|
Post by lin on Feb 9, 2009 9:40:04 GMT -5
Drop it nathan. You are beating a dead horse. We don't have to prove anything.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 9, 2009 9:49:31 GMT -5
The thing is ,it's not a discussion at all. First of all we have no say in this matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2009 9:52:15 GMT -5
This thread is missing the point. Establishing William Irvine as founder does not diminish or enhance the role of God in the 2x2 fellowship, either 112 years ago or today.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 9, 2009 9:57:36 GMT -5
This thread is missing the point. Establishing William Irvine as founder does not diminish or enhance the role of God in the 2x2 fellowship, either 112 years ago or today. What does it do? For me personally it means nothing. if I heard it being discussed in a meeting of any kind I would have to walk out because it has nothing to do with my service to God.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 9, 2009 10:48:42 GMT -5
What does it do? For me personally it means nothing. if I heard it being discussed in a meeting of any kind I would have to walk out because it has nothing to do with my service to God. How about any other issue which was being discussed which you would feel had no bearing on your service to God? For example you are at convention and you hear the head worker talking about not taking a walk off the convention grounds. Are ya gonna stand up and leave? ;D Incidentally, I personally feel that being honest about the history of any denomination we might attend DOES have a bearing on our service to God. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2009 10:54:56 GMT -5
This thread is missing the point. Establishing William Irvine as founder does not diminish or enhance the role of God in the 2x2 fellowship, either 112 years ago or today. What does it do? For me personally it means nothing. if I heard it being discussed in a meeting of any kind I would have to walk out because it has nothing to do with my service to God. I doubt if a convention meeting or a fellowship meeting is the appropriate place to discuss church history, although we have had worse where the ministry was preached and not Christ. A gospel meeting could be appropriate if there are new people coming out, they deserve to know how the current meetings and minstry was formed a century ago. All friends and workers as well as anyone considering being a part of the F&W group should have full and easy access to the facts about the beginning of our church group a century ago. Full disclosure would be most beneficial to new people coming to meetings and trying to decide if they want to be a part of it. Many people know when they are not getting a straight answer and it can be a good factor in redirecting their seeking for Christ. I really don't know how any worker in good conscience cannot tell all they know about the beginnings when asked. It certainly doesn't mean they are denying the role of God in the fellowship if they do disclose the involvement of Irvine and Cooney in the early days of the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 9, 2009 11:08:05 GMT -5
It seems to me to be grossly unfair to workers to NOT know, understand and or be told, the history of their church. They appear laughable, at best, to outsiders who do know their history , attending their meetings and are preached at that this "way" has no founder, no rules, etc.e tc. Worse, than laughable, they appear to be decievers and liars, and THAT distracts bigtime, from any good news (gospel) that they do preach. How can any good thing come from an untruth? It can be hidden for a while, but when it comes out, people go through many different stages ranging from denial, anger , depression , defense of untruth, etc. etc. but anything GOOD?? Alvin PS- some of the answers and questions on here remind me of the following from book quotes called "Disorder in the American Courts"- feel free to insert my name in place of attorney or witness~~~~~~~~
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory? WITNESS: I forget. ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot? ___________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning? WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam? _________________________ ___________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he? WITNESS: He's twenty, much like your IQ. ___________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken? WITNESS: Are you sh*tting me? _________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time? WITNESS: getting laid ____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: How many were boys? WITNESS: None. ATTORNEY: Were there any girls? WITNESS : Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney? ____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated? WITNESS: By death ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated? WITNESS: Take a guess. ____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual? WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard. ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female? WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male. _____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work. ______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people? WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight. _________________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to? WITNESS: Oral. _________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m. ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time? WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished. ____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample? WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question? ______________________________________
And the best for last:
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor? WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless? WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
____________________________________________________________
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2009 11:13:28 GMT -5
Actually the history of the church used to be regularly preached from the platform. But it was the wrong one. This was the history which had no human founder, went all the way back (physically) to Christ on the shores of Gallilee through Apostolic succession. It has always been there. This is the history lesson that I bought into.
Now, how about the right one ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2009 11:24:05 GMT -5
Actually the history of the church used to be regularly preached from the platform. But it was the wrong one. This was the history which had no human founder, went all the way back (physically) to Christ on the shores of Gallilee through Apostolic succession. It has always been there. This is the history lesson that I bought into. Now, how about the right one ? For those who oppose telling the church from the platform, they should be aware of your point ram. Yes, church history was once a major part of the preaching. The fact that it isn't preached one way or the other at the present moment doesn't help correct the errors that people believe in today.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 9, 2009 11:35:41 GMT -5
Actually the history of the church used to be regularly preached from the platform. But it was the wrong one. This was the history which had no human founder, went all the way back (physically) to Christ on the shores of Gallilee through Apostolic succession. It has always been there. This is the history lesson that I bought into. Now, how about the right one ? For those who oppose telling the church from the platform, they should be aware of your point ram. Yes, church history was once a major part of the preaching. The fact that it isn't preached one way or the other at the present moment doesn't help correct the errors that people believe in today. That's really the issue. I forget who's post it was, but it contained the quote "this goes right back to Christ" in answer to the question "how did this [meaning the form of the meetings] begin?" That was commonly said 20-30 years ago. I'm not sure how the question is answered now. Anyone know?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2009 11:52:11 GMT -5
Today the answers are all over the board. There are at least two that are popular:
1. The early workers were "finders" not "founders".
2. It doesn't matter to me today, what matters is the history of when I met the Lord.
There are very few workers who will come right out and talk about the Faith Mission, although many are aware of it. At the same time, you won't find any workers who will come right out and say that there is a line of workers going back to Christ either.
We seem to be in a middle ground limbo stage of coming to the truth.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 9, 2009 11:52:13 GMT -5
Do meetings have to have a form? there isn't much of a form given in the bible. It seems they were confused at times thought it was to be like a meal. our form of meeting isn't like it was 30 years ago. people stood up to speak,knelt to pray.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2009 12:11:10 GMT -5
Do meetings have to have a form? there isn't much of a form given in the bible. It seems they were confused at times thought it was to be like a meal. our form of meeting isn't like it was 30 years ago. people stood up to speak,knelt to pray. I agree that no particular form will make a fellowship "right". Regardless, the differences between today and 30 years ago or 80 years ago are insignificant.
|
|
|
Post by goodapollo on Feb 9, 2009 12:14:43 GMT -5
IMO the point that is being missed is this: The beef people have with William Irvine and other men starting the church is not just about man starting the church. The problem we have is that believing the 2x2 church was directly started by Christ LEADS directly to exclusivity. And THAT is the biggest problem of them all. Don't worry about all the "wood, hay, and stubble" stuff. Preaching the doctrine of exclusivity is by far the most damaging problem in the 2x2 church.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 9, 2009 12:46:50 GMT -5
Here's some of the explanations given in the past for when the 2x2 church started, how and by whom. The first group is still commonly given out I believe...I was told it by a truther couple of relatives earlier this year.
REPLIES TO THE EFFECT: It was restored, regenerated, restarted, revived, reborn, resurrected, resurfaced, raised up again ( all of which mean to bring back after an interval or decline. )
Feb, 94: Sharon Williamson, Illinois sister worker, stated in Rockport, IL gospel meeting: "Yes, William Irvine started this way; it was a divine revelation from God. He was raised up to revive the truth just like the Word of God was dormant for 400 years..."
1979: Elder worker preached at Olympia convention that "ever so often the "truth" dies out, and God seeks for another man to bring it back into the world."
In 1984 Donald Karnes, Worker, wrote from Germany: "Two outstanding events mark the 20th century: 2 rebirths. First, the rebirth of the Truth. God pouring out His spirit upon all flesh. The resurgence of His work in the world…Second: the rebirth of the Jewish national out of the ruin heaps of Europe. These two events are going on at the same time. "
"I believe it was started from God back in the very beginning of time. And between Malachi and Matthew there is no record of God's people, you might say, but I don't feel God's Way was ever done away with. I feel that God has had a way on the earth since before the foundation of the earth. I don't believe William Irvine is the beginner of it." "Do you know of anyone prior to him?" "No, I don't." (Visit with Bea Moonkini, Worker, 1985)
"In the last writings of John, 60 years after Christ, (when John was 90 years of age, the Gospel, three Epistles and Revelation were all written on the Isle of Patmos just before he died) he gave us a wonderful glimpse into the future. From that time until our day and generation we believe there was a terrible falling away. You wonder if there were many people serving God when Christ came. When He came there was a revival. We are glad in our day and generation there has been a revival of God's truth in our day. If there is anything to be thankful for, it's that I am living in this present day and generation in this 20th Century, when God's Way and Truth are established on the earth, and for the most part I think there are more people serving God in His true and living Way today than since Adam and Eve...If He had come in the Dark Ages, there would have been nobody to welcome Him. Arnold Brown 1989 York Convention #2
June, 2002, Paul Sharp spoke of the origins at Walla Walla Convention, calling it a "regeneration".
"We do not have to prove the fact that this has been in the world since the time of Christ. More of a mistake as I see to try to do so, to prove something that we can’t and don’t need to. Jesus said, ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’ When you go to a seed shop to buy a packet of seed we don’t ask, ‘Is this the same as was in the garden of Eden?’ We know that it has to be because seed brings forth after its own kind only. We have an example of a break, from Malachi to the time of Christ, about 400 years we have no written record of anyone in being serving God, no prophet, but when Christ was to come, then the seed was in the hearts of (4) people needed to start it again. For the record, Uncle Willie (Jamieson) was really my Dad’s uncle, so my grandfather was his brother. Grandfather told us of the early days as would John Hardie tell and also Uncle Willie--but not in mtgs. John in his letters told us of that which was from the beginning and he did not try to prove it, as we have to have faith to believe. Hope this is clear and perhaps some little help on the subject." (Ray Jamieson to Paul Abenroth, Sept 3, 1994)
REPLIES TO THE EFFECT: The History isn't Traceable...
As near as I can figure, since there are no church records in recent times, the truth came from England at the turn of the century. Jill Christiansen, Worker, Santee conv. 1980. "We cannot trace this back through the ages! And that is good, for if we could, that would destroy our faith." Iowa gospel meeting, 1995
"Lewis (William) says there is no one founder or group of founders that this church...can trace its lineage to. 'Not to my knowledge,' Lewis says. 'We don't treat genealogical records as being purposeful. What would it mean to me if I could prove I'm a descendant of Abraham?'" quote of William Lewis, (deceased Southern USA Overseer) The Sunday Sun, Georgetown, Texas, July 14, 1991
"Don't worry about tracing the truth back. The Jews could trace to Abraham and it didn't mean a thing. God can raise up people from stones...we don't need to trace it back. When we see God's work in people, we know is it from him." Arnold Brown, Sept., 1988 York, NE conv.
"We don't have any genealogy. We don't have to have...God could raise up people if there had been a thousand years of no one professing. Titus and Timothy speak about old wives fables, etc. We don't have to trace people back to Christ, etc., today. Those that are God's children don't have to trace their genealogy back to Abraham. The faith that Abraham had makes us children of Abraham." (Arnold Brown 1989 York Convention #2)
REPLIES TO THE EFFECT: It Started in the New Testament Days; Jesus is the Founder
"This way started in Galilee." Ned Manning, worker-Irish descent
"We believe we have existed since Jesus sent forth the 70 disciples two by two." Richard Sullivan, 1943
" Some preach a lineage back to Christ, but that's ludicrous." Randy Satterfield, 1996, Texas & Arkansas Worker
"We are often asked who started this church? Heb. 12:2 'Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith...'Jesus gave us God's eternal plan of salvation in its fullness. He is both the author and finisher." Dan Hilton, deceased Worker, 1/1/84 Burlington, WA Sp. Mtg.
"Jesus Himself set us up. Whether it was planted in the first century, the 10th century, or the 20th century, the message is the same, it produces the same thing." Tharold Sylvester, (deceased Western USA Overseer) The Bellingham, WA Herald 8/20/83.
"We are not following some way founded in the early 1900's, but it goes clear back to Christ." Tharold Sylvester (deceased Western Overseer) 11/16/83
"You can tell whether a church is a false church or not if it was started by a man or woman. We are the only church on earth that was started by Christ." Jack Carroll, deceased Western USA Overseer and one of the original workers.
"We aren't believing in a religion. We are believing in a life. The life of God and His Son...Everything that is false has a definite origin--a man who started it. Wesley started the Methodist; Joseph Smith started the Mormons; Mary Baker Eddy started the Christian Scientist. This is the only way that was started by Christ." Willie Jamieson, deceased Western USA Overseer and one of the original workers, Post Falls Conv., 1957.
"I never met Wm Irvine at any time and believe he was used of God, but was never the origin of what we believe. I understand he became too big in himself and left the fellowship we love. Workers I know and respect preach only what Jesus lived and taught with no mention at all of Wm Irvine or any other man save only real appreciation for those who retell in our day things taught in Jesus day. This faith began in New Testament days, not in Ireland nor in the U.K." Roddy MacLean (Scotland Worker) Letter dated June 1, 1995
REPLIES TO THE EFFECT: It is from the BEGINNING...It started with Jesus/God.
"In answer to your question, "Where did this religion actually begin? Was it with Jesus as we have always been told in Gospel Meetings, or by a man named William Irvine in 1897? We believe Hebrews 12:2 'Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith.' I would like to give you some references that mean a lot to me as we carry the gospel to people and point them to something that is from the beginning and not to something begun by man. In John 17:5 Jesus spoke of the glory which He had with the Father before the world was, and in John 1:1 'In the beginning was the Word,' etc. So there is no date for the starting, as it was with the Heavenly Father before the world. Why would we want something started by a man when we have in the scripture something that is from the beginning and scripture to back it up?" Letter by Doris Bloemker, Worker, 1989, in which the question wasn't answered.
"We go back to the beginning." Calvin Casselman, Worker, Boring conv. 1988
"It's from the beginning, planned in God's mind before creation." Walter Nelson, Worker, Post Falls Conv. 1967
"People ask us often times, `Where did this doctrine start?' It first came to us over 60 years ago. I thought it started in Canada, because the one that brought the gospel to us was from Canada. We had never heard of it before, and we enquired of him, "Where did you hear this?" He said, `We heard it from someone that came from Ireland or Scotland.' We listened to that Gospel. `Where did it start?' It started in Heaven, and we are thankful that this Truth came from Heaven that we have accepted today." Clarence Anderson, deceased Worker, Pukekohe Conv., New Zealand, 1986.
"The teachings of the New Testament were started in the first century when God's dear Son was here on earth; that is, those truths were established in a group of believers then...These truths make very clear that what...God's true ministers and Christians believed in, was planned in the heart and mind of God before the world began, and we believe the same today. So it is 100% false for anyone to say that what we believe was started in some recent year. Letter by Dan Hilton, deceased Worker, 11/21/89
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 9, 2009 12:47:39 GMT -5
Slowtosee--too funny! Loved your post!! Thanks for the laugh.
|
|
GoBlue
Senior Member
Posts: 201
|
Post by GoBlue on Feb 9, 2009 16:52:45 GMT -5
IMO the point that is being missed is this: The beef people have with William Irvine and other men starting the church is not just about man starting the church. The problem we have is that believing the 2x2 church was directly started by Christ LEADS directly to exclusivity. And THAT is the biggest problem of them all. Don't worry about all the "wood, hay, and stubble" stuff. Preaching the doctrine of exclusivity is by far the most damaging problem in the 2x2 church. I'm with GoodApollo on this one. I've seen and heard workers admit the history but retain the attempt at exclusivity. This position is still confusing and deceiving. If we could fix only one issue, I would suggest removing the blinders of exclusivity. I have had one friend look me in the eye and say: "Do you believe that stuff in the Secret Sect book? I've read it. I don't believe it. If it was true that this fellowship was started by some man, I'd be out of here so fast." As humans, too often we choose what we want to believe, and create the "facts" to support what we want to believe. If we focus on the preaching of the crucified and resurrected Christ (I Cor 15:1-4), we find that the ground at the foot of the cross is level. We do not gain points with the Father by belonging to any particular fellowship group. When the incorrect doctrine of exclusivity is removed, it is my belief that the issues with the history of this fellowship will be corrected and the focus on appearance and form will disappear. When will this happen? dunno. I have more faith in the rapture happening first.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 9, 2009 18:58:48 GMT -5
IMO the point that is being missed is this: The beef people have with William Irvine and other men starting the church is not just about man starting the church. The problem we have is that believing the 2x2 church was directly started by Christ LEADS directly to exclusivity. And THAT is the biggest problem of them all. Don't worry about all the "wood, hay, and stubble" stuff. Preaching the doctrine of exclusivity is by far the most damaging problem in the 2x2 church. I agree. I hear too much preaching of exclusivity and too little preaching of Jesus. Get the message right and everything else will fall into place.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 9, 2009 19:02:03 GMT -5
Hmmm... only 6 spins of the mouse wheel to get past nathan's post. You're losing your touch, nathan.
|
|
|
Post by goodapollo on Feb 9, 2009 19:20:17 GMT -5
Thank you GoBlue and jesusonly! You guys said it better than I could. I like what GoBlue said about... wait let me scroll back up.. what is it ..6..7 scrolls now? ;D "We do not gain points with the Father by belonging to any particular fellowship group."
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 9, 2009 19:51:31 GMT -5
If we're submitted to the leading of the Spirit we'll be where God wants us to be.
I don't want to blaspheme the Spirit by attributing his work to the work of Satan.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 9, 2009 20:05:10 GMT -5
Thank you GoBlue and jesusonly! You guys said it better than I could. I like what GoBlue said about... wait let me scroll back up.. what is it ..6..7 scrolls now? ;D "We do not gain points with the Father by belonging to any particular fellowship group." I agree, goodapollo! The church we might attend is nothing more then a discipline to help us keep our minds attuned to our Lord and Saviour! Some people have a willpower that can help themselves to do that, but a majority of people need that "fellowship" situation to keep them awake to a need of self prayer and meditation. It's too easy to just put it off, saying I'll do that later......
|
|
|
Post by goodapollo on Feb 9, 2009 20:14:46 GMT -5
Thank you GoBlue and jesusonly! You guys said it better than I could. I like what GoBlue said about... wait let me scroll back up.. what is it ..6..7 scrolls now? ;D "We do not gain points with the Father by belonging to any particular fellowship group." I agree, goodapollo! The church we might attend is nothing more then a discipline to help us keep our minds attuned to our Lord and Saviour! Some people have a willpower that can help themselves to do that, but a majority of people need that "fellowship" situation to keep them awake to a need of self prayer and meditation. It's too easy to just put it off, saying I'll do that later...... Hahaha.... agreed! Precisely! I laugh because you just hit on another of my habits I have yet to break: procrastination! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2009 20:32:59 GMT -5
The Waldensian church website: Nathan has a different history of the Waldensians than the group itself does. I am sure the group know more about their history than Nathan who gets his information from a book by Broadbent a Brethren who tries to trace his own church history through the Waldensian line and who was never a Waldesian. The Waldensian's never claim to go back to Jesus. www.waldensianpresbyterian.org/The Waldensian Church is the oldest evangelical church in existence, dating back at least to the 12th century and thus anticipating the Reformation by at least four hundred years. Beginning in the 13th century and extending through the 18th century severe persecutions diminished the Waldensian population. On February 17, 1848, King Charles Albert of Sardinia finally granted the Waldenses civil liberties. The population growth that followed forced many to leave their native valleys in the Cottian Alps of northern Italy, due to overcrowding. In 1893, twenty-nine Waldenses arrived in Burke County to prepare a place for several hundred other immigrants. In 1897, the settlers began work on a Romanesque-style church that would resemble those found back in the valleys of Italy. Two years later, the church sanctuary was completed and dedicated on July 4, 1899. In the New World, the importance of the Scriptures remained. In the Waldensian Valleys in the Alps, it was most unusual to find a family who had not memorized at least one book of the New Testament, based on their fear that persecution might deprive them of the written word. In the New World, they continued the practice of having children memorize one chapter of the Bible. The Waldensian Valleys VALDESE The adjacent map is a sketch of the Waldensian valleys in the Cottian Alps of northern Italy. You may click on the map to view an enlarged and more legible picture, but the image is approximately 130K and may take a few minutes to display.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 9, 2009 21:07:52 GMT -5
1) The Waldensian church website: Nathan has a different history of the Waldensians than the group itself does. I am sure the group know more about their history than Nathan who gets his information from a book by Broadbent a Brethren who tries to trace his own church history through the Waldensian line and who was never a Waldesian. The Waldensian's never claim to go back to Jesus. ~~~ The Vaudois/Waldensians split many directions in the 17th-18th century. Some have joined the Reformation movement... Some joined the Catholic Church... and others started their own denomination.Many followers of Peter Waldo in 1173 from France believed he was their founder... Peter Waldo began preaching in 1173. It seems Peter Waldo's followers do not claim they go back to Jesus.
However, the Vaudois existed in Swiss Alps long before they came to France in the 11th century. The Vaudois claimed they could trace back their lineage back to Paul the apostle and eventually to Jesus the chief cornerstone.
My source of information of the Vaudois came from many sources books, Internet NOT just broadbent book The Pilgrim Church.
Jay Wicks and myself heard a church historian who gave a lecture on the Vaudois, Peter Waldo group in Oregon, 1990.Show me where the Waldensian church split?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 9, 2009 21:08:51 GMT -5
It's interesting that the Waldensian Church has been a proud member of the Presbyterian Church, USA, since 1895.
That's about the same time William Irvine professed through a Presbyterian minister in Scotland.
I don't understand how that would connect the mission of William Irvine, Wilson McClung et al. with the Waldensians though.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 9, 2009 23:34:25 GMT -5
Topics that don't relate to the "Truth" fellowship or posts that are off-topic may be removed.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Feb 10, 2009 1:55:18 GMT -5
This thread is missing the point. Establishing William Irvine as founder does not diminish or enhance the role of God in the 2x2 fellowship, either 112 years ago or today. What does it do? For me personally it means nothing. if I heard it being discussed in a meeting of any kind I would have to walk out because it has nothing to do with my service to God. This is exactly how I feel and I just don't see the point anymore in discussing about a man.
|
|