|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:09:48 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 13:09:48 GMT -5
no argument, ram. But we have slipped back from fact to religious belief. We have yet to prove as fact that Irvine was a "founder", not a "finder."
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:10:45 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 11, 2009 13:10:45 GMT -5
You're putting words in my mouth that I never said. Go and study the meaning of a belief system... You have one, I have one, everyone has one; religions are belief systems, philosophies are belief system; cultures are belief systems, etc. etc etc Whether or not they are "revelations" from God is irrelevant. William Irvine founded the Chritian sect of the Christian Church, commonly referred to as the Friends and Workers sect, amongst other names. He was one of many people who founded new sects of the Christian Church. ram, Cherie claims much more than this. She claims he founded a belief system. She thus claims, explicitly, that Irvine did not receive a vision from God of how God wanted to be worshipped, in a manner that many others were doing or have been doing for centuries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:12:14 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 13:12:14 GMT -5
Nathan. in addition to continuing some Christian teachings they found some new ideas, beliefs and practices that are not borne out by proper Biblical understanding. This adulteration is called "Irvinism." They, or rather he founded it and was assisted in time by their agency. Irvinism is a strange thing. It even attempts to blot out all memory and trace of its founder.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:12:34 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 11, 2009 13:12:34 GMT -5
ram: this is all so true. This why we have to have the spirit of discernment. Just because a perceived authority on a matter states an idea does not mean it is pure
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:13:34 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 13:13:34 GMT -5
no argument, ram. But we have slipped back from fact to religious belief. We have yet to prove as fact that Irvine was a "founder", not a "finder." DC to and reasonable person this has been done umpteen times in this past, at least it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:15:04 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 13:15:04 GMT -5
the word we are discussing is "founder", Cherie. Is it possible that Irvine was shown a divine vision of God, of a way that had existed for centuries. Does that still make him "founder" or "finder," if he copied, identically, down to the letter, exactly what others had been doing...as revealed to him by God?
The only difference is that God becomes a link in the chain. Does that change things from "finder" to "founder"? Not in my book.
I do not deny the utter unlikelihood. So, I'll tell you what. It is a fact that Mary did not have child with no human father contributing a y-chromosome. Those odds are too infinitismal. If you will accept that your origin story (the virgin birth story) is a proven falsehood, I will accept that the f&w origin story is a proven falsehood. Then we can be on the same ground, and everybody can feel good about rejecting the facts for beliefs.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:16:11 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 13:16:11 GMT -5
DC to and reasonable person this has been done umpteen times in this past, at least it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Then surely you can provide me the evidence, ram, that no such vision occurred, and not a single soul ever worshipped beforehand in the manner of Irvine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:17:52 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 13:17:52 GMT -5
ram: this is all so true. This why we have to have the spirit of discernment. Just because a perceived authority on a matter states an idea does not mean it is pure Lin, thank you. My quest is to expose the Irvinistics within the belief system that I had bought into for a greater part of my life. Truth needs to be untwined from falsehood. One example of this is that their version of only Jesus, or Jesus alone, actually means a fusion or intertwinement of Jesus, the workers and the church in the home.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:20:37 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 13:20:37 GMT -5
DC to and reasonable person this has been done umpteen times in this past, at least it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Then surely you can provide me the evidence, ram, that no such vision occurred, and not a single soul ever worshipped beforehand in the manner of Irvine. You're asking for the wrong evidence. We are talking about a new sect founded at the beginning of the 20th century, using Christian teachings and alleged visions and revelations which to a great extent are at varience with true Biblical understanding. There is overwhelming evidence pointing to Irvine as the one who started this new sect.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:20:42 GMT -5
Post by toffeecrumble on Feb 11, 2009 13:20:42 GMT -5
To NOT acknowledge and recognise William Irvine as having at least a major role in establishing the 2x2 way seems to me to be rather dishonest. Members should be, at the very least, grateful to him for his part in the beginning of the meetings way.
That is the same horrible attitude that is shown to exes frineds or ministers, adore them, put them on a pedestal and then disown them if and when they decide, for whatever reason, to take a different path in life. Gross hypocrisy IMO and disloyal. This is a terrible flaw in the system, the lack of faithfl, constant love. The love of Jesus was unchanging, steadfast, immoveable. No comparison/
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:23:23 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 13:23:23 GMT -5
There is overwhelming evidence pointing to Irvine as the one who started this new sect. Absolutely no argument! Of course, there is overwhelming evidence that the child Jesus could not be born without a y-chromosome. Do we agree both are legends...nay, more...both are proven falsehoods? To claim one is a proven falsehood but not the other just seems so hypocritical to me. Geez, why can't we just apply logic to ALL our religious beliefs, scrap them ALL?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:25:05 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 13:25:05 GMT -5
the word we are discussing is "founder", Cherie. Is it possible that Irvine was shown a divine vision of God, of a way that had existed for centuries. Does that still make him "founder" or "finder," if he copied, identically, down to the letter, exactly what others had been doing...as revealed to him by God? The only difference is that God becomes a link in the chain. Does that change things from "finder" to "founder"? Not in my book. I do not deny the utter unlikelihood. So, I'll tell you what. It is a fact that Mary did not have child with no human father contributing a y-chromosome. Those odds are too infinitismal. If you will accept that your origin story (the virgin birth story) is a proven falsehood, I will accept that the f&w origin story is a proven falsehood. Then we can be on the same ground, and everybody can feel good about rejecting the facts for beliefs. DC I find it extra-ordinary that for one so skeptical, that you are prepared to reject all evidence pointing to Irvine founding the F&W'S sect, yet suggest that if a completely separate and unrelated circumstance is proved, then you will likewise accept the evidence pointing to Irvine founding the F&W's sect. The mind certainly boggles ?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:27:50 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 11, 2009 13:27:50 GMT -5
If Irvine on his own thought this out and had a divine vision to start this as a new sect,why did it take him time to leave FM?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:27:59 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 13:27:59 GMT -5
DC please tell me that you are a wind-up merchant and that I have taken the bait !
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:29:06 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 13:29:06 GMT -5
DC I find it extra-ordinary that for one so skeptical, that you are prepared to reject all evidence pointing to Irvine founding the F&W'S sect, yet suggest that if a completely separate and unrelated circumstance is proved, then you will likewise accept the evidence pointing to Irvine founding the F&W's sect. The mind certainly boggles ? ;D I do not reject the evidence. I merely point out that we are talking about religion, where people believe insane things. Yes, the mind boggles when I try to read scripture literally. Let me lay it out again. If Jesus was born of a virgin, it was a miracle of God. If Irvine "found" something instead of "founding" it, it was a miracle of God. What's the difference? Reject them both, or neither, or admit your "beliefs" are coming into play, here, more than facts. Then confess others have a right to their beliefs against insane odds, just as you do.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:30:17 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 13:30:17 GMT -5
DC, if you do not believe the Scriptures are Godbreathed, (2 Tim 3:16) then anything based on the Scripture you would consider false also. I am not following your logic. For example, in the scriptures Jesus taught kindness and compassion. I do not consider that a false teaching.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:31:32 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 13:31:32 GMT -5
If Irvine on his own thought this out and had a divine vision to start this as a new sect,why did it take him time to leave FM? Lin, I have no problem with things taking their time. God sometimes works like that. My problem is that much of what "forms" Irvine's divine revelations is actually at variance with what the Bible actually says. This is why I have my doubts about Irvine, even in the beginning and wonder if he was an "Angel of light, but whose Angel?" Of course, not being an authority on such celestial matters I have to leave the question open.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:35:18 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 13:35:18 GMT -5
DC I find it extra-ordinary that for one so skeptical, that you are prepared to reject all evidence pointing to Irvine founding the F&W'S sect, yet suggest that if a completely separate and unrelated circumstance is proved, then you will likewise accept the evidence pointing to Irvine founding the F&W's sect. The mind certainly boggles ? ;D I do not reject the evidence. I merely point out that we are talking about religion, where people believe insane things. Yes, the mind boggles when I try to read scripture literally. Let me lay it out again. If Jesus was born of a virgin, it was a miracle of God. If Irvine "found" something instead of "founding" it, it was a miracle of God. What's the difference? Reject them both, or neither, or admit your "beliefs" are coming into play, here, more than facts. Then confess others have a right to their beliefs against insane odds, just as you do. The Old Testament foretold of a Messiah to come that would be born of a virgin. In time that Messiah warned of false prophets who would come in his name. Why do you insist that a virgin birth, born of God and a the birth of a new sect are equal ?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:35:33 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 11, 2009 13:35:33 GMT -5
Our highest values are choices, and often they cannot be proven; they are choices. For instance:
I choose to believe the Bible is God's Word. I choose to follow Christianity.
I am not open to discussing these choices. They are my choices.
I respect the choices of others concerning their highest values. I expect them to respect my choices.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:37:22 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 11, 2009 13:37:22 GMT -5
I agree with your doubts about Irvine,and these were some of the words expressed by George W. This too came into play with his expulsion.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:43:12 GMT -5
Post by rational on Feb 11, 2009 13:43:12 GMT -5
Whether or not Irvine ever received a vision or revelation from God, I have "found" to my satisfaction that there are beliefs and practices within the Friends and Workers system that certainly did not come from God because they are based upon wrong interpretations and misunderstandings of scripture. Based on some discussions in the Speaking in Tongues thread, can there be a wrong interpretation? Is one person's interpretation better than another's? Or is the "best" interpretation the one that a person agrees with? Is it a corruption or something that others do not agree with? For example, there are those who feel their beliefs regarding speaking in tongues (glossolalia) is the correct interpretation of biblical passages but there are those who think otherwise. By extension, doesn't this mean that all denominations have had something added to the pure water? If not they would all be the same. Is it because something was added to the pure water or is it the color orange you object to?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:43:25 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 13:43:25 GMT -5
Why do you insist that a virgin birth, born of God and a the birth of a new sect are equal ? Because both are origin stories, and both are equally impossible. I see little difference in the purpose of the stories: they are meant to say, "Hey, I'M the one right with God, not you, and I have proof." I respect your attempt to somehow tie Christ to the Old Testament prophecies. I respect the f&w attempt to somehow tie Irvine to Christ. I do not really mind you calling both falsehoods. Or both truths. Or one false, the other true, so long as you admit you are making that distinction based on your BELIEF, not on the FACTS. Cherie, for someone who respects the choices of others in what to believe, you sure do ridicule them, trying to paint them as falsehoods.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 15:14:47 GMT -5
Post by JO on Feb 11, 2009 15:14:47 GMT -5
This thread has helped me to better understand the extent of the problem the church faces.
I stand in awe of the power of Satan to take a movement of sincere, humble, zealous and pasionate young people seeking to win souls for Christ and turn it, over time, into a religious system - the very thing they tried to get away from.
His power is also evident in the difficulty folks have in discerning between what is of God and what is of man i.e. the Spiritual from the carnal, the personal relationship with God from the politics of a human-run organization, real spirtitual prosperity from an outward show.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 15:22:19 GMT -5
Post by someguy on Feb 11, 2009 15:22:19 GMT -5
~~~ You call WI and the 2x2s workers a Corrupt system when Jesus and many different apostles have done it for 1800 yrs! and WI and the early workers received a revelation from God to "Continue" or "RETURN" because they Witnessed the corrupt systems of men all around them in 1800's?
Come on, Ram... you're NOT thinking straight here my friend.
Jesus and the apostles SYSTEM came from God theFather is NOT corrupt! or those who have tried to "Continue" it.... the men in the system have corrupted themselves! but the SYSTEM is perfect as God the Father gave it to His Son to carry it out. The only one not thinking straight here is you Nathan. No one is saying the idea is corrupt, after all it is what Jesus did for the Israelites. We are saying that once William Irvine tried to do this again, Irvine and those who followed it have corrupted it. How do they? Easy. 1. They tell people this is the only way to worship God. Exclusive and self-righteous. Not remotely righteous and certainly judgmental. 2. They have created rules and regulations that are not in the bible or if they are, they are found in Lev. Supposedly we are not under the law anymore but under grace. Moses brought the law but Jesus brought grace and truth. We are under grace and telling people anything else is another perversion. 3. They have created a class system that didn't exist in the new testament. No where does it say that I am accountable to a worker. It does say time and time again that I am accountable to God. Once we make people accountable to people we have created a system of reward and punishment. If you do what the worker says is right, reward but if you don't, punishment. People are not allowed to be lead by the Spirit. It is now nothing more than a religion. Corruption. 4. They have added to the gospel. By telling people you must hear the gospel from the mouth of a worker, you have taken salvation by grace and made it salvation by workers and then Jesus. It begins to become salvation by works and workers. Sketchy indeed. 5. They preach conformity is unity. YIKES. You see Nathan, the idea might be beautiful, but it is rarely followed in the fellowship. Rarely if ever and that is why so many people become disenfranchised and choose to move on.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 15:26:51 GMT -5
Post by someguy on Feb 11, 2009 15:26:51 GMT -5
This thread has helped me to better understand the extent of the problem the church faces. I stand in awe of the power of Satan to take a movement of sincere, humble, zealous and pasionate young people seeking to win souls for Christ and turn it, over time, into a religious system - the very thing they tried to get away from. His power is also evident in the difficulty folks have in discerning between what is of God and what is of man i.e. the Spiritual from the carnal, the personal relationship with God from the politics of a human-run organization, real spirtitual prosperity from an outward show. Absolutely correct. The ability to turn well intending people from a real relationship with Jesus to completely trust salvation in a system is a perfect example of the misplaced faith which our way is full of.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 15:51:14 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 15:51:14 GMT -5
I stand in awe of the power of Satan to take a movement of sincere, humble, zealous and pasionate young people seeking to win souls for Christ and turn it, over time, into a religious system - the very thing they tried to get away from. hi JO! Is that kind of how you perceive the development of the Catholic Church in the early centuries? How about Paul's movement...I think of the church epistles of Timothy and Titus...are they suspect, teaching the formation of a religious system?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 16:04:15 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 11, 2009 16:04:15 GMT -5
Nathan wrote ~~ What class system are you talking about here? Yes, I agree with you that the workers need to encourage the friends to be led of the Spirit in all things, THINK, make decisions for themselves and less dependance on the workers.
Nathan why should the workers have to encourage the friends to be led by the spirit? This is my salvation that is involved here. Do you think I should leave being led by the spirit to the prompting of the workers encouragement. What if they go wrong?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 16:15:21 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 11, 2009 16:15:21 GMT -5
Nathan wrote ~~ What class system are you talking about here? Yes, I agree with you that the workers need to encourage the friends to be led of the Spirit in all things, THINK, make decisions for themselves and less dependance on the workers.
That's because you changed your wording.
|
|