I'm sorry. That didn't come across the way I meant it. I appreciate what you're sharing and that you've joined the discussion. :) I'm just surprised since they are so vocal in other areas. It does seem that CES supporters are becoming fewer, which, I suppose, is a message in and of itself.
I am so enchanted with the LDS thread (THANKS mark )
I decided I wanted to start this one
Just exactly how does CES differ from TWI (aside from the obvious)
Well, let's see: When I sent a note saying that I would no longer be giving, I was actually six months behind on planned partnership plan payments. I asked how much I owed, and the reply I got was "you don't owe anything." I had to ask a second time to get a number. Still haven't sent the money, and haven't been asked for it. (Shame on me).
STFI does not accept the law of believing as taught in TWI.
STFI believes tongues with interpretation is addressed to God, while prophecy is addressed to men.
STFI teaches that all believers end up in a paradise on earth, not "heaven."
They also have a list of a bunch of areas of disagreement.
STFI is okay with praying to Jesus.
On the major issues, there's no difference from TWI: Jesus Christ is not God; the holy spirit is not a third person in a Trinity; it's nine manifestations, not gifts; the dead are dead until the return of Christ; the administration of grace ends in a gathering together (rapture) that ushers in the events of Revelation (which the current church does not live through)...
Are their any doctrines that CES has removed
Tithing would be the big ticket item. STFI believes the the tithe was never intended for all of Israel, or any of the church (the idea being that if you WANT to give 10 percent, that's just dandy, but if you want to give more or less, that's just as dandy).
Does CES share TWI beliefs on the Nature of Jesus
Yes.
On the gifts of the spirit etc.
Yes.
Is CES just TWI without the old leadership or has it evolved into a sect of it's own
That's hard to answer. It is trying to be a sect of its own, to the extent of finally admitting it is a "church" or "religion" in the legal sense.
I probably have more questions but this will do for starters
STFI believes tongues with interpretation is addressed to God, while prophecy is addressed to men
Since they came from TWI, how do they reconcile this with the way it was done in TWI? Do they say they were faking it in TWI? Doesn't this kind of bring up a lot of doubts about SIT in general?
David, I wanted to clarify....my apology is meant for you as well. I'm very sorry that my comments came across so crass and harsh. I'm embarrassed and wish I could delete them.
Since they came from TWI, how do they reconcile this with the way it was done in TWI? Do they say they were faking it in TWI? Doesn't this kind of bring up a lot of doubts about SIT in general?
Belle,
The explanation was that one of two things happened: either the interpretation was altered by the speaker to conform to what he thought it should sound like, or it was a word of prophecy and not an interpretation.
How'd that go over? How did people take that? I'm just amazed....stunned...it's such a drastic change. Not that I agree or disagree, but I'm interested in how the information was received.
I wonder who decided that this was the way it was supposed to be and how they felt when they started putting it together.... Kind of like us when we came to the realization on different things we were taught in TWI being wrong too, I guess...
I don't know if I can express myself well here, but I will try.
I have found the "doctrinal" stuff put out by CES, to be quite a bit different from TWI, especially in attitude and practical application.
One of the biggest differences is that TWI promulgated the "health, wealth, prosperity" gospel of 20th century Amercia. Lakewood Church, here in Houston, where Joel Osteen is pastor, is an example of a group that is immersed in this doctrine.
CES is far removed from that philosophy of Chrisitanity. Their teachings on suffering and why bad things happen to good people, illustrate that point.
As far as the differing doctrines from TWI goes....this can get complicated. There were always problems with certain doctrines of PFAL, which some? many? people were aware of. The speaking in tongues with interpretation, the law of believing, tithing, prophecy, adultery in any situation being sin, personal relationships are a few examples of that. The list can get very long, if I take the time to really sit down and think about it. (But I get tired of going back there, if you know what I mean.) ;)
Those of us who were connected with CES from the beginning were very eager to correct the teaching on these subjects. That's what the founders of CES, who were primarily teachers, started out doing immediately. Other things just kinda evolved over time, as people were exposed to the broader Christian world of dogma and doctrine.
Just about everybody I know/knew who was associated with CES, at least back in the day, was very dissatisfied with TWI. (And that's the understatement of the century.)
So people were very willing to seperate themselves doctrinally from the cult. Does this make sense? :unsure:
But I guess the perspective of how different the doctrine is would, in part at least, be influenced by how heavily involved with it (PFAL and its progeny) one was in TWI.
Of course, this is only my perspective and experience. Somebody else's mileage may vary. :B)
I remember when I first got involved with CES about 10-11 years ago, and have 'learned' that tongues w/ interpretation was prayer and praise to God rather than a message to the people, and thus my interpretation started sounding accordingly.
... Which I later thought was rather strange. I mean, if its from God, or inspired by the spirit, wouldn't it be more or less according to how it should be in any event? :unsure:
Later on still, I phased all of that out of my life as I learned more about the psychological roots of glossalalia (sp?), the speaking in tongues and all that, and how it really wasn't proof in the senses world of any spirit inside you. We just believed that way.
I guess the biggest thing for me is, that Jesus said we as Chrisitans will be known by our love for one another. Not our almighty doctrine.
I had/have alot of trouble with the "gnosticism" that permeated TWI. By that I mean the idea that "right doctrine" ie "knowledge" trumps all. Jesus Christ NEVER put "doctrine" before ministering to people, and giving freely of himself.
People were attracted to Jesus because of love, kindness, compassion, wisdom, strength, and other such traits of God's character that he personified.
Yeah, doctrine is a factor, but not the only one. At least for me. I hate arguing doctrine with people. What's the freaking point? After all, it's really true, people don't care how much you know, til they know how much you care.
I was somewhat involved with CES close to the beginning. Well, with John Lynn anyways as he made the rounds in the 'aftermath'. He presented some great material and it really helped me put TWI in perspective.
I dropped out of everything for a while but tried jumping back in a few years ago as CES had a local fellowship. That might have been about the time they starting formally expanding beyond their educational roots. But they started in on that personal prophecy stuff and that was it for me.
Love both the Johns though. I think they tried to do it right. Well, as right as you can when you're trying to define doctrine from an equivocal source.
ex10, I completely agree with you on the doctrinal aspect of things being of so little importance in the whole scheme of things. I enjoy being able to come on here and toss ideas around, see other viewponts and whatnot, but for me - it all boils down to the two things Jesus said - Love God and Love your neighbor - I think if we're doing that, then that really takes care of everything else.
I remember being crushed to find out that I had been taught things incorrectly and that I had believed so much b.s. It was heart wrenching to say the least. That's why I wondered about the SIT change. I always thought it was fake and that most everyone was faking it just like I was.
I agree with Garth in that, if it really IS from God, then we wouldn't necessarily need to be taught it....and we sure as heck wouldn't have gotten it so "wrong". :huh:
The explanation was that one of two things happened: either the interpretation was altered by the speaker to conform to what he thought it should sound like, or it was a word of prophecy and not an interpretation.
I'm just curious...
Would it be possible for anyone here to elaborate a little bit on this?
Yeah, JJ. Honestly, if I/we (husband, family included) didn't have relationships with the Johns and Mark that have spanned a couple of decades, I don't know if we'd be invovled.
John Lynn especially has been a faithful friend for many years. He has had his share of trials and tribulations, but has always offered kind words and encouragement. He has always made time for us, no matter what was going on his life. I appreciate that hand of friendship very much.
When my dad was very ill, and close to dying, John took the time to see him and pray with him. That especially was meaningful and comforting to my mom and my family.
Those acts of kindness and consideration have much impact, ya know?
Tom, you can go to the website, Truth or Tradition.com and do a search. Then you can hear the teaching from the horse's mouth, rather than second hand, from moi.
By the time CES started teaching it they way the do now, I had already come to the same conclusion as they did, "coincidentally."
So I can't really speak to the question, as I had already "changed my mind" on the whole topic. That same process occurred for me and my husband on many things. As we were learning and changing our minds about many subjects, seems the guys in CES were coming to some of the same conclusions we were, but by different means.
We just went to church and started broadening our Christian horizons. I love to read, so started reading tons of books by Chrisitan authors on scads of different topics. And realized that alot of my waybrained way of thinking needed to go. I guess you could say I unrenewed my mind.
... it all boils down to the two things Jesus said - Love God and Love your neighbor - I think if we're doing that, then that really takes care of everything else. ...
I don't know. Hosea 4:6 says "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge"
When I was a young lad, maybe there was some love in the church of my youth, but certainly the knowledge I was assimilating just wasn't cutting it.
I made sure I had my scapula on to be hopeful Mary'd pray for me.
No guarantees of being God's child or even entering the kingdom.
The explanation was that because we were taught wrong, our minds interfered with the interpretation, or discarded the interpretation outright, or that because we expected the interpretation to sound like a word of prophecy, a word of prophecy is what we brought forth. The SIT was still prayer and praise, but when it came time to interpret, we prophesied.
In my opinion, it isn't that hard to change an interpretation of tongues from the first person to the third person, without changing the "gist" of it.
I can say something in the first person, as in telling a story, as an example, and to change it to third person instead, doesn't neccessarily change the essence of it.
My opinion, but I think that's what happened often with the interpretation of tongues.
I was in church once, and someone spoke in tongues in French, who didn't know it. Now my French isn't fluent by any means, but I was able to get the basic message.
Once hubby was at a big meeting with the Way in Chicago. He spoke in tongues and interpretted. Turns out some of the way guys studying Aramaic at the University of Chicago were in attendance, along with some of their fellow students. Maybe even a prof was there, I can't remember. Research Geek was there, too, and I remember talking with him about it on Waydale.
After the meeting hubby says all these guys stopped him and started quizzing him about his "tongue." Turns out, according to them, that he had spoken "perfect" Aramaic, pronunciation and gutteral sounds, etc. and the "interpretation" was close to what he had spoken.
Husband grew up speaking German, as well as English, so the gutteral sounds and such are second nature to him. Go figure.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
7
16
12
Popular Days
Apr 7
20
Apr 8
11
Apr 6
10
Apr 18
9
Top Posters In This Topic
ex10 16 posts
Belle 7 posts
dmiller 16 posts
allan w. 12 posts
Popular Days
Apr 7 2006
20 posts
Apr 8 2006
11 posts
Apr 6 2006
10 posts
Apr 18 2006
9 posts
ex10
Uh, Belle, maybe me an David are as good as it gets.
And obviously neither one of us feels like "going there" with doctrine.
Honestly, if there are CES supporters in these parts, I don't know who they are. :unsure:
Not that it matters...........It's not like anybody is obligated to post or anything?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Not at all, ex10!
I'm sorry. That didn't come across the way I meant it. I appreciate what you're sharing and that you've joined the discussion. :) I'm just surprised since they are so vocal in other areas. It does seem that CES supporters are becoming fewer, which, I suppose, is a message in and of itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I said I'd see you there. I didn't say I'd be there!
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Since they came from TWI, how do they reconcile this with the way it was done in TWI? Do they say they were faking it in TWI? Doesn't this kind of bring up a lot of doubts about SIT in general?
David, I wanted to clarify....my apology is meant for you as well. I'm very sorry that my comments came across so crass and harsh. I'm embarrassed and wish I could delete them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved All
I love and all as does God
I love the CES but I do not kept up with it these days
I got the tapes for a while but only listen to a few I gave to them some
but I more find myself on the outside because my personal beliefs change more and more these days as I grow in truth
So to set guide lines would be a thing I could never live with unless there was only two
1.) Love God first and put God first to my best in every part of my life
2.) is love all other people whether I see them face to face or not and whether they talk good about me or not
I guess that is me but I believe most believes do these two the best they can but churches seem to have many guide lines as did the way
thank you for letting me talk at you my dear friends
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Yes Belle...reading between the lines you want some arguing, not dialogue.
Are you bored with VP bashing for the time being ?
OOps..just remembered...you have me on ignore so you won't see this reply !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Belle,
The explanation was that one of two things happened: either the interpretation was altered by the speaker to conform to what he thought it should sound like, or it was a word of prophecy and not an interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Thank you Raf :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thanks, Raf. :)
How'd that go over? How did people take that? I'm just amazed....stunned...it's such a drastic change. Not that I agree or disagree, but I'm interested in how the information was received.
I wonder who decided that this was the way it was supposed to be and how they felt when they started putting it together.... Kind of like us when we came to the realization on different things we were taught in TWI being wrong too, I guess...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
And that we all will be living with God Himself, and Jesus, in the New Jerusalem, God's City.
We will be able to see God Himself, somehow. (Rev. 21:3)
I think that's so cool. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Belle,
I don't know if I can express myself well here, but I will try.
I have found the "doctrinal" stuff put out by CES, to be quite a bit different from TWI, especially in attitude and practical application.
One of the biggest differences is that TWI promulgated the "health, wealth, prosperity" gospel of 20th century Amercia. Lakewood Church, here in Houston, where Joel Osteen is pastor, is an example of a group that is immersed in this doctrine.
CES is far removed from that philosophy of Chrisitanity. Their teachings on suffering and why bad things happen to good people, illustrate that point.
As far as the differing doctrines from TWI goes....this can get complicated. There were always problems with certain doctrines of PFAL, which some? many? people were aware of. The speaking in tongues with interpretation, the law of believing, tithing, prophecy, adultery in any situation being sin, personal relationships are a few examples of that. The list can get very long, if I take the time to really sit down and think about it. (But I get tired of going back there, if you know what I mean.) ;)
Those of us who were connected with CES from the beginning were very eager to correct the teaching on these subjects. That's what the founders of CES, who were primarily teachers, started out doing immediately. Other things just kinda evolved over time, as people were exposed to the broader Christian world of dogma and doctrine.
Just about everybody I know/knew who was associated with CES, at least back in the day, was very dissatisfied with TWI. (And that's the understatement of the century.)
So people were very willing to seperate themselves doctrinally from the cult. Does this make sense? :unsure:
But I guess the perspective of how different the doctrine is would, in part at least, be influenced by how heavily involved with it (PFAL and its progeny) one was in TWI.
Of course, this is only my perspective and experience. Somebody else's mileage may vary. :B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I wasn't around when it was first taught, Belle, so I can't answer your question. I thought it was fascinating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I remember when I first got involved with CES about 10-11 years ago, and have 'learned' that tongues w/ interpretation was prayer and praise to God rather than a message to the people, and thus my interpretation started sounding accordingly.
... Which I later thought was rather strange. I mean, if its from God, or inspired by the spirit, wouldn't it be more or less according to how it should be in any event? :unsure:
Later on still, I phased all of that out of my life as I learned more about the psychological roots of glossalalia (sp?), the speaking in tongues and all that, and how it really wasn't proof in the senses world of any spirit inside you. We just believed that way.
IMNSHO. YMMV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
I guess the biggest thing for me is, that Jesus said we as Chrisitans will be known by our love for one another. Not our almighty doctrine.
I had/have alot of trouble with the "gnosticism" that permeated TWI. By that I mean the idea that "right doctrine" ie "knowledge" trumps all. Jesus Christ NEVER put "doctrine" before ministering to people, and giving freely of himself.
People were attracted to Jesus because of love, kindness, compassion, wisdom, strength, and other such traits of God's character that he personified.
Yeah, doctrine is a factor, but not the only one. At least for me. I hate arguing doctrine with people. What's the freaking point? After all, it's really true, people don't care how much you know, til they know how much you care.
Hope this helps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
I was somewhat involved with CES close to the beginning. Well, with John Lynn anyways as he made the rounds in the 'aftermath'. He presented some great material and it really helped me put TWI in perspective.
I dropped out of everything for a while but tried jumping back in a few years ago as CES had a local fellowship. That might have been about the time they starting formally expanding beyond their educational roots. But they started in on that personal prophecy stuff and that was it for me.
Love both the Johns though. I think they tried to do it right. Well, as right as you can when you're trying to define doctrine from an equivocal source.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thank you all. :)
ex10, I completely agree with you on the doctrinal aspect of things being of so little importance in the whole scheme of things. I enjoy being able to come on here and toss ideas around, see other viewponts and whatnot, but for me - it all boils down to the two things Jesus said - Love God and Love your neighbor - I think if we're doing that, then that really takes care of everything else.
I remember being crushed to find out that I had been taught things incorrectly and that I had believed so much b.s. It was heart wrenching to say the least. That's why I wondered about the SIT change. I always thought it was fake and that most everyone was faking it just like I was.
I agree with Garth in that, if it really IS from God, then we wouldn't necessarily need to be taught it....and we sure as heck wouldn't have gotten it so "wrong". :huh:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I'm just curious...
Would it be possible for anyone here to elaborate a little bit on this?
How did they explain the change?
Thanks for your input.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Yeah, JJ. Honestly, if I/we (husband, family included) didn't have relationships with the Johns and Mark that have spanned a couple of decades, I don't know if we'd be invovled.
John Lynn especially has been a faithful friend for many years. He has had his share of trials and tribulations, but has always offered kind words and encouragement. He has always made time for us, no matter what was going on his life. I appreciate that hand of friendship very much.
When my dad was very ill, and close to dying, John took the time to see him and pray with him. That especially was meaningful and comforting to my mom and my family.
Those acts of kindness and consideration have much impact, ya know?
Tom, you can go to the website, Truth or Tradition.com and do a search. Then you can hear the teaching from the horse's mouth, rather than second hand, from moi.
By the time CES started teaching it they way the do now, I had already come to the same conclusion as they did, "coincidentally."
So I can't really speak to the question, as I had already "changed my mind" on the whole topic. That same process occurred for me and my husband on many things. As we were learning and changing our minds about many subjects, seems the guys in CES were coming to some of the same conclusions we were, but by different means.
We just went to church and started broadening our Christian horizons. I love to read, so started reading tons of books by Chrisitan authors on scads of different topics. And realized that alot of my waybrained way of thinking needed to go. I guess you could say I unrenewed my mind.
Edited by ex10Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I don't know. Hosea 4:6 says "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge"
When I was a young lad, maybe there was some love in the church of my youth, but certainly the knowledge I was assimilating just wasn't cutting it.
I made sure I had my scapula on to be hopeful Mary'd pray for me.
No guarantees of being God's child or even entering the kingdom.
Some of you know the drill.
Ex10, I second your thoughts about John Lynn...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Thanks... I'll take a look.
(but if anyone wants to post a synopsis I'll "listen") :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The explanation was that because we were taught wrong, our minds interfered with the interpretation, or discarded the interpretation outright, or that because we expected the interpretation to sound like a word of prophecy, a word of prophecy is what we brought forth. The SIT was still prayer and praise, but when it came time to interpret, we prophesied.
That was the explanation, anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I wonder how that fits with Alan's hearing "recognizable" tongues during manifestations?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
In my opinion, it isn't that hard to change an interpretation of tongues from the first person to the third person, without changing the "gist" of it.
I can say something in the first person, as in telling a story, as an example, and to change it to third person instead, doesn't neccessarily change the essence of it.
My opinion, but I think that's what happened often with the interpretation of tongues.
I was in church once, and someone spoke in tongues in French, who didn't know it. Now my French isn't fluent by any means, but I was able to get the basic message.
Once hubby was at a big meeting with the Way in Chicago. He spoke in tongues and interpretted. Turns out some of the way guys studying Aramaic at the University of Chicago were in attendance, along with some of their fellow students. Maybe even a prof was there, I can't remember. Research Geek was there, too, and I remember talking with him about it on Waydale.
After the meeting hubby says all these guys stopped him and started quizzing him about his "tongue." Turns out, according to them, that he had spoken "perfect" Aramaic, pronunciation and gutteral sounds, etc. and the "interpretation" was close to what he had spoken.
Husband grew up speaking German, as well as English, so the gutteral sounds and such are second nature to him. Go figure.
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.