You can probably find bible verses to back up a lot of what Wierwille taught, so I guess some of it was correct.
But there are so many areas where Christians disagree, even when there apparently is scripture to back up differing opinions. So, whether a lot of TWI doctrine is "correct" is in the eye of the beholder.
There are also plenty of places where Wierwille (and later Martindale) distorted definitions to make words, and therefore verses, say what they wanted them to say that TWI doctrine becomes an overgrown mess that takes more than a cursory "working of the Word" to untangle.
Not quite sure how you qualify and/or quantify "success?"
I think success under these circumstances is many folks in the offshoots and elsewhere continuing in the good doctrine while simultaneously abandoning the bad doctrine and practices.
Keeping the baby and throwing out the bathwater, as they say.
Keeping the gold from Egypt, as they say.
I think some of the offshoots are doing an admirable job (much better than twi is) of holding fast to the good doctrine and practice without all the negative baggage of twi.
I also consider some of the good doctrine some of the most controversial elements of Christianity, like manifestations of the spirit, JCING, ATDAN, etc., some things that are certainly at least food for thought to the readers.
Not quite sure how you qualify and/or quantify "success?"
I think success under these circumstances is many folks in the offshoots and elsewhere continuing in the good doctrine while simultaneously abandoning the bad doctrine and practices.
Keeping the baby and throwing out the bathwater, as they say.
Keeping the gold from Egypt, as they say.
I think some of the offshoots are doing an admirable job (much better than twi is) of holding fast to the good doctrine and practice without all the negative baggage of twi.
I also consider some of the good doctrine some of the most controversial elements of Christianity, like manifestations of the spirit, JCING, ATDAN, etc., some things that are certainly at least food for thought to the readers.
Food that was digested centuries ago and left in a latrine.
I think that the *good doctrine* taught should be *love God* and *love your neighbor*
Jesus said that THESE were the two biggies....
This renders the *controversial elements of christianity* relatively unimportant .....
If offshoots are teaching and praticing these two commandments...jcing, atdan and all the rest is simply window dressing imo....
NOT adhereing to these is what I think led to the incapacitaion of twi as a Godly ministry.
We studied our fool heads off to *show ourselves aproved*
We sit nearly constantly...tithed ...witnessed....committed our entire lives and resources to God ....and it all meant SQUAT (or tinkling symbol if you will) because we did not understand or operate the first two commandments.
Not quite sure how you qualify and/or quantify "success?"
I think success under these circumstances is many folks in the offshoots and elsewhere continuing in the good doctrine while simultaneously abandoning the bad doctrine and practices.
Of course, what is a "good" doctrine and a "bad" doctrine depends entirely on who's
defining it.
quote:
Keeping the baby and throwing out the bathwater, as they say.
Which is "baby" and which is "bathwater" depends entirely on who's defining it.
This is a repeat of the last sentence with a cliche added.
quote:
Keeping the gold from Egypt, as they say.
Which is the "gold" and which...didn't I say this already?
quote:
I think some of the offshoots are doing an admirable job (much better than twi is) of holding fast to the good doctrine and practice without all the negative baggage of twi.
Perhaps. Some of them seem to have a higher moral standard than vpw did. Then again,
so did vpw in the early days-perhaps they are just brilliant in covering their tracks.
I find that some of them have some pretty good doctrine. Of course, I can say the same of
many, many, many Christian organizations out there, and I have in many cases.
Further, we all know that the difference between an organization that has
BRILLIANT doctrine
and an organization that has
AWFUL doctrine
depends entirely on what percentage of their doctrine matches that of the speaker.
quote:
I also consider some of the good doctrine some of the most controversial elements of Christianity, like manifestations of the spirit, JCING, ATDAN, etc.
Right. That's YOUR definition, and that of other people, but what if you're wrong?
Then the "good doctrine" is good in spite of being error.
quote:
some things that are certainly at least food for thought to the readers.
If they are used as "food for thought", I heartily agree. I think it's a good idea to have
thought and discussion on each of these topics. I also think it's a good idea to have
thought and discussion on ALL topics, ESPECIALLY "sacred cows".
IF, however, the doctrine is just dropped in people's laps and discussion and dissent are
SQUASHED -which has happened to many Christians in history and continues through today,
including even those who are most controversial-
then it is nothing more than ANOTHER set of sacred cows,
I also consider some of the good doctrine some of the most controversial elements of Christianity, like manifestations of the spirit, JCING, ATDAN, etc.
Perhaps. But in other ways, this may be like opening old wounds.
In a lot of ways, I think the old victster started a good fight, and left us to fend for ourselves. He seemingly was isolated in his marble castle, while the rest of us were "facing the music" out in the real world..
We sit nearly constantly...tithed ...witnessed....committed our entire lives and resources to God ....and it all meant SQUAT (or tinkling symbol if you will) because we did not understand or operate the first two commandments.
When you say "we" who do you refer to and how can you speak for everyone else?
Besides, I saw lots of folks who walked in love. Even I did every now and then. :D-->
We sit nearly constantly...tithed ...witnessed....committed our entire lives and resources to God ....and it all meant SQUAT (or tinkling symbol if you will) because we did not understand or operate the first two commandments.
When you say "we" who do you refer to and how can you speak for everyone else?
The *we* I refer to ...is those all of those who did these things... Didn`t you?....
Then Oldies said....Besides, I saw lots of folks who walked in love. Even I did every now and then. :D-->[/quote:
Walking in love had a VARIETY of meanings in twi....most of them having very little to do with what Jesus emphasized when speaking of the tow great commandments.
I think that is what made twi doctrine so wrong and dangerous....
We thought that because we studied more than anybody else...
because we prayed more than anybody else...
because we witnessed..
because we were committed ...
we were more spiritual than everybody else...
I am saying that we THOUGHT we were doing what was necessary to be spiritual and pleasing to God.... but in reality what we REALLY needed to be focusing on was operating the two great commandments....as a result, we ended up as a very ungodly organization
All of the things we did ...because we didn`t understand love ... (it was as a tinkling symbol) ended up being detrimental ....
In my opinion, Wierwille inadvertantly lifted a few things that were right, mostly regarding the truth that the gift received on the Day of Pentecost WAS the Holy Spirit, though not everything Wierwille taught about that Spirit was accurate.
The vast majority of things he taught were demonstrably inaccurate. Wierwille's "man = body + soul + spirit" anthropology directly contradicts Genesis 2:7. Everything he taught based on that anthropology, including Wierwille's definition of "salvation", was wrong.
Everything Wierwille taught about "administrations" was wrong, as were the many inferences and conclusions based on that particular error.
But... everything Wierwille taught... both good and evil... was TAINTED by the arrogance ("highmindedness") of Romans 11:20, an arrogance that Paul contrasted with fear of the Lord.
I think Wierwille's arrogance may be what rascal perceived when she wrote "I think that is what made twi doctrine so wrong and so dangerous..." He wasn't just arrogant himself, he taught US to be arrogant as well.
Wierwille taught that fear is always wrong, but the Word of God says that fear of the Lord is the beginning of both knowledge and wisdom. Why should that be so?
quote:
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Jeremiah 17:9
Why is the heart deceitful above all things?
quote:
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts.
Proverbs 21:2
and
quote:
All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the Lord weigheth the spirits.
Proverbs 16:2
Everything that comes out of a person's own heart seems right to that person. Every intention in a person's heart seems innocent to that person. No person can judge the contents of his own heart without an objective standard.
What can we use as an objective standard when we ponder our own hearts?
quote:
For the word of God is quick ["living"], and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner ["critic"] of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12
The living Word is the critic of the thoughts and intents of our hearts. The Lord ponders our hearts. The Lord weighs our spirits. And He will gladly help us clean them out if we are humble enough to accept His critique.
But... what could possibly motivate a person to submit the contents of his heart... the things that seem so right... the things that seem so clean... the things that seem so innocent... to anybody else's criticism?
How about fear? Don't we accept criticism from those we fear? The problem with not fearing God is that we won't accept His reproof and correction.
quote:
1 An oracle of God is within my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked:
There is no fear of God before his eyes.
2 For in his own eyes he flatters himself
too much to detect or hate his sin.
3 The words of his mouth are wicked and deceitful;
he has ceased to be wise and to do good.
4 Even on his bed he plots evil;
he commits himself to a sinful course and does not reject what is wrong.
Psalm 36:1-4
Wierwille was so arrogant, he magnified his own interpretations above what was actually written in the Word of God. His arrogance infected EVERYTHING he taught, right or wrong.
oldies - You wrote, "I believe what he taught should stand or fall on its own, regardless of anyone's arrogance, or lack thereof.Work it, and if it makes sense and works for you, you've got an answer."
Do you still believe what Wierwille taught about "administrations"?
It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't work, when compared with what's actually written in the Bible. Why did it seem to make sense when Wierwille taught it in PFAL? Could it have been the confidence he displayed while teaching lies? If that isn't arrogance, what is?
Why did it seem to make sense to ME, when I used to teach it? It seemed in my heart to be right.
How many of the things you learned in PFAL, oldies, still seem in your heart to be right? Does that mean they really ARE right?
Were the things Wierwille taught about "man = body + soul + spirit" really right?
How are you going to know if you're standing on a rock or quicksand, if you don't re-examine everything in detail that you were taught in PFAL. Why should you re-examine what Wierwille taught if, like Barry Goldwater, you know in your heart he's right?
It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't work, when compared with what's actually written in the Bible. Why did it seem to make sense when Wierwille taught it in PFAL? Could it have been the confidence he displayed while teaching lies? If that isn't arrogance, what is?
Right or wrong, Wierwille was a master at getting people to believe in him.
In my opinion, he did this because he could document enough of what he was teaching, especially when it differed from what the mainstream churches were teaching. Most of us were then so incensed at the "lies" of the churches that we grew up in, and dazzled by Vic's seeming proficiency with the bible, that we stopped checking for ourselves and accepted what Wierwille taught us, even when it didn't make sense. We convinced ourselves to "hold it in abeyance", sure that Wierwille had the answers and we were missing it.
Do you still believe what Wierwille taught about "administrations"?
Steve Lortz, yes I suppose I do, although I haven't examined the opposing view.
I do still believe it but I guess it hasn't been a big deal to me either way, but if you care to explain what the possible hazards of believing that concept is, I will consider your view.
OM, if you believe vee pee's teachings, then you know that the Bible has to fit like a hand in a glove with a mathmatical exactness and a scientific precision. That alone would mean that getting the administrations correct is important, wouldn't it? ;)-->
Also, the way TWI teaches the administrations it's convenient for them to throw out the teachings of Jesus when and where it's convenient for them. That's a big deal in my book. :)-->
Besides that, why WOULDN'T you want to know if what you're believing is correct or not?
Belle, I've mellowed since my twi days and am not out to prove everything from twi is right anymore.
I believe most things, but am open to hearing where it errs, if it does.
I will consider another view, maybe I will believe it, maybe not.
Be that as it may, I believe the teachings on the administrations do not effect my eternal standing with God one way or the other, so it's not a big deal to me at this point.
I do not go out and teach people or talk about the administrations.
I try to stick with the basic stuff. :)-->
But if you want to write that it's not the best to believe that and you give a compelling argument, please do, I will read what you write.
Recommended Posts
Oakspear
You can probably find bible verses to back up a lot of what Wierwille taught, so I guess some of it was correct.
But there are so many areas where Christians disagree, even when there apparently is scripture to back up differing opinions. So, whether a lot of TWI doctrine is "correct" is in the eye of the beholder.
There are also plenty of places where Wierwille (and later Martindale) distorted definitions to make words, and therefore verses, say what they wanted them to say that TWI doctrine becomes an overgrown mess that takes more than a cursory "working of the Word" to untangle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Keeping the baby and throwing out the bathwater, as they say.
Keeping the gold from Egypt, as they say.
I think some of the offshoots are doing an admirable job (much better than twi is) of holding fast to the good doctrine and practice without all the negative baggage of twi.
I also consider some of the good doctrine some of the most controversial elements of Christianity, like manifestations of the spirit, JCING, ATDAN, etc., some things that are certainly at least food for thought to the readers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Food that was digested centuries ago and left in a latrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I think that the *good doctrine* taught should be *love God* and *love your neighbor*
Jesus said that THESE were the two biggies....
This renders the *controversial elements of christianity* relatively unimportant .....
If offshoots are teaching and praticing these two commandments...jcing, atdan and all the rest is simply window dressing imo....
NOT adhereing to these is what I think led to the incapacitaion of twi as a Godly ministry.
We studied our fool heads off to *show ourselves aproved*
We sit nearly constantly...tithed ...witnessed....committed our entire lives and resources to God ....and it all meant SQUAT (or tinkling symbol if you will) because we did not understand or operate the first two commandments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Of course, what is a "good" doctrine and a "bad" doctrine depends entirely on who's
defining it.
Which is "baby" and which is "bathwater" depends entirely on who's defining it.
This is a repeat of the last sentence with a cliche added.
Which is the "gold" and which...didn't I say this already?
Perhaps. Some of them seem to have a higher moral standard than vpw did. Then again,so did vpw in the early days-perhaps they are just brilliant in covering their tracks.
I find that some of them have some pretty good doctrine. Of course, I can say the same of
many, many, many Christian organizations out there, and I have in many cases.
Further, we all know that the difference between an organization that has
BRILLIANT doctrine
and an organization that has
AWFUL doctrine
depends entirely on what percentage of their doctrine matches that of the speaker.
Right. That's YOUR definition, and that of other people, but what if you're wrong?
Then the "good doctrine" is good in spite of being error.
If they are used as "food for thought", I heartily agree. I think it's a good idea to have
thought and discussion on each of these topics. I also think it's a good idea to have
thought and discussion on ALL topics, ESPECIALLY "sacred cows".
IF, however, the doctrine is just dropped in people's laps and discussion and dissent are
SQUASHED -which has happened to many Christians in history and continues through today,
including even those who are most controversial-
then it is nothing more than ANOTHER set of sacred cows,
and just another church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Perhaps. But in other ways, this may be like opening old wounds.
In a lot of ways, I think the old victster started a good fight, and left us to fend for ourselves. He seemingly was isolated in his marble castle, while the rest of us were "facing the music" out in the real world..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Besides, I saw lots of folks who walked in love. Even I did every now and then.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I think that is what made twi doctrine so wrong and dangerous....
We thought that because we studied more than anybody else...
because we prayed more than anybody else...
because we witnessed..
because we were committed ...
we were more spiritual than everybody else...
I am saying that we THOUGHT we were doing what was necessary to be spiritual and pleasing to God.... but in reality what we REALLY needed to be focusing on was operating the two great commandments....as a result, we ended up as a very ungodly organization
All of the things we did ...because we didn`t understand love ... (it was as a tinkling symbol) ended up being detrimental ....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I didn't choose any of the options listed.
In my opinion, Wierwille inadvertantly lifted a few things that were right, mostly regarding the truth that the gift received on the Day of Pentecost WAS the Holy Spirit, though not everything Wierwille taught about that Spirit was accurate.
The vast majority of things he taught were demonstrably inaccurate. Wierwille's "man = body + soul + spirit" anthropology directly contradicts Genesis 2:7. Everything he taught based on that anthropology, including Wierwille's definition of "salvation", was wrong.
Everything Wierwille taught about "administrations" was wrong, as were the many inferences and conclusions based on that particular error.
But... everything Wierwille taught... both good and evil... was TAINTED by the arrogance ("highmindedness") of Romans 11:20, an arrogance that Paul contrasted with fear of the Lord.
I think Wierwille's arrogance may be what rascal perceived when she wrote "I think that is what made twi doctrine so wrong and so dangerous..." He wasn't just arrogant himself, he taught US to be arrogant as well.
Wierwille taught that fear is always wrong, but the Word of God says that fear of the Lord is the beginning of both knowledge and wisdom. Why should that be so?
Why is the heart deceitful above all things?
and Everything that comes out of a person's own heart seems right to that person. Every intention in a person's heart seems innocent to that person. No person can judge the contents of his own heart without an objective standard.What can we use as an objective standard when we ponder our own hearts?
The living Word is the critic of the thoughts and intents of our hearts. The Lord ponders our hearts. The Lord weighs our spirits. And He will gladly help us clean them out if we are humble enough to accept His critique.But... what could possibly motivate a person to submit the contents of his heart... the things that seem so right... the things that seem so clean... the things that seem so innocent... to anybody else's criticism?
How about fear? Don't we accept criticism from those we fear? The problem with not fearing God is that we won't accept His reproof and correction.
Wierwille was so arrogant, he magnified his own interpretations above what was actually written in the Word of God. His arrogance infected EVERYTHING he taught, right or wrong.Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I believe what he taught should stand or fall on its own, regardless of anyone's arrogance, or lack thereof.
Work it, and if it makes sense and works for you, you've got an answer.
If you don't, you don't.
As VP would say, "the return's coming".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
oldies - You wrote, "I believe what he taught should stand or fall on its own, regardless of anyone's arrogance, or lack thereof.Work it, and if it makes sense and works for you, you've got an answer."
Do you still believe what Wierwille taught about "administrations"?
It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't work, when compared with what's actually written in the Bible. Why did it seem to make sense when Wierwille taught it in PFAL? Could it have been the confidence he displayed while teaching lies? If that isn't arrogance, what is?
Why did it seem to make sense to ME, when I used to teach it? It seemed in my heart to be right.
How many of the things you learned in PFAL, oldies, still seem in your heart to be right? Does that mean they really ARE right?
Were the things Wierwille taught about "man = body + soul + spirit" really right?
How are you going to know if you're standing on a rock or quicksand, if you don't re-examine everything in detail that you were taught in PFAL. Why should you re-examine what Wierwille taught if, like Barry Goldwater, you know in your heart he's right?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
In my opinion, he did this because he could document enough of what he was teaching, especially when it differed from what the mainstream churches were teaching. Most of us were then so incensed at the "lies" of the churches that we grew up in, and dazzled by Vic's seeming proficiency with the bible, that we stopped checking for ourselves and accepted what Wierwille taught us, even when it didn't make sense. We convinced ourselves to "hold it in abeyance", sure that Wierwille had the answers and we were missing it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I do still believe it but I guess it hasn't been a big deal to me either way, but if you care to explain what the possible hazards of believing that concept is, I will consider your view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
OM, if you believe vee pee's teachings, then you know that the Bible has to fit like a hand in a glove with a mathmatical exactness and a scientific precision. That alone would mean that getting the administrations correct is important, wouldn't it?
;)-->
Also, the way TWI teaches the administrations it's convenient for them to throw out the teachings of Jesus when and where it's convenient for them. That's a big deal in my book.
:)-->
Besides that, why WOULDN'T you want to know if what you're believing is correct or not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Belle, I've mellowed since my twi days and am not out to prove everything from twi is right anymore.
I believe most things, but am open to hearing where it errs, if it does.
I will consider another view, maybe I will believe it, maybe not.
Be that as it may, I believe the teachings on the administrations do not effect my eternal standing with God one way or the other, so it's not a big deal to me at this point.
I do not go out and teach people or talk about the administrations.
I try to stick with the basic stuff.
:)-->
But if you want to write that it's not the best to believe that and you give a compelling argument, please do, I will read what you write.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
think fish
correct?
is not a tree known by its fruits?
based on that i'd have to say ......
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually,
in the Doctrinal forum, we've discussed Covenant theology
verses Dispensationalism before.
I've found both sides made some good points.
If you guys want to cover it again, feel free.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Was TWI doctrine correct?
No.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
In a sense, I think the question is kind of like the cold fusion issue.
The two "hucksters" backed up their claims with ENOUGH scientific mumbo jumbo to fool the world- for a while.
In a way, I think a lot of the "ingredients" to the product called der vey were often valid and truthful.
Just the product as a whole, stunk..
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.