|
FOUNDER
Feb 2, 2009 20:14:34 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 2, 2009 20:14:34 GMT -5
1) architect - One that plans or devises, 2) author - To assume responsibility for the content , 3) creator - One that creates, 4) entrepreneur - A person who organizes, operates, and assumes the risk, 5) father - To act or serve as a father., 5) inventor - To produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination., 6) maker - One that makes or manufactures., 7) originator - to bring into being; create: , 8) parent - One who begets, gives birth to, or nurtures, 9) patriarch - A man who rules a family, clan, or tribe..
10) finder (n.) One that finds: a finder of great hidden treasure.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 2, 2009 20:15:50 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 2, 2009 20:15:50 GMT -5
Seems to me, since it all was an evolving thing that "originator" is perhaps most appropriate! JMOP
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 2, 2009 20:23:23 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 2, 2009 20:23:23 GMT -5
but all of them mean "founder", which f&w's find objectionable. Give us a list of options for "finder" not "founder".
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 2, 2009 20:28:57 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 2, 2009 20:28:57 GMT -5
but all of them mean "founder", which f&w's find objectionable. Give us a list of options for "finder" not "founder". Ok, dc...why the objections I'm not sure but here you go! 1) finder (n.) One that finds: a finder of great hidden treasure. 2) finder (n.) A viewfinder. 3) finder (n.) A low-power, wide-angle telescope fixed to the body of a more powerful telescope and pointed in the same direction for initially locating an object to be observed.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 2, 2009 20:32:17 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 2, 2009 20:32:17 GMT -5
I've no objection to any, the definition is meaningless to me, but I am pretty certain the majority of f&w's would accept Irvine's role as a "finder of great hidden treasure." Why don't we go with that one?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 2, 2009 22:12:54 GMT -5
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 2, 2009 22:12:54 GMT -5
~~~ WI as a finder for me. Jesus was the founder of what WI and many of the early workers tried to copy or continue so he/they couldn't be the founder/s.
I Cor. 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is one is already LAID, which is Jesus Christ....
Paul wrote that let every man take heed how he build there upon... Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble. Every man's work shall be made manifest for the day shall bring it to light, because it shall be reveal by fire, and the fire shall TEST every man's work or what sort it is.
~~~ WI build on the right foundation/Jesus... but the materials he used was with wood, hay, stubble= perishable/teachings of men by predicting the year 1917 the second coming of Jesus. He was one of the two witnesses in Revelation 11. WI materials did not pass the test of fire.
He wasn't the only one that build on perishable materials.... there has been different workers didn't pass the test the last 100 yrs either. How you define who passed the test. By those who no longer continue in the work, by those who denied Jesus is God, how? Did you pass the test when you were a worker Nathan?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 2, 2009 22:30:25 GMT -5
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 2, 2009 22:30:25 GMT -5
I was not in the USA when you were in the work. I have only made 2 short trips to the USA in my life and they have only been in the last 12 years.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 4, 2009 11:44:39 GMT -5
Post by botany on Feb 4, 2009 11:44:39 GMT -5
I seem to be missing something here. Founder? Of what? What is this poll about? andy
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 4, 2009 12:42:47 GMT -5
Post by Brick on Feb 4, 2009 12:42:47 GMT -5
Or was it "flounder"? If so, I prefer salmon. With cracked pepper and lemon, wild rice on the side.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 4, 2009 13:07:59 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 4, 2009 13:07:59 GMT -5
I seem to be missing something here. Founder? Of what? What is this poll about? andy I'm taking a really way-out guess, but I'm thinking Sharon is asking for the preferred alternate noun in the following sentence: William Irvine, Ed Cooney and others were ___________ of the movement known as Christian Conventions. Of course the words "movement known as Christian Conventions" reflect my personal preference, so mebbe we need a poll on that one. I would add that I'm not a great fan of "finder". I think we need to denote what Irvine did in a natural sense, not in a spiritual sense. And, we're all finders aren't we?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 5, 2009 18:23:34 GMT -5
Post by selah on Feb 5, 2009 18:23:34 GMT -5
What exactly did William Irvine "find?" Was it the gospel? Was it lost? Did he find it just as any other person might find it? Was it a certain way of ministry, which he found in the Faith Mission? Was it an organized system of fellowship/worship/ministry that was already in existance, but was somehow lost? No, William Irvine was not just a finder. He was part of the Faith Mission, and from there began to develop a point of view concerning the 1st century Church. From that point of view a new anti-denominational system was founded....by William Irvine, who is the founder. Other groups are founded on different points of view. They have founders too. As long as there are people there will be different points of view and new founders. The one thing that remains consistent and real is God, Himself, and since NONE of us are without the HUMAN part of the equation, we will never have the PERFECT point of view this side of glory. A group that claims to have the one and only perfect point of view MUST be mistaken, since groups are composed of imperfect people who are influenced by their humanity. Does God require that we found or find the perfect group, or does He just want us to finally be restored to Him? Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 5, 2009 19:40:19 GMT -5
Post by fred on Feb 5, 2009 19:40:19 GMT -5
"........who IS the founder....."
Careful there now Linda, don't want you straying into error. You see, it all depends on your definition of IS.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 5, 2009 20:22:32 GMT -5
Post by selah on Feb 5, 2009 20:22:32 GMT -5
The founder of restoration with God, the Father IS actually the Father Himself. He made it possible by visiting us in the flesh...Jesus Christ....and paying the penalty for sin for us.
Not sure what you're getting at Fred, but I believe in the Great I AM...our divine Father.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 5, 2009 20:26:21 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 5, 2009 20:26:21 GMT -5
Or was it "flounder"? If so, I prefer salmon. With cracked pepper and lemon, wild rice on the side. Awwwww, Brick! Why did you have to bring up food? You know, about the only thing I've ever really liked at Long John Silver's restaurant is their flounder...and it is quite good actually!
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 5, 2009 20:30:29 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 5, 2009 20:30:29 GMT -5
Oh, for Pete's sake....Cherie has mentioned more then once that we need to come up with our preferred word for what WI and other workers did back in 1884-1901? ? This TMB site is nothing much more then a constant rangling over WI's part in the truth's fellowship.........it would seem it wouldn't be hard to remember that "founder" hasn't been very well agreed upon for the term............so to help out I posted this "choose" topic!
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 5, 2009 21:35:11 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 5, 2009 21:35:11 GMT -5
Beautiful, Linda. Very nicely done. What exactly did William Irvine "find?" Was it the gospel? Was it lost? Did he find it just as any other person might find it? Was it a certain way of ministry, which he found in the Faith Mission? Was it an organized system of fellowship/worship/ministry that was already in existance, but was somehow lost? No, William Irvine was not just a finder. He was part of the Faith Mission, and from there began to develop a point of view concerning the 1st century Church. From that point of view a new anti-denominational system was founded....by William Irvine, who is the founder. Other groups are founded on different points of view. They have founders too. As long as there are people there will be different points of view and new founders. The one thing that remains consistent and real is God, Himself, and since NONE of us are without the HUMAN part of the equation, we will never have the PERFECT point of view this side of glory. A group that claims to have the one and only perfect point of view MUST be mistaken, since groups are composed of imperfect people who are influenced by their humanity. Does God require that we found or find the perfect group, or does He just want us to finally be restored to Him? Blessings,Linda
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 5, 2009 22:46:41 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 5, 2009 22:46:41 GMT -5
siwells wrote: Oh, for Pete's sake....Cherie has mentioned more then once that we need to come up with our preferred word for what WI and other workers did back in 1884-1901? ? What did the workers do in 1884?? (I dont know of anything)
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 5, 2009 23:27:47 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 5, 2009 23:27:47 GMT -5
What exactly did William Irvine "find?" Was it the gospel? Was it lost? Did he find it just as any other person might find it? Was it a certain way of ministry, which he found in the Faith Mission? Was it an organized system of fellowship/worship/ministry that was already in existance, but was somehow lost? No, William Irvine was not just a finder. He was part of the Faith Mission, and from there began to develop a point of view concerning the 1st century Church. From that point of view a new anti-denominational system was founded....by William Irvine, who is the founder. Other groups are founded on different points of view. They have founders too. As long as there are people there will be different points of view and new founders. The one thing that remains consistent and real is God, Himself, and since NONE of us are without the HUMAN part of the equation, we will never have the PERFECT point of view this side of glory. A group that claims to have the one and only perfect point of view MUST be mistaken, since groups are composed of imperfect people who are influenced by their humanity. Does God require that we found or find the perfect group, or does He just want us to finally be restored to Him? Blessings, Linda The advocates of the word "finder", and I am not one, as you can see from my post previous to yours, are no doubt thinking of the man who "when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it." So the meaning is clear once that is understood; my own objection is that it's not in common usage. I agree overall with your critique, but I would sharpen the idea of "having the one and only perfect point of view". In some sense, we do have it, or have a corner of it. And you allude to there being one perfect way, only one; I hope we agree on that. However, no man has a complete understanding of this perfect way in all its ramifications. ("Now we see through a glass darkly, etc.") I'm not so sure the friends understand that that presumption is the inevitable results of believing that only their interpretation is correct. So I agree with the analysis, but would argue for cutting a little more slack. For the tendency to take one's own interpretation and vaunt it as God-given and correct is a fault found in all religious groups; we're certainly not unique in that. A good example is the certainty with which mainstream churches vaunt the Trinity, even though the Bible is not at all clear on the point. In fact, in many areas of doctrine I detect a humility in the friends and a reluctance to indicate that they have or know the only right answer. It is easy to see the evidence of self-righteousness when you disagree with the point being made; the self-righteousness becomes transparent when you agree with the point. It could be argued that the only people who never appear self-righteous are those who don't believe in anything or in very much. The original impulse of the movement was a revulsion at wrongs in the established churches in Ireland, and a desire to correct them. This was to be accomplished through a sincere re-reading and rediscovery of the Christian roots in the Bible. Let's give them a little credit for their zeal and vigour in doing this. I do agree with the critique substantially but feel the edges should be rounded off a little. Hope you don't mind me saying.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Feb 6, 2009 0:11:14 GMT -5
There is so much confusion, this and that about founder. A founder is one who lays a foundation down for the first time on which others can build on. It is Jesus who laid the foundation stone down for the first time that we can build our faith on and no man could or can lay that stone again nor take it up. If our fellowship is Christian then Jesus laid the foundation for it. The one who is called the founder of our faith cannot be others wise he would have usurped the place of the true founder. If others insist that William is the founder of our fellowship we are then condemed we will not be of Him.
|
|
|
Post by selah on Feb 6, 2009 0:33:30 GMT -5
Hi What... I'm not certain that "finding the pearl of great price" is exactly the sentiment behind using the word "finder" rather than "founder" in reference to William Irvine. It is my thought that "finder" is preferred, since for 100 years the f&w have proclaimed that there was no "founder," and now, since the history is readily available, there needs to be some way of getting around the previous claims. I don't mean that in an accusatory way. It just seems people are like that...if we've become dependent on our belief system, we need to defend it for our own sense of well being. Of course, we know that a mere man did not found the plan of redemption...all Christian churches teach that. The f&w, however, have taught that their particular point of view concerning the Church was not founded by anyone other than Christ, Himself, and some of us disagree with that claim. I'm not sure what you mean here in regards to having the one and only perfect point of view...or a corner of it? We agree if the one and only perfect way to God is recognized as His very own plan of redemption and restoration that is not dependent on any one particular style of fellowship/worship and ministry. For me, that does not definie the one way of restoration between God and man. Amen. Perhaps some have not followed the logic to its conclusion, but if others have, it's unfortunate that they must endure condemnation for it. When you say "cutting a little more slack," do you mean to be patient while others resolve this issue? If that's what you mean, I certainly agree, it all takes time. You're right. Whatever human tendancies exist will turn up in religious groups as well as any other kind of group, simply because groups are made up of human beings with tendancies. It's quite unavoidable. I think it's wise to hold our views in such a way as to be ready to change as we understand more clearly. Our spiritual journey progresses, and we are being transformed. We MUST change, otherwise we're not growing and maturing. I have seen the same reluctance among the f&w....sometimes it may be humility, but it could also be a hesitation to investigate. That we cannot know absolutely should not hinder us from the continued exploration of God and His ways, yet I suspect that is often the case with many folks...not just f&w. I used to say if you live what you believe, some will call you self-righteous...and if you don't live what you believe, some will call you a hypocrite. But, if you simply trust God, recognize He is doing a miracle work within you, and continually seek to know Him more intimately, it won't matter what people call you. Definitely! The f&w, like many other groups have endeavoured to find truth and to live it. We have all made mistakes. I definitely give credit to those within the f&w and within any other groups who keep seeking to know and serve God. I don't mind you saying at all. I'm not sure I understand about the edges though. Anything I've said, in previous posts or in this one have no intent to offend, and I hope my thoughts will be read as observations rather than accusations. I appreciate your thoughts. Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by selah on Feb 6, 2009 0:49:08 GMT -5
Kiwi, that statement would only be true if your faith is in your fellowship rather than in Christ. The founder of your faith (faith being your trust in God for redemption) is Jesus Christ, but the founder of the f&w fellowship is William Irvine.
Some folks refer to the fellowship as "their faith" meaning their religion, but our faith should refer to our trust in God's saving grace. Who founded that faith? Of course we know it's Jesus.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Feb 6, 2009 4:44:26 GMT -5
Kiwi, that statement would only be true if your faith is in your fellowship rather than in Christ. The founder of your faith (faith being your trust in God for redemption) is Jesus Christ, but the founder of the f&w fellowship is William Irvine. I cannot see how ones faith could be in a fellowship and be a Christian, it must be in the Christ. The fellowship is the result of Christ in a unified people, who share a common faith, so that makes a fellowship in Christ, laid by Him and Him alone. It cannot be William because he means nothing to us. He is not even acknowleged amongst us, we are just plainly not interested, maybe one or two maybe but that's all. There is more interest of the man amongst those who have left the fellowship for the reason I cannot understand, why is he so important to those people? I have never heard folks mention it like that, not saying that that hasn't happened though. I agree whole heartedly with the rest of you post.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Feb 6, 2009 8:44:02 GMT -5
I cannot see how ones faith could be in a fellowship and be a Christian
If one believes that they, or another, will lose their salvation if they leave their particular fellowship, then their "faith" is "in" said fellowship. Members of the Mormons, JWs, SDA, some exclusivist Baptists, some exclusivist Lutherans and Catholics, and certainly many F&Ws believe this. Of course, they will deny that their faith is dependent on their group, but it's difficult to argue otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 6, 2009 8:47:19 GMT -5
It's amazing the distance some will go to argue against reality.
|
|
|
Post by ranger on Feb 6, 2009 9:47:56 GMT -5
kiwi,
It has been stated that W.I. was a false prophet. My understanding is that this was by his own words: professing that he was a (maybe the last) prophet and had also made erroneous predictions about the end of the world, more or less sealing his standing as a false prophet.
I think that whether W.I. was the founder, or the co-founder, or a senior leading element, or an element involved in the coalescing of the 2x2 movement, or however you want to look at it, he was certainly an important and integral part of the early formation of the 2x2 Church.
In as much you have a doctrine that some will say/think was formed, or in some way aided by a false prophet. This then could cast a shadow of doubt/concern over the entire movement or doctrine. Following this, I think anyone could certainly understand that in light of what is now known about W.I., as well as individuals not being informed by anyone within the Fellowship about the history of the 2x2 way, that the 2x2 Church could very easily be construed as being intentionally evasive about something upon which our very souls may hang.
When Christian who are truly searching and have found their way to the 2x2 Church only then to find out that they may have been betrayed, is I am sure a crushing moment. Certainly enough, in sum total, to make one want to move on. I am thinking that ex's are not necessarily consumed with W.I. in as much as he is the/or a major reason for their leaving. (please understand I t is not my intention to put words into anyone mouth with this statement...JMO)
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 10:17:00 GMT -5
Post by What Hat on Feb 6, 2009 10:17:00 GMT -5
Linda, Thanks you for your followup and answer. It makes evident to me the balance and wisdom in your outlook, and your clarification on my questions was very helpful. There are one or two points I might still like to draw out further, but I just wanted to say this for now.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 10:30:19 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 6, 2009 10:30:19 GMT -5
siwells wrote: Oh, for Pete's sake....Cherie has mentioned more then once that we need to come up with our preferred word for what WI and other workers did back in 1884-1901? ? What did the workers do in 1884?? (I dont know of anything) Cherie, have you forgotten that EC had already begun having mtgs. within the homes? If you are declaring that "mtgs. within the home" as part of the 2X2 doctrine, then that has to be credit given to EC! There's no doubt in my mind about that! It was his humble approach to where chrisitianity belonged, wasn't it?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 6, 2009 10:32:59 GMT -5
Post by selah on Feb 6, 2009 10:32:59 GMT -5
I don't think most exes care that a founder exists as much as they care that the general f&w judgement against other "worldly churches" is that they have a founder.
The discussion continues, because that point seems to be lost in translation somewhere. It's not that exes are stuck on WI...they are just trying to get an acknowledgment that a mistake was made in saying there was no founder other than Christ.
The f&w fellowship is just another group, like many others, trying to serve God to the best of their knowledge.
Blessings, Linda
|
|