|
Post by lin on Feb 12, 2009 9:38:54 GMT -5
As the song goes I think we're onto something good.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 12, 2009 9:58:49 GMT -5
Nate: What "record" of FM gives all the names you gave below?? You ahve a copy of it? I ask bcs your list shown below is incorrect and I cant imagine FM giving out an incorrect list.
Your list isn't correct. You show the date they entered FM - not when they left. You were writing about when they left in your earlier post...
John Long was never in the FM.
Adam Hutchison is not shown on the FM roles of entering or leaving that I have been given by FM.
~~ I didn't say left the same time as John Kelly.
Here are the names of 7 Faith Mission workers according to their record.
1) William Irivine 6/14/1895 2) John Kelly 5/27/1896 3) Harry O. M'Neary 1/10/1897 4) Joe burns 1/8/1898 5) Adam Hutchison 6) May Carroll 11/19/1899 7) John Long
ALL of the above Faith Mission workers LEFT that group and became 2x2s workers... I'd like to know who or how many instigated the idea RETURN to the METHODS and Purpose taught and CARRIED out by Christ and His apostolic Itinerant ministry.
Who were the rest of 200 workers on the 2x2 list? Where did they come from? did more Faith Mission workers who want to RETURN to the METHODS taught and Carried out by Christ and His Apostolic Itinerant ministry?[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 12, 2009 10:02:14 GMT -5
Why dont you go investigate them all nate, and find out where they came from and what happened to them? That would be a good project for you...
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 12, 2009 10:20:28 GMT -5
So now you're down to 5 workers...from 7 who were in FM and left them?
How many left the same year WmI did?? TWO
Did they leave at exactly the same time he did?? UNKNOWN
Hardly a mass exodus....
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 12, 2009 10:25:40 GMT -5
I'd like to know who or how many instigated the idea RETURN to the METHODS and Purpose taught and CARRIED out by Christ and His apostolic Itinerant ministry. If a ministry is truly apostolic, wouldn't it have to trace itself directly back to the original 12 Apostles? Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 12, 2009 10:39:22 GMT -5
~~~ There has always been New Testament Church= apostles and believers in every generation for 2000 yrs. My question was: If a ministry is truly apostolic, wouldn't it have to trace itself directly back to the original 12 Apostles?I think MOST of us can agree that any Christian church is a part of the New Testament church. However, not everyone will agree that there are still people who can be considered 'apostles' in the same manner as the original apostles. I know that an apostle is a 'sent one'. The issue is who does the sending. Scott
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 12, 2009 10:41:53 GMT -5
nathan9 your going off the deep end again. Can you verify this?
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 12, 2009 10:59:40 GMT -5
nathan9 your going off the deep end again. Can you verify this? What do you want me to verify, lin? let me know. thanks.There has always been New Testament Church= apostles and believers in every generation for 2000 yrs.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 12, 2009 12:44:58 GMT -5
~~~ Yes, that is what I wrote. I have shown historical documents facts for 10 yrs now on different message boards and on here. So has Cherie and others. But you discount their facts and try to discount what was recorded. At the same time you use 'facts' from sources much older than the facts about the truth fellowship and feel that everyone should believe them. I read here where people use the old 'since those workers are dead I guess we will never know the truth' kind of statements. Your facts are from people that have been dead a LOT longer than any of the original workers in your church..... Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 12, 2009 14:35:24 GMT -5
So, I thought I'd like to share my side of the story with my finding on my 2x2s, the similiar 2x2 through out the ages on my website and let the readers decide from reading both sidesAnd you do a good job of it Nathan. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2009 14:41:21 GMT -5
Dear Nathan9, The board has noted your explanations of 2x2isms beginings many many times -- and have attempted to find credibility in your ideas .. but unfortunately although the explanations are extremely different, your story has very similar failings as the more official 2x2 explanation. -- The failing of absolutley no traceable documentable supporting facts in history -- this puts it into the catagory of a fantacy.
I have found Cheries documentation to be surprizing to me -- as I grew up fully convinced the historical background I gave my life to, could never be proven -- one way or the other. To me the begining with William Irvine is proven well enough in the information she has so carefully dug up and presented, that it cannot be honestly contested. -- Of course it will be contested, but it is robust enough to withstand any logical questioning.
Contrary to many, the history of 2x2ism hasn't been a prime issue for me. I had already left the group before I even became aware of it. But it does come with some very compelling dishonesty issues.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 12, 2009 15:04:20 GMT -5
My question was: If a ministry is truly apostolic, wouldn't it have to trace itself directly back to the original 12 Apostles?I think MOST of us can agree that any Christian church is a part of the New Testament church. I think you would have difficulty in gaining consensus from this group as to what is and what is not a christian church. For example, the Mormons consider their church to be christian. I think this is correct. That is one definition. I think a lot of the difficulties in discussions like this is everyone is using their pet definition without telling the rest of the participants.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 12, 2009 15:06:50 GMT -5
I think you would have difficulty in gaining consensus from this group as to what is and what is not a christian church. For example, the Mormons consider their church to be christianThat's fine with me. What others think of their own church doesn't affect how I feel about mine. If someone wants to exclude me from being considered a Christian that is their problem. They are simply losing out on fellowshipping with other Christians that way..... I think a lot of the difficulties in discussions like this is everyone is using their pet definition without telling the rest of the participants. But that makes it easy to defend your position if no one else has a clue what you are talking about. that way one can always be right...... Scott
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 12, 2009 18:49:47 GMT -5
In 2001 I wrote to George Gittens 12/28/2001 Hi Nathan, Yours was of great interest. Here is a little outline of what Robert Darling (worker in 1905) told me. I also talked to some of the friends who had witnessed William Irvine's baptism in the Truth. He had been baptized in the Faith Mission, where he had been a member and a preacher, but he disregarded this. He preached some for the Faith Mission, but renounced it upon hearing the Truth. Robert Darling knew William and also the folks he heard first. Nathan the first paragraph includes some interesting assertions: 1. William Irvine was baptized in the Fath Mission. 2. William Irvine disregarded that baptism. 3. William Irvine renounced the Faith Mission on hearing the Truth (from whom? He claimed to have professed years earlier through the Presbyterian minister Rev. O'Neill). 4. William Irvine was baptized in the Truth. I wonder if those first workers were baptized at the time they decided to start baptizing their converts?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 12, 2009 19:29:55 GMT -5
As information: The Faith Mission doesnt baptize. I verified this with them when I visited their HQ in 2004. In 2001 I wrote to George Gittens 12/28/2001 Hi Nathan, Yours was of great interest. Here is a little outline of what Robert Darling (worker in 1905) told me. I also talked to some of the friends who had witnessed William Irvine's baptism in the Truth. He had been baptized in the Faith Mission, where he had been a member and a preacher, but he disregarded this. He preached some for the Faith Mission, but renounced it upon hearing the Truth. Robert Darling knew William and also the folks he heard first. Nathan the first paragraph includes some interesting assertions: 1. William Irvine was baptized in the Fath Mission. 2. William Irvine disregarded that baptism. 3. William Irvine renounced the Faith Mission on hearing the Truth (from whom? He claimed to have professed years earlier through the Presbyterian minister Rev. O'Neill). 4. William Irvine was baptized in the Truth. I wonder if those first workers were baptized at the time they decided to start baptizing their converts?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 12, 2009 19:37:25 GMT -5
If that is so Cherie, who is telling porkies: 1. George Gittens 2. Robert Darling 3. Nathan Barker 4. The Faith Mission As information: The Faith Mission doesnt baptize. I verified this with them when I visited their HQ in 2004. Nathan the first paragraph includes some interesting assertions: 1. William Irvine was baptized in the Fath Mission. 2. William Irvine disregarded that baptism. 3. William Irvine renounced the Faith Mission on hearing the Truth (from whom? He claimed to have professed years earlier through the Presbyterian minister Rev. O'Neill). 4. William Irvine was baptized in the Truth. I wonder if those first workers were baptized at the time they decided to start baptizing their converts?
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 12, 2009 19:49:39 GMT -5
Strange that they didn't admit to baptism, Cherie....here's a link to the Faith Mission's beliefs. www.faithchristianmission.com/fcmbeliefs.htmlQuote" 4. All believers are admonished to be baptized in water. Mark 16: 16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned ." According to Matthew 28: 19 "baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. " AND Acts 2:38 "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," ACTS 4:12 " Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 12, 2009 19:51:05 GMT -5
Thank you, Nathan, for those accounts...I just wish that the workers had not had stifled the history through the years! It would leave little to debate now!
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 12, 2009 19:56:43 GMT -5
This is another interesting one too,Sharon. Strange about the baptism isn't it ? Maybe some of this other stuff should be verified too.
13.We believe that divorce and remarriage is unscriptural and forbidden, except where fornication is proven to be the cause of separation. "and I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultry." (Matt 19: 9) "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adultress; but if her husband be dead, she is free from the law, so that she is no adultress, though she be married to another man." (Romans 7:2-3)
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 12, 2009 20:19:49 GMT -5
Another interesting website from the Apostolic Faith Church. www.apostolicfaith.org/foryou/articles/AGospelthatWorks.asp?location=Home&Title=A%20Gospel%20That%20WorksTo quote a couple of passages kind of sums up the "feelings" that've run rampant on this board. "Paul the Apostle must have known what it was to be ashamed of something, but he also knew what it was to hold up his head and feel as though he had something worth having. He wrote to the Romans, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16). We do not have to be embarrassed or ashamed of what God puts in our hearts, because it is good. It is high quality. It does what God intended for it to do. The Gospel enables us to live in the manner that God intended for us to live. If it were a product that did not do the job, we would hang our heads and be embarrassed to admit that we were Christians. But we are not ashamed of the Gospel. Paul would have been ashamed of the Gospel if it were of man. He said, “I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man” (Galatians 1:11). He had an encounter with God as he was walking along that Damascus Road . After he was struck to the ground, he heard a Voice saying, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” From that moment on, his life was altogether changed. The man who had persecuted Christians became one who preached the Gospel he had once sought to destroy. Ashamed of it? Not by any means! He knew that this Gospel was from Heaven. We would be ashamed of the Gospel if it did not have power. Paul wrote that one of the perils of the last days was that men would have “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Timothy 3:5). There is power in the Gospel to deliver. In fact, Paul says that it is the “power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” It seems to me that some would like for us to take shame over the gospel that some of us have held onto and believe in Christ Jesus possibly because their shame was over the same gospel's delivery to them? That comes into the "persecution" situation spoken about in Mt. 5 doesn't it......The harder people seek to diminish the truth's fellowship the more they play into the fulfilling of the scriptures or so it seems to me. It just doesn't seem to speak of the love and mercy of Christ to try and diminish anyone's particular faith or the faith system itself, does it? I try my best not to knock other religious beliefs, I don't know a whole lot about some of them...some of them I know more then I think I want to...but at the same time don't want to knock them because I have NO way of knowing how it feeds the spirit of the upright and sincere hearts! Seems best just to leave that judgment up to God, doesn't it? I'm glad for those that I've met who have a sound faith in Christ Jesus.....even those on this board....and my deepest wish has been to help resolve some of the pain and hurt feelings of those who feel all of that from something within the truth's fellowship! I have no problem with people leaving the truth's fellowship and going onto something more fulfilling because it has always been about individual choices from the day of Adam and Eve, hasn't it. It isn't my right to force anyone's choice particularly in things that will count in eternity, now is it?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 12, 2009 20:34:51 GMT -5
Nathan, could you explain to me the connection between the Faith Mission that our church broke away from and the FaithChristianMission.com website? Strange that they didn't admit to baptism, Cherie....here's a link to the Faith Mission's beliefs. www.faithchristianmission.com/fcmbeliefs.htmlQuote" 4. All believers are admonished to be baptized in water. Mark 16: 16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned ." According to Matthew 28: 19 "baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. " AND Acts 2:38 "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," ACTS 4:12 " Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." 1) Jesusonly wrote: If that is so Cherie, who is telling porkies 1. George Gittens 2. Robert Darling 3. Nathan Barker 4. The Faith Mission Today at 19:29, CherieKropp wrote: As information: The Faith Mission doesnt baptize. I verified this with them when I visited their HQ in 2004.~~~~ Jesusonly: Who do you think is telling porkie now?
Thanks, Sharon for the FM belief link! awesome. So FM changed their belief on Baptism, Cherie? now they no longer baptize their converts?
So the FM today doesn't follow or pratice Jesus GREAT commission in Matthew 28 which including baptism. Wow!
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 12, 2009 21:22:54 GMT -5
Check your facts before you get too excited Nathan. Today at 19:29, CherieKropp wrote: As information: The Faith Mission doesnt baptize. I verified this with them when I visited their HQ in 2004.~~~~ Jesusonly: Who do you think is telling porkie now?
Thanks, Sharon for the FM belief link! awesome. So FM changed their belief on Baptism, Cherie? now they no longer baptize their converts?
So the FM today doesn't follow or pratice Jesus GREAT commission in Matthew 28 which including baptism. Wow!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 12, 2009 21:26:51 GMT -5
This doesnt say their preachers baptize--they believe in it, but they dont form churches or baptize. Their preachers are missionaries. FM isn't a church. It's a mission. They encourage people to attend the local churches, where they can be baptized and take communion. Strange that they didn't admit to baptism, Cherie....here's a link to the Faith Mission's beliefs. www.faithchristianmission.com/fcmbeliefs.htmlQuote" 4. All believers are admonished to be baptized in water. Mark 16: 16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned ." According to Matthew 28: 19 "baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. " AND Acts 2:38 "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," ACTS 4:12 " Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 12, 2009 21:29:27 GMT -5
This doesnt say their preachers baptize--they believe in it, but they dont form churches or baptize. Their preachers are missionaries. They encourage people to attend the local churches of their church, where they can be baptized. Strange that they didn't admit to baptism, Cherie....here's a link to the Faith Mission's beliefs. www.faithchristianmission.com/fcmbeliefs.htmlQuote" 4. All believers are admonished to be baptized in water. Mark 16: 16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned ." According to Matthew 28: 19 "baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. " AND Acts 2:38 "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," ACTS 4:12 " Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other NAME under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Cherie, it looks like they didn't even get this from the Faith Mission website.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 12, 2009 21:55:23 GMT -5
I see - well that figures... Its from some group called the Faith CHRISTIAN Mission - and the site does not give a connection to the Faith Mission or to the FM website. This doesnt say their preachers baptize--they believe in it, but they dont form churches or baptize. Their preachers are missionaries. They encourage people to attend the local churches of their church, where they can be baptized. Cherie, it looks like they didn't even get this from the Faith Mission website.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Feb 12, 2009 22:08:40 GMT -5
Thank you, Nathan, for those accounts...I just wish that the workers had not had stifled the history through the years! It would leave little to debate now! I do wonder if Jesus had a hand in that aspect of the history being stifled and in doing so required a faith aspect to it? I would note that that issue has taken many out them requiring to know that particular part of the history instead maybe of just having faith in Jesus's leadings in real time.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 12, 2009 22:32:03 GMT -5
Nathan, the point you seem to be missing is that your George Gittens story is clutching at straws. William Irvine was NOT baptized in the Faith mission. William Irvine did NOT disregard his Faith mission baptism (because he never had one). Why should I believe anything else you try to tell me? 1) This doesnt say their preachers baptize--they believe in it, but they dont form churches or baptize. Their preachers are missionaries. FM isn't a church. It's a mission. They encourage people to attend the local churches, where they can be baptized and take communion. ~~~ The Faith Mission is a VERY strange group.... Their preachers believe in baptism but they don't baptize their converts. They believe in Communion but they don't partake it themselves. Why preach and believe about baptism, the Communion and NOT practice it?
The Faith Mission is so different from what we read from the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and his disciples in the New Testament church.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 12, 2009 22:42:42 GMT -5
that's how nathan admits he's wrong.
|
|