.
The economic doctrine of the Trinity simply says that everything we receive from God the Father we receive through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit, and everything we offer to God the Father we offer through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit. The economic Trinity is Gad as he has chosen to reveal himself to us. A person can pretty much take any passage from the Bible regarding the relationships between us, God, Jesus and the Spirit at face value.
The ontological doctrine of the Trinity is God as he is in himself. The first thing everybody says about the ontological Trinity is that it is ineffable, which means we can't say any effing thing about it. They then go on to produce volumes of information about something which cannot be talked about.
The Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) attempted to settle all arguments about the relations between God and Jesus by saying that Jesus had two natures, one human and one divine, the two natures cannot be said to mix or mingle, and the two natures cannot be said to be divisible or separable. The decision of the Council didn't say what the relationship was... it just said you can't argue about it. Since then, Christianity has managed to maintain what little unity it has by singing the doxology without examining too closely the meaning of the words being sung.
Wierwille screwed up our understandings of the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit by teaching that Jesus is out of the loop, seated at God's right hand, and everything we receive from God we receive either through the vending machine of our believing or through the man of God of the world for this our day and time. The holy spirit is little seed that God plants in each one of us which we have to feed and water by speaking in tongues.
Jesus is and always has been the Head of his body! When Wierwille taught that PFAL was the Word as it had not been known since the first century, he was denying that the Lord Jesus has had a hand in anything that's been going on for the last 2,000 years, and that just ain't so.
Listening to all the adults in fellowships . . . most folks never "believed in the trinity", it never made sense and so it was clear JC was not God . . . VPW taught what most folks already believed . . . or so that what was a common thing to hear.
Listening to all the adults in fellowships . . . most folks never "believed in the trinity", it never made sense and so it was clear JC was not God . . . VPW taught what most folks already believed . . . or so that what was a common thing to hear.
Dunno, waysider, you might find that there are a lot of non-trinis out there. They just go along with the standard doctrine of the church of their choice, feeling they have nowhere else to go, but finding enough spiritual succour to want to stay.
For some who didn't believe trini doctrine, perhaps TWI felt like a safe place to be (more fool them... sadly).
VPW siphoned off followers from other groups, (at least that's my understanding from reading at GSC), and changed his doctrine for selfish reasons. Was it the groups of people with their own ideas that influenced what VPW would teach? . . . Did he adapt to preach to the choir and win favor?
Waysider, you don't just mean the TWI bandwagon, do you?
I'm telling you, there are non-trinis in ordinary churches - they just go to the ordinary churches because there's enough succour for them and they close their ears to trini doctrine.
The ontological doctrine of the Trinity is God as he is in himself. The first thing everybody says about the ontological Trinity is that it is ineffable, which means we can't say any effing thing about it. They then go on to produce volumes of information about something which cannot be talked about.
The fascinating thing about the Trinity, I have always found, is that you cannot explain it, at all, without falling into "heresy." The only thing you can say is its definition, but when you try to work out how this seemingly self-contradictory "relationship" works, every single definition is heretical. That was one reason I never believed it.
The other reason is I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, so I never, ever believed it. At one point I tried to just accept it, but by then doubts were on the march.
One thing that is becoming increasingly clear to me as a layman looking at church history is the notion that the early church was just as divided on these questions as we are. The first three gospels offer no indication that he's God. The plainest reading of John is that he is God, and we ALL know how we have to contort ourselved to prove John is not saying what he (let's face it) pretty clearly seems to be saying. But even then, John confuses by calling The Father greater than The Son (an assertion that would have had him labeled a heretic if he had written it 200 years later).
Paul seems to have no knowledge of a pre-existent Christ ("pre" referring to his birth), unless you want to count Colossians, which many scholars believe was not actually written by Paul.
Point is, the early church was as divided on this as we are today, which is probably (I submit) why both sides are so successful at making strong cases in their favor. The problem isn't proving Jesus was born fully human or that Jesus was God. The problem for each side has always been disproving the other side. You can't do it, because the Bible actually makes both cases!
I'm not sure when Wierwille jumped ship, but I do think it was before the filming of PFAL. It's in PFAL that he says any word other than "pros" in John 1:1 would cause your entire Bible to fall to pieces. That's an explicitly anti-Trinitarian argument. It's also anti-Johannine and anti-Greek, but c'est la vie.
I do think the "God Almighty" reference in PFAL was a slip of the tongue. He was anti-Trinity before that. How long before? I couldn't tell you.
.. The problem isn't proving Jesus was born fully human or that Jesus was God. The problem for each side has always been disproving the other side. You can't do it, because the Bible actually makes both cases!
. . .
This incredibly important IMO. Growing up I would make the effort to learn about other religions, the Trinity among other topics . . but TWI would literally stop me with direct confrontation. (Happened multiple times . . . I was just curious, sheesh)
When I was finally able distance myself enough to start learning about the Trinity in particular . . . it was the first time I saw how opposing viewpoints had been grossly misrepresented by TWI.
(Without going into every detail) TWI was and is not making a case about doctrine and is not simply stating their view on the Trinity. They have access to knowledge and are not sharing it freely and honestly. The Way International was and is lying to and misinforming its followers about its research and beliefs.
The Way International's belief system, about God, Jesus, The Bible itself, is dishonest at its foundation.
It would be interesting to know when VPW started this anti-trinity campaign. I'm bet it coincides with something.
Other posters have made good cases on when the change may have taken place; I don't think that it's addressed in any of his early writings (monographs, booklets, etc)
Some interesting comments about people "not believing that Jesus was God" pre-TWI; not surprising - most people that I have encountered know little and understand less about what their denomination teaches about anything, let alone something as complex as the doctrine of the Trinity.
Other posters have made good cases on when the change may have taken place; I don't think that it's addressed in any of his early writings (monographs, booklets, etc)
Some interesting comments about people "not believing that Jesus was God" pre-TWI; not surprising - most people that I have encountered know little and understand less about what their denomination teaches about anything, let alone something as complex as the doctrine of the Trinity.
Great question Oakspear.
At Sumner School in 1970, the big hit besides the AC, was a class vic did which he entitled "How To Enjoy The Bible". The only temxtbook was Bullinger's book by the same title. Vic went through the entire book and everyone was amazed at how much of piffle was in that book! I bought it that fall and was also struck by its verbatim similarity to the first 8 sessions of piffle.
It was during this summer school class that vic first started really ruminating about JC not being God. A lot. That's where vic first said that he believed Nullinger was on track to eventually believe and teach JC ain't God. Of course no corroboration at all. Then, the full blown "research" started on JCING. It got rolling full steam during my first year in-rez, 1973-74. We had several "research nights" on the subject with cummins, Bernita jess, Donna Randall and the rest of the meagher research dept. Then the first interim year, 74-75. Book was published in the fall of 1975 and vic did his huge Motorcoach through the center of new knoxville dog'n'pony show, culminating with his ousting the book jacket and all the reasons JC ain't God. A hugely gawd's and arrogant deal with the air horns on the coach blaring and a long parade of wayfers marching behind it. Extremely embarrassing, at least for me. Then, the wars started with the cult rap gaining a full head of steam with JCING now splattered all over the place.
It was this huge PR campaign and the pugnacious, combative methods vic employed to push his cult and his controversial book were garish and grossly argumentative. Just looking to pick a fight with the "mainstream denominations and their seed boy leaders" to establish his own superior church based on his version of rightly-dividing da woid. THAT's what was important. All that brouhaha over the completely non-salvific argument over the Trinity for nothing more than ego and pride. My truth is truer than your's. Absolutely NOTHING to do with Christian charity to the poor, sick, homeless and starving. Absolutely NOTHING to do with salvation in Romans 10:9,10. NOTHING about Christian living and giving. Only, buy my books or go to hell. Take my classes or remain useless to God and die with zero rewards. All about him and his with Jesus Christ nowhere to be found, prayed to, or felliwshipoed with since He is absent in way world, stuck at the right hand of God until vic and his minus-tray are done moving the word over the world and racking up the golden cookies at the bema. Taking the place of the absent Christ continues as a hallmark of twit theology along with that of every stupid offshoot. All over a non-salvific philisophy invented by man to explain the nature of God. How absurd.
So, I would say that the real big "move" on JCING started at Summer School 1970, and culminated with the publication and public tomfoolery of Vic's Martin Luther impersonation at his old church in new knoxville. All over nothing to do with Jesus Christ's mission of salvation and love. All about vic and his prayshuss minus-tray, not about The Boss. Total waste of time and money.
At Sumner School in 1970, the big hit besides the AC, was a class vic did which he entitled "How To Enjoy The Bible". The only temxtbook was Bullinger's book by the same title. Vic went through the entire book and everyone was amazed at how much of piffle was in that book! I bought it that fall and was also struck by its verbatim similarity to the first 8 sessions of piffle.
It was during this summer school class that vic first started really ruminating about JC not being God. A lot. That's where vic first said that he believed Nullinger was on track to eventually believe and teach JC ain't God. Of course no corroboration at all. Then, the full blown "research" started on JCING. It got rolling full steam during my first year in-rez, 1973-74. We had several "research nights" on the subject with cummins, Bernita jess, Donna Randall and the rest of the meagher research dept. Then the first interim year, 74-75. Book was published in the fall of 1975 and vic did his huge Motorcoach through the center of new knoxville dog'n'pony show, culminating with his ousting the book jacket and all the reasons JC ain't God. A hugely gawd's and arrogant deal with the air horns on the coach blaring and a long parade of wayfers marching behind it. Extremely embarrassing, at least for me. Then, the wars started with the cult rap gaining a full head of steam with JCING now splattered all over the place.
It was this huge PR campaign and the pugnacious, combative methods vic employed to push his cult and his controversial book were garish and grossly argumentative. Just looking to pick a fight with the "mainstream denominations and their seed boy leaders" to establish his own superior church based on his version of rightly-dividing da woid. THAT's what was important. All that brouhaha over the completely non-salvific argument over the Trinity for nothing more than ego and pride. My truth is truer than your's. Absolutely NOTHING to do with Christian charity to the poor, sick, homeless and starving. Absolutely NOTHING to do with salvation in Romans 10:9,10. NOTHING about Christian living and giving. Only, buy my books or go to hell. Take my classes or remain useless to God and die with zero rewards. All about him and his with Jesus Christ nowhere to be found, prayed to, or felliwshipoed with since He is absent in way world, stuck at the right hand of God until vic and his minus-tray are done moving the word over the world and racking up the golden cookies at the bema. Taking the place of the absent Christ continues as a hallmark of twit theology along with that of every stupid offshoot. All over a non-salvific philisophy invented by man to explain the nature of God. How absurd.
So, I would say that the real big "move" on JCING started at Summer School 1970, and culminated with the publication and public tomfoolery of Vic's Martin Luther impersonation at his old church in new knoxville. All over nothing to do with Jesus Christ's mission of salvation and love. All about vic and his prayshuss minus-tray, not about The Boss. Total waste of time and money.
Good feedback. I think a lot of the unique doctrines were about VPW vaunting himself, and then for the rest of us there was the appeal of being privy to some insider, special knowledge. My feeling is that there are many doctrinal snares, which when believed kept people trapped in TWI. This seems like a big one.
One thing that I never knew until I went back to school recently and took a class on it is that there are TWO doctrines of the Trinity, the economic doctrine and the ontological doctrine.
The economic doctrine of the Trinity simply says that everything we receive from God the Father we receive through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit, and everything we offer to God the Father we offer through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit. The economic Trinity is Gad as he has chosen to reveal himself to us. A person can pretty much take any passage from the Bible regarding the relationships between us, God, Jesus and the Spirit at face value.
The ontological doctrine of the Trinity is God as he is in himself. The first thing everybody says about the ontological Trinity is that it is ineffable, which means we can't say any effing thing about it. They then go on to produce volumes of information about something which cannot be talked about.
The Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) attempted to settle all arguments about the relations between God and Jesus by saying that Jesus had two natures, one human and one divine, the two natures cannot be said to mix or mingle, and the two natures cannot be said to be divisible or separable. The decision of the Council didn't say what the relationship was... it just said you can't argue about it. Since then, Christianity has managed to maintain what little unity it has by singing the doxology without examining too closely the meaning of the words being sung.
Wierwille screwed up our understandings of the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit by teaching that Jesus is out of the loop, seated at God's right hand, and everything we receive from God we receive either through the vending machine of our believing or through the man of God of the world for this our day and time. The holy spirit is little seed that God plants in each one of us which we have to feed and water by speaking in tongues.
Jesus is and always has been the Head of his body! When Wierwille taught that PFAL was the Word as it had not been known since the first century, he was denying that the Lord Jesus has had a hand in anything that's been going on for the last 2,000 years, and that just ain't so.
Still ruminating on this. It seems to be one of the hardest things for anyone retaining Christian beliefs after TWI. There's almost no where to go and be a part of a church community where they are not also trinitarian. Personally, if I still believed, I'm way more interested in the actual church culture - what are the people like - than the specific doctrinal stances. I know some others though who are currently struggling with this. The sense that you don't belonganywhere because everyone else is trinitarian.
In TWI God is something that can be understood, explained, is predictable and therefore controllable. In TWI there's only one point of view, one personality, to see reality from (although they gave lip-service to the idea of more.)
The Trinity is something less certain, less concrete, requires acceptance without understanding, or multiple views to even begin to explain. (Too complicated, not easy to explain, and uncontrollable, therefore do not accept it.)
Still ruminating on this. It seems to be one of the hardest things for anyone retaining Christian beliefs after TWI. There's almost no where to go and be a part of a church community where they are not also trinitarian. Personally, if I still believed, I'm way more interested in the actual church culture - what are the people like - than the specific doctrinal stances. I know some others though who are currently struggling with this. The sense that you don't belonganywhere because everyone else is trinitarian.
Bumping up another of these never happen to have read or paid attention to before threads, eh? Okay, I'll read through...
In TWI God is something that can be understood, explained, is predictable and therefore controllable. In TWI there's only one point of view, one personality, to see reality from (although they gave lip-service to the idea of more.)
The Trinity is something less certain, less concrete, requires acceptance without understanding, or multiple views to even begin to explain. (Too complicated, not easy to explain, and uncontrollable, therefore do not accept it.)
JMO.
That does make a lot of sense, Mr. B.
I agree Bolshevik & Waysider
to discuss the nature of the Trinity and TWI's view of Jesus Christ is something that belongs in the doctrinal forum - - HOWEVER - - i would like to say (I've reverted back to my Roman Catholic belief system - and so i am once again a Trinitarian) when it came down to the difference in doctrinal issues (during my first year of having left TWI - i got into reading up on various systematic theologies) like is Jesus God or not -
i did a similar thing that Bolshevik talked about - i looked at the practical effects of the doctrine (not only about what that said about Jesus - but everything else) and concluded it was a truckload of rotten fruit and i would leave decisions of where thing's were at based on what i thought the scriptures indicated; and on a practical note - if a Trinitarian serves God with all his heart soul mind and strength - and a non-Trinitarian does the same thing - i see no difference in the practical effect of their beliefs.
== == ==
edited to add an after thought and give Grease Spot a huge endorsement
my "exit strategy" was a slow and thoughtful process right after the initial passing of the patriarch commotion - i found myself wanting to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good (I Thess. 5:21) and so it was a slow paced pushing back - and for me it was over some issues i began to notice in some of TWI's doctrine and in the....uhm...i don't know practical application of some of it - maybe just "benign" church government type issues - how TWI managed things...
and so over time my severance with TWI was really just about intellectual issues....BUT....later joining Grease Spot where one can piece together some of the sordid details regarding the physical consequences caused by practicing their doctrine - - which is perhaps what Jesus warned believers about in Matthew 7:16 - you'll KNOW false prophets by their FRUIT! - at least that's what the passage seems to be saying - a tree is known by it's fruit; or rather you'll be able to determine the type of "tree" by observing the practical effects of what the "prophet" teaches ....like renewing marriage vows - only i'm talking about divorce vows - i am intellectually ANDmorally at odds with TWI !!!!
how the morons could screw up the practical application of the first and second commandment Love God and neighbor - is beyond me!
To be clear: A discussion about whether Jesus is God, Biblically, belongs in doctrinal. I haven't analyzed every thread here, but...
A discussion about when Wierwille began teaching that Jesus is not God belongs here. A discussion about why most groups teach he is but TWI teaches he is not can be at home either here or in doctrinal.
It's inevitable that a topic like this will have some doctrinal overlap. But I don't see any threat of this becoming a doctrinal discussion so far.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
18
23
27
Popular Days
Apr 3
30
Apr 1
28
Dec 3
14
Apr 2
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 8 posts
waysider 18 posts
Bolshevik 23 posts
TLC 27 posts
Popular Days
Apr 3 2016
30 posts
Apr 1 2016
28 posts
Dec 3 2015
14 posts
Apr 2 2016
13 posts
Popular Posts
shortfuse
The original premise of the thread was that TWI's doctrine on the nature of God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit served to isolate way followers from the rest of Christianity. (Indeed, some people would not e
Bolshevik
This incredibly important IMO. Growing up I would make the effort to learn about other religions, the Trinity among other topics . . but TWI would literally stop me with direct confrontation. (Happe
WordWolf
That settles that. As for the Martin Luther imitation, I thought that was too interesting not to explain. vpw announced, at the end of one ROA (77), that they were going to go to the local churc
WordWolf
I know that he sounded Trinitarian when he was trying to pretend he was
cool with the Ecumenical movement (rather than just trying to siphon
members.) BG Leonard doesn't sound like a standard Trinitarian.
Bullinger was claimed (in twi) to have such leanings, but both he
and Kenyon used Trinitarian phrasings in their books.
I am suspicious (as in, guessing) that the E. Stanley Jones Ashram thing
in 1944 was an introduction into new and different things vpw hadn't
heard before-so MAYBE it started to come up there and then.
Then again, it could have been exposure to Glenn Clark (of Camps Farthest Out).
Clark introduced a number of new Thought and Christian Science ideas.
(Whether he did so accurately or not is an entirely different discussion.)
He had lots of strange, new ideas, and people with them. Drop wierwille into
that crowd and there's lots of strange, new ideas to draw from,
starting with the whole "believing" thing to make things happen.
(He also drew from Albert Cliffe there.) Among all that, non-standard ideas
about God and Jesus were comnmonplace.
Add in Lamsa, and that's yet more different takes on Jesus.
vpw pursued these variant theologies, he counted on them, and he plagiarized
the heck out of them. This was very profitable for him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't know if this will help. PFAL was filmed in 1967. In one of the sessions, VPW says, "When Christ returns, he'll be coming back as King of King and Lord of Lords. He'll be coming back as Lord God Almighty!" This is a trinitarian viewpoint. I took PFAL in the summer of 1972. By that time, the "Jesus Christ is not God" doctine was being promoted. So, I would say it was sometime within that 5 year stretch. As class instructors, we were told to smooth over students' questions by stating that VP used to be trinity oriented but new research had changed that and he merely had a slip of the tongue. I asked why he didn't just rerecord that session and was told that the session was so perfect as it was it couldn't be duplicated with the needed correction. I call B.S. on that. I think what happened is VP latched onto this new (to him) stance in order to make his product both unique and controversial.
edit: wording and spelling
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
One thing that I never knew until I went back to school recently and took a class on it is that there are TWO doctrines of the Trinity, the economic doctrine and the ontological doctrine.
The economic doctrine of the Trinity simply says that everything we receive from God the Father we receive through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit, and everything we offer to God the Father we offer through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit. The economic Trinity is Gad as he has chosen to reveal himself to us. A person can pretty much take any passage from the Bible regarding the relationships between us, God, Jesus and the Spirit at face value.
The ontological doctrine of the Trinity is God as he is in himself. The first thing everybody says about the ontological Trinity is that it is ineffable, which means we can't say any effing thing about it. They then go on to produce volumes of information about something which cannot be talked about.
The Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) attempted to settle all arguments about the relations between God and Jesus by saying that Jesus had two natures, one human and one divine, the two natures cannot be said to mix or mingle, and the two natures cannot be said to be divisible or separable. The decision of the Council didn't say what the relationship was... it just said you can't argue about it. Since then, Christianity has managed to maintain what little unity it has by singing the doxology without examining too closely the meaning of the words being sung.
Wierwille screwed up our understandings of the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit by teaching that Jesus is out of the loop, seated at God's right hand, and everything we receive from God we receive either through the vending machine of our believing or through the man of God of the world for this our day and time. The holy spirit is little seed that God plants in each one of us which we have to feed and water by speaking in tongues.
Jesus is and always has been the Head of his body! When Wierwille taught that PFAL was the Word as it had not been known since the first century, he was denying that the Lord Jesus has had a hand in anything that's been going on for the last 2,000 years, and that just ain't so.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Listening to all the adults in fellowships . . . most folks never "believed in the trinity", it never made sense and so it was clear JC was not God . . . VPW taught what most folks already believed . . . or so that what was a common thing to hear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think that's called "getting on the bandwagon".
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Dunno, waysider, you might find that there are a lot of non-trinis out there. They just go along with the standard doctrine of the church of their choice, feeling they have nowhere else to go, but finding enough spiritual succour to want to stay.
For some who didn't believe trini doctrine, perhaps TWI felt like a safe place to be (more fool them... sadly).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"They just go along with the standard doctrine of the church of their choice, feeling they have nowhere else to go."
That's what I meant by getting on the bandwagon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
VPW siphoned off followers from other groups, (at least that's my understanding from reading at GSC), and changed his doctrine for selfish reasons. Was it the groups of people with their own ideas that influenced what VPW would teach? . . . Did he adapt to preach to the choir and win favor?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Waysider, you don't just mean the TWI bandwagon, do you?
I'm telling you, there are non-trinis in ordinary churches - they just go to the ordinary churches because there's enough succour for them and they close their ears to trini doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That, that right there, is golden.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The fascinating thing about the Trinity, I have always found, is that you cannot explain it, at all, without falling into "heresy." The only thing you can say is its definition, but when you try to work out how this seemingly self-contradictory "relationship" works, every single definition is heretical. That was one reason I never believed it.
The other reason is I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, so I never, ever believed it. At one point I tried to just accept it, but by then doubts were on the march.
One thing that is becoming increasingly clear to me as a layman looking at church history is the notion that the early church was just as divided on these questions as we are. The first three gospels offer no indication that he's God. The plainest reading of John is that he is God, and we ALL know how we have to contort ourselved to prove John is not saying what he (let's face it) pretty clearly seems to be saying. But even then, John confuses by calling The Father greater than The Son (an assertion that would have had him labeled a heretic if he had written it 200 years later).
Paul seems to have no knowledge of a pre-existent Christ ("pre" referring to his birth), unless you want to count Colossians, which many scholars believe was not actually written by Paul.
Point is, the early church was as divided on this as we are today, which is probably (I submit) why both sides are so successful at making strong cases in their favor. The problem isn't proving Jesus was born fully human or that Jesus was God. The problem for each side has always been disproving the other side. You can't do it, because the Bible actually makes both cases!
I'm not sure when Wierwille jumped ship, but I do think it was before the filming of PFAL. It's in PFAL that he says any word other than "pros" in John 1:1 would cause your entire Bible to fall to pieces. That's an explicitly anti-Trinitarian argument. It's also anti-Johannine and anti-Greek, but c'est la vie.
I do think the "God Almighty" reference in PFAL was a slip of the tongue. He was anti-Trinity before that. How long before? I couldn't tell you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
This incredibly important IMO. Growing up I would make the effort to learn about other religions, the Trinity among other topics . . but TWI would literally stop me with direct confrontation. (Happened multiple times . . . I was just curious, sheesh)
When I was finally able distance myself enough to start learning about the Trinity in particular . . . it was the first time I saw how opposing viewpoints had been grossly misrepresented by TWI.
(Without going into every detail) TWI was and is not making a case about doctrine and is not simply stating their view on the Trinity. They have access to knowledge and are not sharing it freely and honestly. The Way International was and is lying to and misinforming its followers about its research and beliefs.
The Way International's belief system, about God, Jesus, The Bible itself, is dishonest at its foundation.
It would be interesting to know when VPW started this anti-trinity campaign. I'm bet it coincides with something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Other posters have made good cases on when the change may have taken place; I don't think that it's addressed in any of his early writings (monographs, booklets, etc)
Some interesting comments about people "not believing that Jesus was God" pre-TWI; not surprising - most people that I have encountered know little and understand less about what their denomination teaches about anything, let alone something as complex as the doctrine of the Trinity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Great question Oakspear.
At Sumner School in 1970, the big hit besides the AC, was a class vic did which he entitled "How To Enjoy The Bible". The only temxtbook was Bullinger's book by the same title. Vic went through the entire book and everyone was amazed at how much of piffle was in that book! I bought it that fall and was also struck by its verbatim similarity to the first 8 sessions of piffle.
It was during this summer school class that vic first started really ruminating about JC not being God. A lot. That's where vic first said that he believed Nullinger was on track to eventually believe and teach JC ain't God. Of course no corroboration at all. Then, the full blown "research" started on JCING. It got rolling full steam during my first year in-rez, 1973-74. We had several "research nights" on the subject with cummins, Bernita jess, Donna Randall and the rest of the meagher research dept. Then the first interim year, 74-75. Book was published in the fall of 1975 and vic did his huge Motorcoach through the center of new knoxville dog'n'pony show, culminating with his ousting the book jacket and all the reasons JC ain't God. A hugely gawd's and arrogant deal with the air horns on the coach blaring and a long parade of wayfers marching behind it. Extremely embarrassing, at least for me. Then, the wars started with the cult rap gaining a full head of steam with JCING now splattered all over the place.
It was this huge PR campaign and the pugnacious, combative methods vic employed to push his cult and his controversial book were garish and grossly argumentative. Just looking to pick a fight with the "mainstream denominations and their seed boy leaders" to establish his own superior church based on his version of rightly-dividing da woid. THAT's what was important. All that brouhaha over the completely non-salvific argument over the Trinity for nothing more than ego and pride. My truth is truer than your's. Absolutely NOTHING to do with Christian charity to the poor, sick, homeless and starving. Absolutely NOTHING to do with salvation in Romans 10:9,10. NOTHING about Christian living and giving. Only, buy my books or go to hell. Take my classes or remain useless to God and die with zero rewards. All about him and his with Jesus Christ nowhere to be found, prayed to, or felliwshipoed with since He is absent in way world, stuck at the right hand of God until vic and his minus-tray are done moving the word over the world and racking up the golden cookies at the bema. Taking the place of the absent Christ continues as a hallmark of twit theology along with that of every stupid offshoot. All over a non-salvific philisophy invented by man to explain the nature of God. How absurd.
So, I would say that the real big "move" on JCING started at Summer School 1970, and culminated with the publication and public tomfoolery of Vic's Martin Luther impersonation at his old church in new knoxville. All over nothing to do with Jesus Christ's mission of salvation and love. All about vic and his prayshuss minus-tray, not about The Boss. Total waste of time and money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
I didn't like taking the place of the absent Christ. Too much of a burden.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That settles that.
As for the Martin Luther imitation, I thought that was too interesting
not to explain.
vpw announced, at the end of one ROA (77), that they were going to go to
the local churches, and nail up the list of verses saying Jesus isn't God.
(Never mind that in Luther's place and time, nailing up a notice in the
assigned spot was an accepted and expected thing to do.)
Is that what he did once the microphones were off?
No.
Here's what he did.
He had sign dropped off, supposedly at several churches,
but no eyewitness account confirms more than one stop-
at his old denomination.
"Jesus Christ is not God. Never was, never will be."
With it, he dropped off an autographed copy of JCING.
I kid you not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shortfuse
Good feedback. I think a lot of the unique doctrines were about VPW vaunting himself, and then for the rest of us there was the appeal of being privy to some insider, special knowledge. My feeling is that there are many doctrinal snares, which when believed kept people trapped in TWI. This seems like a big one.
Interesting insight. Thank you, Steve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shortfuse
Still ruminating on this. It seems to be one of the hardest things for anyone retaining Christian beliefs after TWI. There's almost no where to go and be a part of a church community where they are not also trinitarian. Personally, if I still believed, I'm way more interested in the actual church culture - what are the people like - than the specific doctrinal stances. I know some others though who are currently struggling with this. The sense that you don't belong anywhere because everyone else is trinitarian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It was a huge stumbling block for me when I stopped going to twig and sought out alternatives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
In TWI God is something that can be understood, explained, is predictable and therefore controllable. In TWI there's only one point of view, one personality, to see reality from (although they gave lip-service to the idea of more.)
The Trinity is something less certain, less concrete, requires acceptance without understanding, or multiple views to even begin to explain. (Too complicated, not easy to explain, and uncontrollable, therefore do not accept it.)
JMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That does make a lot of sense, Mr. B.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Bumping up another of these never happen to have read or paid attention to before threads, eh? Okay, I'll read through...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I agree Bolshevik & Waysider
to discuss the nature of the Trinity and TWI's view of Jesus Christ is something that belongs in the doctrinal forum - - HOWEVER - - i would like to say (I've reverted back to my Roman Catholic belief system - and so i am once again a Trinitarian) when it came down to the difference in doctrinal issues (during my first year of having left TWI - i got into reading up on various systematic theologies) like is Jesus God or not -
i did a similar thing that Bolshevik talked about - i looked at the practical effects of the doctrine (not only about what that said about Jesus - but everything else) and concluded it was a truckload of rotten fruit and i would leave decisions of where thing's were at based on what i thought the scriptures indicated; and on a practical note - if a Trinitarian serves God with all his heart soul mind and strength - and a non-Trinitarian does the same thing - i see no difference in the practical effect of their beliefs.
== == ==
edited to add an after thought and give Grease Spot a huge endorsement
my "exit strategy" was a slow and thoughtful process right after the initial passing of the patriarch commotion - i found myself wanting to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good (I Thess. 5:21) and so it was a slow paced pushing back - and for me it was over some issues i began to notice in some of TWI's doctrine and in the....uhm...i don't know practical application of some of it - maybe just "benign" church government type issues - how TWI managed things...
and so over time my severance with TWI was really just about intellectual issues....BUT....later joining Grease Spot where one can piece together some of the sordid details regarding the physical consequences caused by practicing their doctrine - - which is perhaps what Jesus warned believers about in Matthew 7:16 - you'll KNOW false prophets by their FRUIT! - at least that's what the passage seems to be saying - a tree is known by it's fruit; or rather you'll be able to determine the type of "tree" by observing the practical effects of what the "prophet" teaches ....like renewing marriage vows - only i'm talking about divorce vows - i am intellectually AND morally at odds with TWI !!!!
how the morons could screw up the practical application of the first and second commandment Love God and neighbor - is beyond me!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
To be clear: A discussion about whether Jesus is God, Biblically, belongs in doctrinal. I haven't analyzed every thread here, but...
A discussion about when Wierwille began teaching that Jesus is not God belongs here. A discussion about why most groups teach he is but TWI teaches he is not can be at home either here or in doctrinal.
It's inevitable that a topic like this will have some doctrinal overlap. But I don't see any threat of this becoming a doctrinal discussion so far.
All seems good. Carry on.
Link 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.