The Way. It Was.

[John Lynn]

The Way. It was.By John A. LynnIn the interest of truth, both small “t” (the facts about The Way International) and capital “T” (the Word of God it taught), I am compelled to propose why I think The Way International was (past tense), from a certain perspective, one of the most significant movements in the history of the Christian Church. I do so for the benefit of any graduate of the “Power For Abundant Living” class who still wants to live for the Lord and who may have been unduly discouraged, either by his/her own experience in The Way or by the ensuing barrage of negatives from other ex-Way saints about what was wrong with The Way.Given that I was one of the top ministry leaders from 1967-1987, I speak with experiential knowledge. Furthermore, I have spent the past 21 years continuing to dig into the Word of God along with knowledgeable Christians, and, in the process, re-evaluating everything we were taught. I speak with great thankfulness for the truth I heard in The Way (hereinafter TWI), with no doubt that God led me to it, and then away from it. And though I left with some wounds, I also took with me the resources I had been given that enabled me to be healed from those wounds and help others do likewise.I speak so that you can know “the rest of the story,” as opposed to all the disparaging things that have been said about The Way through the years by the media (much of that false), other Christians (much of that false), and disgruntled former followers (much of that true, some of it false). My purpose is to set forth a much more redemptive view of The Way than what I have thus far read from others with “ex-Way vision.” In some ways, this is a sequel to my March, 1988 letter in which I blew the whistle about what was then going on in TWI. (http://www.swiftlynx.com/beyondTheWayInternational/)Yes, there was more doctrinal error than I ever realized while I was in TWI, and there was corresponding practical error that became more evil than most of us involved ever imagined. Yes, many precious people were terribly abused. Yes, there was dishonesty about Scripture, there was plagiarism, and there was rampant sexual sin, all of which contributed to many people choosing to turn away from God and His Word. And as I realized these things, I did speak out about them, both publicly and privately, from 1987 until about 2000, after which TWI had marginalized itself in Christendom.Perhaps worst of all, a golden opportunity to make known the Word of God, as it had not been known since the first century, was squandered. I will elaborate upon why that is true from a doctrinal standpoint, but when else in the history of the Christian Church has there ever been such a cadre of thousands of young, energetic, enthused, biblically knowledgeable, logistically equipped, organizationally backed, diverse, multi-lingual, mobile, available, and committed-to-“It-is-written” men and women with leadership qualities who were willing to go anywhere and spread the Word? Certainly not often in the past 2000 years. Thank God that many of these students of the Word became teachers themselves, and were thus able to recognize the errors that crept into TWI.The Way. It was. What was it? First and foremost, it was, from about 1955-1987, the only place I know of where anyone could hear the amount of truth of the Word of God that we heard. Why? In large part because God led Victor Paul Wierwille to the work of E.W. Bullinger, whose approach to Scripture was virtually unique. That is what allowed Wierwille, and thus TWI to an even greater degree, thanks to the quality men and women with research ability whom it attracted, to put the Word together like it had not been known since the first century Church.The sad thing was that I, and many others, became too proud of our knowledge, and failed to couple it with enough of a humble, heartfelt desire to obey God and become like Jesus Christ. We became too arrogant toward other Christians, thinking that our study of truth somehow made us more “approved before God” than they. To a degree, we became more like hearers of the Word than doers, and often deceived our selves. BUT, the antidote to that is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, because without knowledge of truth there can be little practice of it.Why did God have a need for The Way International? Actually, He didn’t. But He did have a need for any group of people who would make known what, or close to what, the Apostle Paul taught once the whole of what we now read in the Church Epistles had been unfolded to him. Why was there such a need? Because true Christian doctrine had all but disappeared from the spectrum of Church history by the 4th century. It was then that the Roman Catholic Church began based upon a bunch of fables mixed with Christian verbiage, established a monolithic ecclesiastical hierarchy, and for more than a thousand years dominated the European religious landscape, killing countless dissenters and for the most part silencing the rest.When Martin Luther came along (1517 was when he nailed his 95 Theses on the church door at Wittenburg), thank God he did recognize justification by faith rather than by works, but what we today refer to as the “Reformation” of the Roman Catholic Church was very limited in scope. Much of the Roman Catholic doctrine was assimilated into Protestantism and is still being passed along as Christian groups continue to split off from one another. In a nutshell, that is why even the independent church in your neighborhood today most probably believes that there is a Trinity, dead people are alive, God is in control of everything that happens, the Four Gospels are written to Christians, water baptism is relevant, and maybe even that the Bible is not absolute truth.I don’t know where else we could have heard the “package” of biblical truth we heard in TWI. Admittedly, most of the major doctrinal components of that package were being taught by some Christians, with varying degrees of accuracy, but none that I know of put together as many into a package as TWI did. Let’s begin with what I mentioned about E.W. Bullinger’s contribution to TWI, which was HUGE, because his basic approach to Scripture is what facilitates one being able to discover its inherent keys and utilize them to derive the Author’s originally intended meaning.TWI taught us to approach the Word with the “It is written” conviction that it is what it says it is, and that it cannot contradict itself. That alone is enough to at least identify error about the Bible, and the keys to the Word’s interpretation we were taught enabled us to understand it, take its truth into our hearts, and apply it on a daily basis.Given that the identity of Jesus Christ is the world’s biggest deal, I would have to say that chief among the wonderful biblical truths we heard in TWI was that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (not God), the Man who mediates between God and men, and that the Trinity is a pagan fable. Some ex-Way saints now say this distinction is not that important, but I assert that God thinks differently, given what He says in His Word (e.g., 2 Cor. 4:3 and 4). Yes, TWI failed to teach us that we can have an intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus, but there were not too many other places where we could have heard that Jesus is not the “eternally begotten” Second Person of the Trinity.I’d have to say that the next most important biblical truth we heard in TWI was what we then called the “Mystery,” and, correspondingly, what parts of Scripture are written to Jews, to Gentiles, or to Christians regarding either the past, the present, or the future. For the record, we have since learned that “Sacred Secret” is a more accurate way of rendering the Greek, musterion.Ephesians is the apex of the Church Epistles (the primary curriculum for Christian living), and it clearly shows that the Body of Christ (the “one new man” of Chapter 2, verse 15) is the most unique group of people who have ever lived, chiefly because of the permanence of our salvation and our holy spirit equipping. 1 Corinthians 2:8 chimes in with the monumental (and generally overlooked) truth that had Satan known the Sacred Secret, he would not have crucified Jesus!In terms of biblical error that is practically debilitating to one’s quality of life, I see nothing more important than knowing what Scripture is written to whom, when, and in particular what is written to us as Christians today. The Church’s failure to understand this central truth has led to its trying to live in accordance with directives pertaining to other people at other times. It is only in the Church Epistles that a Christian finds his true identity “in Christ,” as well as his true Hope. Simply put, the Word of God will never fit together without contradiction if one does not understand the “administrations” therein, and in particular this current “administration of the Sacred Secret” (Eph. 3:9).Yes, there are quite a few Christians who have a “Dispensational” view of Scripture, but the vast majority of them fail to grasp that Jesus is not God and that he did not know the Sacred Secret. Most think that parts of the Four Gospels and the book of Revelation speak of the Christian Church, but that is not the case. The Gospels record the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies about Christ’s first coming to the earth to Israel (his suffering), and Revelation records the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies about his second coming to the earth to Israel (his glory).Another major truth we learned in TWI, which is unknown to most Christians, is that of the Giver and the gift, and, correspondingly, that speaking in tongues is available to all Christians because it is a manifestation of holy spirit, not a gift. We also learned the indispensable truth that speaking in tongues is the only absolute proof that one is saved. How many tens of thousands of people did those truths alone set free?TWI also taught us that death is, in fact, the end of life, and that our true Hope for new life in the coming age is to be raised from the dead and meet the Lord Jesus in the air prior to the Tribulation (the “time of Jacob’s trouble” – Jer.30:7). What percentage of Christians do you think know this? Although TWI failed to teach us that Paradise (the new earth), not heaven, will be our everlasting home, thank God we learned that resurrection is much more than an incorporeal “soul” once again getting a body.And TWI pointed us toward an understanding of the figures of speech in the Bible (thanks to Bullinger), of which little is known in theological circles. This included the figurative language in the Old Testament that helped us see that God is not responsible for evil or suffering, nor is He in control of everything that happens.Like I, you may know of some ministries that do teach some of these truths, but I submit that until 1987 there was nowhere other than TWI to find all of them taught as accurately as they were there. That is why The Way International stands out on the spectrum of Church history as an amazingly significant Christian movement.As far as I can see, TWI was also about the most disparate dichotomy of good and evil in the history of Christianity. Like the wheat and the tares growing up together, tremendous truth and egregious evil shared the ministry platform. Many people look back on their TWI experience with nothing but thankfulness, while others rue their free will choice to stay involved as long as they did because of the abuse they suffered. Some have been stymied by self-condemnation due to the abuses they themselves committed. No doubt there are also many who recognize that they heard the Word like they never had, who have allowed the Lord Jesus to heal any wounds they suffered in TWI, and who have since experienced spiritual growth far beyond what they ever imagined back in “the good old days.”I hope you are in that last category, and if you’re not, you can be. Even if people badly abused and disappointed you, you can turn to the Lord Jesus, he who is The Way to wholeness in all categories of heart and life. His love and truth will heal your heart and help you forgive and move forward with him toward the same goal you once had. You have a ministry in the Body of Christ, and he who is the Head longs to help you fulfill that calling. It was neither your heavenly Father nor your Lord who hurt you, nor does whatever happened to you change anything the Word says. God’s promises are still true, and they are yours for the believing.The Way, we were. If you once sat through PFAL, you heard the Word of God taught more accurately than the vast majority of Christians who have ever drawn breath. As a fellow PFAL grad, I identify with you, and have an affinity for you and a desire to encourage you to take advantage of the truth you once heard, if you are not already doing so. Along with me, you will one day stand before our precious Lord Jesus Christ, who will reward you according to how you have lived your life as a Christian. In essence, he will ask each of us something like this: “What did you do with what you knew?”[For a detailed list of biblical subjects I think TWI mishandled, see the following link: http://www.christianeducational.org/25diffTWI.htmIf you would like to discuss with me about what I have written, please contact me at [e-mail]]

[Wolfgang Schneider]

Dear Dan,

your comments above about what I have written in my previous post indicate to me that you apparently did not understand what I wrote there .... It may well be that I did not express myself as clearly as I thought I had tried to do ....

Furthermore, it seems to me that your interpretation comments on various passages from Pauline epistles reflect something which the verses themselves do not teach .... I have read rather clear passages in NT Scriptures that Jesus is God's Son, and in partiocular I have read what the apostle Paul declared when he wrote of the man Jesus and his Father, God. Nowhere did I read that Jesus was, or during the course of his life had become the true God .... Does Paul not make a distinction between God and Jesus? Where does Paul say that Jesus actually IS that God, whom he (Paul) believes to be Jesus' Father?

As for "controversy", please re-read my post and notice about which "controversy" I was speaking ....

And, please, do not make unfounded or even false accusations .... such as you did above concerning what I wrote (e.g. "whether or not the relationship is "mysterious", I have no doubt, though John and Wolfgang are confident they've figured it out" )

As for continuing to write further in reply to your post, I refrain myself from doing so at this time ....

Cheers,
Wolfgang

[Dan Haas]

I am not a Trinitarian, nevertheless, I consider some Trinitarian believers and writers not only peers, but as mentors among the brethren who, like me, have searched the Scriptures, for in them we think we have eternal life.

John Lynn's condescending answer to Stephen, not merely implying but flatly stating that he has been sold “a bill of goods” in regard to the character of Jesus Christ and his divinity, does not wash with me. My own view is that John Lynn has not only bought a “bill of goods,” but he is now selling it, literally, in the form of a 688-page book he and two others has written.

He writes:

Stephen, Steve, I am disappointed that you did not at all address what I wrote to you in regard to your original emails. Once again, we have a 688 page book that specifically and painstakingly shows from the Word, and from history, why the idea of the "Trinity" (and that Jesus is God) is absolutely and completely absent from the Word of God. It does a far better job than can I here of meticulously expositing [sic] the pertinent verses. I encourage you to at least give it a read.
At the core of the issue is whether or not the Word of God is what it claims to be. Both you Stephens talk about the mysterious things of God, etc., but that is not what God Himself says in His Word. By far the prevailing idea is that found in Deut. 29:29, et al: that which is revealed in the Word is all knowable and understandable to the end that we can apply it! Steve, you referred to Isa. 55:9, but in the context the "thoughts not God's thoughts" are those of the wicked referred to verse 7. The verse has nothing to do with us not being able to understand what God has revealed to us in His Word. I love you guys, but especially you, Stephen, have been sold a bill of goods about the Word being mysterious. We can use the inherent linguistic keys the Author put there for us to use, plus the spirit of God He has given us, to understand every verse in the Bible. The reason the Trinity seems mysterious is because it is nonsense, and its proponents must resort to relegating it to an extra-biblical realm of mystery.
Stephen, rather than go to the Word (where Trinitarian scholars, like many we quote in ONE GOD & ONE LORD, agree that the idea of a Trinity is absent), you talk about Church fathers, etc. Who cares what they thought, if it contradicts what the Word says? The Word of God specifically sets forth who Jesus is, and never does it say he is God. Instead, he clearly says that he is the "son" of God, which at once tells us that he is not God.

Well first, to cite an example, the lord Jesus is called “God” in one New Testament verse, quoting another in the Old Testament, and thereby (at least for me) putting to rest John Lynn's baseless assertion of "not once":

“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” (Heb 1:8-9 AV)

I think that if God calls him God, who am I to call him “not God”? John Lynn obviously disagrees, and reveals his ignorance or disdain of the Scriptures, for he says “it never does say he is God.” Likewise, he speaks of the absence of mystery in regard to the life and ministry of Jesus the Son of God:

“Both you Stephens talk about the mysterious things of God, etc., but that is not what God Himself says in His Word.”

I must disagree, for the writer of the epistle to Titus, ostensibly “the apostle of Jesus Christ,” Paul, writes:

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: i>which was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” (1Ti 3:16 AV)

The first century apostolic writer says “great is the mystery,” and not only that, “without controversy, great is the mystery,” but John Lynn says,

“Both you Stephens talk about the mysterious things of God, etc., but that is not what God Himself says in His Word.”

I am left with what to believe: John Lynn's assertion or Paul's, who says not only that such a things is a “great... mystery” but that such a thing is "without controversy," or JL's assertion that it is not. A God-fearing and bible-believing man, I must go with the apostle Paul.

I think it was Stephen who wrote earlier in this blog that one must bend a number of Scriptures (many) in one's favor to disprove Jesus' divinity. I don't know about the number he cited, but I agree with the assertion. Whether the trinity is the believer's “best” attempt at defining the character and nature of Jesus Christ and his relation to the Father (in the biblical writings, the “godhead”), I do not know. I am willing to continue to cook such things, as Wolfgang says, “under a low flame.” But JL's book, and his assertions on this blog, I can confidently dismiss.

And alas, but Wolfgang, another “anti-trinitarian,” whom I consider as someone who is well-versed in the Scriptures, reverent of them, and normally a model of a person who understands how to engage in discussion of biblical matters in a way that is fruitful and valuable, says the same thing:

You also mention "the element of mystery" being acknowledged by the trinity adherents .... I certainly agree that there are plenty of things concerning God which are a mystery to us ... and the reason for this is simple: God has not revealed them, and thus man cannot know. However, to speak of "mystery" in reference to a doctrine which at the same time claims to be the best attempt at explaining something or telling people what God is, doesn't really sound sound, does it? How can someone claim that God is "a Trinity" and yet revert iwith the next statement to basically saying, we can't really know? If the proponents of such a doctrine were at least honest, they would say from the start, "We really have no idea ... we think .... we suspect .... we have the idea that it perhaps could be .... BUT, in truth, we believe in a God we do not know" ...

It seems to me that some of the controvery I read here between the two points of view concerning "the trinity doctrine" is coming to the forefront because of what people perceive as effects on dealings among Christians ... as such terms like "using the dioctrine as a fence" or "the trinity doctrine isn't harmful" etc indicate to me .... Perhaps it would be a good idea to notice that each individual is responsible before God for what they believe and as such should be given the room and liberty to search for themselves what they desire to believe and how they desire to walk? Each one of us will give account and there won't be any hiding behind "the preacher" or "the church" and their promoted doctrines .....

He acknowledges “controversy” (though he misspells it) where the bible writer says there is none, and makes his case that there is nothing mysterious about which the writer of Titus says is greatly mysterious, “without controversy.” Again, I am left with agreeing with Wolfgang, who says there is no mystery, and Stephen (who contributed to this blog) and Paul, who says there is, “without controversy.”

PS: John Lynn: I wrote you a personal message some time ago, in which I promised not to pester you with contrary posts on your blog. Not only have you not responded to that personal message, you have not responded to my last installment on this blog.

By chiming in here, I realize that I'm not even approaching the major substantive issues of the relationship of God to Jesus Christ, and from the practical end, how we as Christians should relate in reference to Jesus in particular (for apparently we all agree to worship God). I'm only commenting on whether or not these conditions and their corresponding relationships are “mysterious.” On the one hand, the Bible (and Stephen) says they are, while John and Wolfgang say they're not The writer of the book of Titus says, “without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness” (referring to the birth, life, and ministry of Jesus Christ, who is "godliness" personified or incarnated.) Not that this aspect in itself is not substantive, of course.

Nevertheless, I would like to touch on one critical issue beyond that, where, in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul quite plainly takes on idolatry (for which the Corinthians were notable) and says,

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. Howbeit [there is] not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat [it] as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.” (1Co 8:5-7 AV)

It is only in recent years that I have begun to appreciate this. Paul here soundly in the context of idolatry reminds his fellow-Israelites of the Shema, the “fact” (which we curmudgeons of language insist on calling “truth”) of God's preeminence, as articulated in the several first commandments of the “ten commandments” is inserted into the discussion of worship: either of the “true God” or false gods.

Both Wolfgang and John undoubtedly revere the lord Jesus, if one is to take their writings at face value. But Paul here takes audacious liberty to insert the lord Jesus, aligning him with God, in the Shema, in the plain context of the idolatry of the Corinthians. Whether or not the relationship is “mysterious,” I have no doubt, though John and Wolfgang are confident they've figured it out. But in regard to the “lordship” (a form of the word kurios in Greek) of Jesus, Paul quite plainly in my mind aligns this lordship with the Israelite understanding of the Shema, which states that God is one, and thou shalt have no other gods before him.

The “false gods” of the Corinthians are no different from the gods worshiped today, including the gods of “biblical research” practitioners, and sellers of packages of “truth.” John's condescending reply to Stephen belies a hypocrisy borne of an attitude of superior knowledge (having written, with two others, a book 688 pages long, which book's title refers directly to this section of Scripture, along with Ephesians 4:5 and 6) to him.

The relationship of God to Christ, and of Christ and God to man may be, as Peter described (referring to the writings of Paul) hard to be understood, but John and Wolfgang have figured it out. Somehow or other, I cannot agree. My take on it agrees with Stephen and Paul (and many thoughtful Trinitarians). It is mysterious, awesome, and wonderful.

Pamela, I hear you, but should we not be talking about this?

I have no trouble admitting that there are gullible purchasers of theological bills of goods, on both sides of this controversy. Unlike John Lynn, however, I count not Stephen to be among them. He appears to me to be among those who take seriously the Latin warning caveat emptor. It is John Lynn himself that appears to me to be not only a purchaser but now a repackager and reseller, a purveyor, of a theological bill of goods that not only separates the purchaser from the words and commands of the Lord, but casts doubt on the preeminence of his character and nature, only with the classic Madison Avenue hucksterism, "new and improved."

[John Lynn]

Hello out there in Blog Land.
Wolfgang, I appreciated your cogent remarks. Right on, brother.
Stephen, thank you so much for your most kind words about your time with me at Emporia, which touched my heart. Would to God that I actually live up to them! Are you sure we're thinking of the same guy?
Stephen, Steve, I am disappointed that you did not at all address what I wrote to you in regard to your original emails. Once again, we have a 688 page book that specifically and painstakingly shows from the Word, and from history, why the idea of the "Trinity" (and that Jesus is God) is absolutely and completely absent from the Word of God. It does a far better job than can I here of meticulously expositing the pertinent verses. I encourage you to at least give it a read.
At the core of the issue is whether or not the Word of God is what it claims to be. Both you Stephens talk about the mysterious things of God, etc., but that is not what God Himself says in His Word. By far the prevailing idea is that found in Deut. 29:29, et al: that which is revealed in the Word is all knowable and understandable to the end that we can apply it! Steve, you referred to Isa. 55:9, but in the context the "thoughts not God's thoughts" are those of the wicked referred to verse 7. The verse has nothing to do with us not being able to understand what God has revealed to us in His Word. I love you guys, but especially you, Stephen, have been sold a bill of goods about the Word being mysterious. We can use the inherent linguistic keys the Author put there for us to use, plus the spirit of God He has given us, to understand every verse in the Bible. The reason the Trinity seems mysterious is because it is nonsense, and its proponents must resort to relegating it to an extra-biblical realm of mystery.
Stephen, rather than go to the Word (where Trinitarian scholars, like many we quote in ONE GOD & ONE LORD, agree that the idea of a Trinity is absent), you talk about Church fathers, etc. Who cares what they thought, if it contradicts what the Word says? The Word of God specifically sets forth who Jesus is, and never does it say he is God. Instead, he clearly says that he is the "son" of God, which at once tells us that he is not God. Does not everyone understand "son" to mean one who was created by a father, and who did not exist theretofore? End of story.
You say you see no benefit to believe that he is the Son of God and not God, but who can identify with a "god-man"? No one. And the theological ram-a-lam (which we have read) about dual nature, homo-ousion (sp?), etc., etc., in no way proves this insane idea. Btw, Numbers 23:19 does say that God is not a man that He should lie.
I honestly think our book would blow your minds, and I hope you will read it, at least so you will have the whole picture from our perspective.
Pam, my old friend, this is not about whose truth is right, for by definition truth cannot be contradictory. It is about whether we can trust God's written revelation to be what it says it is, and whether we can derive the Author's originally intended meaning.
I love you all--a lot!
John

[Wolfgang Schneider]

Hi Stephen,

thanks for writing back and for your further comments. Since I do not have too much time right now, I only have a short comment to a point you made above

Regarding your questions. I’ll do my best to summarize what little I know. It's a historical fact that the idea that Jesus Christ is not God, that the Son was a created separate being from God, did not exist until Arius began to say so around the turn of the century, 300 A.D. ...

This is by no means a historical fact ... the historical fact is that from early in the 2nd century AD on (or as some church historians think, perhaps even from the time of the latter years of Paul's life and the apostle John's life) doctrines concerning Christ as being more than what the OT Scriptures had prophesied and more than what Jesus himself had proclaimed as well as what his apostles had taught and written began to emerge. The idea of Jesus not being God (nor being part of God, or a person of a "mysterious Godhead"), is the older and historically as well as scripturally documented teaching of the early Christian church, and the ideas of Jesus "somehow" (with various ideas floating around and being propagated at the time) "being God" came into the picture at a later time. Claiming that the idea of "Jesus is not God" (and a living being separate from God) did first show up with Arius and his teachings at about 300 AD is simply l incorrect ... in a sense, the controversy concerning a "Jesus is [somehow] God" doctrine did first reach a wholescale level of controversy when Arius propagated his understanding of Jesus not being God in an attempt to counter the teaching.of certain others who more and more boldy were propagating Jesus as being God.
Church history shows that the trinity doctrine did not even exist until later in the 4th century, because even at the council of Nicea in 325 AD the real issue was not a "trinity Godhead", but rather a "bi-nity" and the question IF Jesus was not "more" than what (until that time had been believed by the majority of Christians ... the promised redeemer and Messiah, who was to be A MAN (not a God-man or a man-God or some other mysterious "double" or else "half-half" natured being) as promised in the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT scriptures) and always believed by the Israelites.

Indeed, there are many things many Christians believe of which they lack a knowledge of the truth ..... but it's NOT really because "it is impossible to have an accurate knowledge of the truth", but rather because they have not (for various reasons) arrived at the knowledge of the truth concerning the matter which is readily available in the Scriptures ... The problem is that unscriptural dogmas are propagated as if they were "Scripture", and people do not search and many times aren't even interested in wanting to know the truth ... a rather sad state of affairs in Christianity today (as well as has been over many centuries).
Yes, there are most certainly plenty of things which we Christians today cannot know, because God has not revealed truths concerning the matter .... There are plenty of things where God has revealed truths, and we lack whatever to learn those truths. However, we should not forget that what God has revealed can and should be known by His people, and do our utmost to search and learn what truths have been revealed and can be known ..... instead of going by "majority opinion" or fall for "fellowship above everything" and thereby violating one's own conscience ....

You speak of the "separation" produced by the "Jesus is not God" doctrine .... my personal experience over many years from (a) what I myself experienced, and (b) what others among my immediate friends experienced has shown that it is the trinity doctrine (!!!) which is divisive and separatist. As I mentioned before, I do not believe in the trinity, I set forth my scriptural reasoning for my belief, but I have not separated myself from trinitarians ... BUT I have been "thrown out" by trinitarians many times! As I mentioned before, I have also experienced being able to even read and stiudy the Scriptures together with Christians who did believe in the trinity ....and I can assure you, I did not deal with them any different than with any other trinitarian Christians ... and yet, in most cases, the moment a matter came up where I admitted to not believing in the trinity doctrine, the trinity folks either immediately or soon afterwards (and without even really investigating my reasoning) separated from me and divided themselves from me.

So then, I would encourage to please take a closer look at who actually is dividing from whom ... As for me and my house, I have experienced quite some adversity from trinitarians, even persecution from so-called "cult reasearch institutes of the Luther church" here in Germany ... all because before my own conscience and God I can not subscribe to the Lutheran church dogma involving the trinity.

I had and have no intention to divide myself from other Christians, and I grant others the liberty to believe what they want to believe according to their conviction which they have arrived at after evaluating information that has come their way .... I would appreciate being given the same room and liberty to believe what I want to believe. instead of being condemned because I do not believe in the trinity and being (falsely !) accused of purposely being divisive and separatist, when in reality the divisive and separatist folks are found on the other side of their own fence (since I did not build a fence!)

Cheers,
Wolfgang

[Stephen Kingsley]

God bless you brother Wolfgang,

Let me make an important clarification. In my response, there were places when I wrote about "you" that was directed at you personally, but rather, as is common, in a general way as in if you (no one in particular) do A, then you have B.

I'm pleased that you are reading the Bible with Trinitarians and have friends and relationships within Trinitarian churches. That's good AND that's exactly the kind of thing that during the Way days (at least here in the U.S.) would have been subjected to reproof from Way leaders. We were at war with the traditional church in many ways. They made false accusations against us and kidnapped our people for deprogramming and we accused them of being idolaters. And the central doctrinal teaching far above all others which was at the heart of that division was Wierwille's in your face stance on Jesus Christ is not God. It's our history as Way Corps leaders, and why we're discussing it here on our brother John's blog commenting on his paper "The Way. It Was."

Regarding your questions. I’ll do my best to summarize what little I know. It's a historical fact that the idea that Jesus Christ is not God, that the Son was a created separate being from God, did not exist until Arius began to say so around the turn of the century, 300 A.D. The writings of the early church fathers up to that point show that they held to the position that Jesus was God, uniquely begotten of God, that He was divine, and that He was fully man, in a body of flesh, yet without sin, and that He died. The fact that the teaching of Arius was rebutted and rejected proves that it was not the commonly held belief before he began to declare it, otherwise there would have been no conflict. So then, since Arius had made it an issue within the church, the early church fathers made moves toward formalizing a definition of the godhead in order to protect "the doctrine of God our Saviour (Titus 2:10)" from any further suggestion that God created someone else, a separate someone, to purchase our salvation. In so far as the Trinity goes, you're right, it was not readily accepted and has been scrutinized every since. It was (and is) an attempt to formalize by definition something which is beyond our ability to know with certainty. That's why it was debated and why many Trinitarian confessing churches and academics yet today are willing to say it's yet a mystery. But the diety of Christ, that He was both God and man was not in question until Arius took issue with it. It may have been better had the early church councils not formulated and approved a doctrine for the godhead, the Trinity, and let the matter stand as the unknowable mystery that for all intents and purposes it seems to be.

Personally, I appreciate the sentiment behind the development of the Trinity doctrine. I understand the idea they were trying to preserve. And at the same time, I understand why the Jesus Christ is not God doctrine came to be and how it is justified: it is a case which can be made and should be at least in deference to the commonly accepted notion (even by Trinitarians) that when Jesus died, God did not die. I’ve studied all the various arguments and positions to the best of my limited ability and my “for what it is worth conclusion” is that it’s a matter God left beyond our ability to know with certainty. Personally, I’m okay with that.

A rhetorical device which is often used in debate is what is called a strawman. It is to misrepresent your opponent’s position and then, having weakened it, knock it down. I can’t recall if Wierwille did this, but many Way teachers (I might have done it myself) did when they would say the Trinity was belief in three gods, not one. That’s not the Trinity, it is tritheism. There is a difference and orthodox Christianity rejects tritheism as a heresy.

There are many things we Christians believe for which it impossible to have “an accurate knowledge of the truth.” We should read, study, and know what can be known, but be comfortable with holding certain things to be true because Scripture says they are, even though they don’t fit in our finite (small and limited) minds. The whole of Scripture presents the godhead with such mystery that it is as if God is saying, “You would not understand this even if I tried to put it into words.” Again, whatever the exact truth may be, the Trinity (in my opinion) is not so far removed from whatever that truth may be as to warrant the kind of war and separation that Wierwille’s absolute position produced.

Again, just my thoughts on “The Way. It Was.”

[gloria Olivier]

Dear John, Robert and I enjoyed reading your letter and thougfht it was well said and true. We can only be thankful for the great body of truth we learned. Unlike many we stayed "much too long at the fair".....(2007) In actuality we had begun to depart earlier, and when we finally saw God was not in a box we went our own way to see what the Father had for us--- and that turned out to be a LOT.. What we have seen is that as you say, many have taught bits of truth--but few so much. Still--It's about our relationship with God and His son--and that we missed. And are catching up on.
Thanks for putting down those thoughts.
love,
Gloria Olivier

[Wolfgang Schneider]

Hi Stephen,

am just now getting to post some further thoughts. To answer your first question, No, I am not saying what you perhaps assume. As for how long the trinity doctrine and associated controversy exists, I already mentioned that in my post above that one can read about it in church history books which mention it as taking place already in the 4th century AD and prior to that when the trinity doctrine was first introduced to Christianity ..... indeed, it has been a divisive factor from its very inception when cerrtain church fathers introduced it into the Christian church .. IF the trinity doctrine had not been introdiuced, there would have been no trinity controversy ...

The "Trinity Christianity" which became prevalent after the various councils of the 4th century AD has been dividing any and all other Christians every since ... long before the rather small and not even really all that influential group of TWI ever came on the scene. Failing to confess adherence to the doctrine of the trinity doctrine caused many Christians who based their belief concerning God and Jesus Christ on the scriptures without church council dogmas to lose their very lives at the hands of trinitarian church authorities throughout centuries ....

Now, before you get all too excited and accuse me as you did in your post above (such as claiming I have built a fence, I have separated myself from others who see it in another way, etc ) you should more carefully read what I have written in my earlier post as well as carefully read what I have written here in this one ....Just to let you know how wrong you are with your assumptions, I have even participated in a "read the bible in one year" group of a trinitarian church, have pastors from trinitarian church as personal friends, have gone to trinitarian church services if it seemed needful in order to minister to others, etc ....

To close, I would appreciate if you could simply and directly answer questions that I asked in my earlier post, instead of veering off in a drection as you have done above which is so heavenly influenced by what was "drilled into my head somewhere along the way in The Way" .... Instead of now trying to make sure to be "opposite to whatever I was taught in TWI" (as if you were thinking, that if you did so, you would now be correct with everything you come up with), it would most likely be better to attempt to concentrate on "the facts.concerning the case". I mentioned some of them above concerning the history of the trinity doctrine and its effects on Christianity ....WITHOUT any of the information having come from TWI ....

I am long past trying to either "defend" or "accuse" TWI .... either of such positions "clouds" one's view and does not help any to gain an accurate knowledge of the truth. Without a knowledge of the truth, one lacks the measure by which our faith and practice must be measured in order to live a life in the fear of the Lord and in godliness.

Cheers,
Wolfgang

[Stephen Kingsley]

Hi Wolfgang across the Atlantic;

Are you saying there wouldn't be any controversy if we weren't discussing it? I think it existed before our brother John claimed the teaching on Jesus Christ is Not God helped make the Way International a significant Christian movement. I think that's a claim worth questioning, especially since this teaching was so fundamentally the one thing that separated "us" from the rest of Christianity. To me, it just doesn't add up to being anything but a very difficult case to make; one that requires a mighty effort; including the bending over a hundred or so scriptures in the direction you want them to go. Even if, after all of that, some buy into your hypothesis, what have you really gained other than your own following? You've built a fence. Another some 'thing' to separate yourself from others who see it in another way. There may be things worth dividing yourself from others who call upon and worship in the name of Jesus, but unless you accept the premise that confessing the Trinity is idolatry, this isn't one of them.

I'll say it again, I'm not so sure the Trinity is an accurate definition of the godhead. And it's not my purpose to try to defend it per say, only to say that there is nothing about it that justifies separation from orthodoxy or perpetuating Wierwille's war with Trinitarians.

I believe in heaven though I've never seen it and can't explain it. I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, but I've never handled or seen his risen flesh. And I believe in God my Savior, just like the apostles taught, and I make that confession knowing there's more to relationship between God and Jesus than can be described by me, or you, or any man. That's okay. That's what makes faith, faith. It's confidence in what isn't yet seen.

Maybe my memory is foggy. But wasn't it oft stated in TWI that people who believed in the Trinity were committing idolatry? It was drilled into my head somewhere along the way in The Way.

Lovingly yours, Stephen

[Wolfgang Schneider]

Hi Stephen,
you claimed above

As I said, the Trinity may not be a perfect expression of the godhead, but it is historic Christianity's best attempt to present what Scripture infers and to preserve the idea that God is our Savior.

From having read a number of church history books and the little there seems to be available concerning the early centuries prior to and during the time of the church councils in the 4th century AD, I would doubt the validity of such a claim. The trinity doctrine was (a) not introduced into the church until some time after the death of the original apostles, (b) when it was introduced, it was highly controversial and not widely accepted, (c) not until after the council of Nicea and the following councils with their adaptations did the doctrine reach some "official status", which then has remained for 16 centuries untouched. But does that mean that the trinity doctrine is "the best attempt to express what Scripture infers and to present the idea that God is our Savior"? Who says that Scripture even infers such a concept as "a trinity Godhead"? Why did the Lord Jesus and his apostles not teach such a doctrine IF it was "the best attempt" to explain that God is our Savior?
Perhaps one ought to be a bit more careful to not fall for "big fat claims" which are presented as if they were "facts"?

In addition, perhaps one should notice that not every one who attends or belongs to a church which officially holds to the trinity doctrine is therefore automatically an idolator? I've come to know quite a number of Christians who actually do not even believe in the trinity doctrine (because they don't even know what it really is!, and just "blab after" what they hear many times) even though they are members in a church which is "trinitarian" according to its creed ....

You also mention "the element of mystery" being acknowledged by the trinity adherents .... I certainly agree that there are plenty of things concerning God which are a mystery to us ... and the reason for this is simple: God has not revealed them, and thus man cannot know. However, to speak of "mystery" in reference to a doctrine which at the same time claims to be the best attempt at explaining something or telling people what God is, doesn't really sound sound, does it? How can someone claim that God is "a Trinity" and yet revert iwith the next statement to basically saying, we can't really know? If the proponents of such a doctrine were at least honest, they would say from the start, "We really have no idea ... we think .... we suspect .... we have the idea that it perhaps could be .... BUT, in truth, we believe in a God we do not know" ...

It seems to me that some of the controvery I read here between the two points of view concerning "the trinity doctrine" is coming to the forefront because of what people perceive as effects on dealings among Christians ... as such terms like "using the dioctrine as a fence" or "the trinity doctrine isn't harmful" etc indicate to me .... Perhaps it would be a good idea to notice that each individual is responsible before God for what they believe and as such should be given the room and liberty to search for themselves what they desire to believe and how they desire to walk? Each one of us will give account and there won't be any hiding behind "the preacher" or "the church" and their promoted doctrines .....

Some early morning musings from across the Atlantic .... have a wonderful day everyone!
God bless you
Wolfgang

[Stephen Kingsley]

Steve Budlong wrote: "I really respect both John Lynn's and Stephen Kingsley's thoughts on the person of Jesus Christ. But I don't have to declare either of them as right."

This is true, and really the thing I'm trying to make a case in favor of. There's more to the godhead than we can know. It seems best to accept every statement of Scripture as true, know what can be known, and not attempt to press beyond God's written revelation. There is nothing to be gained. As I said, the Trinity may not be a perfect expression of the godhead, but it is historic Christianity's best attempt to present what Scripture infers and to preserve the idea that God is our Savior. Even then, for most orthodox Christians, the element of mystery (the unknown) is acknowledged. Concerning something this important, it seems to me to be a safe (and respectful) place to stand.