|
Post by déjà vu on Jul 9, 2009 19:30:23 GMT -5
reading your post , this verse came to my mind
Matt 25/15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 9, 2009 19:48:35 GMT -5
If workers want to travel around the globe doing the convention and special meeting thing that's fine with me.
If they feel its best to remain single to go from house to house that fine with me too.
As long as they don't insist that ministry can only be done that way.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 10, 2009 1:05:52 GMT -5
If workers want to travel around the globe doing the convention and special meeting thing that's fine with me. If they feel its best to remain single to go from house to house that fine with me too. As long as they don't insist that ministry can only be done that way. Why shouldn't they insist that ministry can only be done that way.?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 10, 2009 7:10:34 GMT -5
If workers want to travel around the globe doing the convention and special meeting thing that's fine with me. If they feel its best to remain single to go from house to house that fine with me too. As long as they don't insist that ministry can only be done that way. Why shouldn't they insist that ministry can only be done that way.? Ministry wasn't limited to single people in bible days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2009 7:21:02 GMT -5
Ministry can be done in ornate gowns, dancing girls, coast to coast television coverage and swimming pools of money - but it has no authority from Christ.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 10, 2009 7:52:48 GMT -5
Ministry can be done in ornate gowns, dancing girls, coast to coast television coverage and swimming pools of money - but it has no authority from Christ. Bert: You left out "clowns." I saw a van with "Clowining for Jesus" on the side being driven by a clown. Do clowns have any authority from Christ?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 10, 2009 10:38:07 GMT -5
Cherie, you remind me of the prayer I've prayed very fervantly for sometime and that was that God would show which church affiliation that pleases HIM the most. It has seemed the answer, so far, is where my spirit is fed the most.
So yes, I'd say if a clown showing forth the life of Christ reaches someone, then that too is with authority! I'm not sure we've ever read about hilarity being within the scope of Jesus' life and practices but then we're not told all about His life, now are we?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 10, 2009 16:08:52 GMT -5
Ministry can be done in ornate gowns, dancing girls, coast to coast television coverage and swimming pools of money - but it has no authority from Christ. Did Phillip's ministry to the Ethiopian have authority from Christ? He was a married man (horrors!) and a father of seven daughters (how could he carry them around from house to house - that's child abuse!). He was both a deacon and an evangelist - how does that fit in with our system today Bert? Would he be booted for being out of his place (thinks he is a worker! Horrors!) Holy-Spirit driven ministry is not a man-organized predictable tradition-bound machine.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 10, 2009 21:50:25 GMT -5
Why shouldn't they insist that ministry can only be done that way.? Ministry wasn't limited to single people in bible days. Who said it wasn't?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 10, 2009 21:51:28 GMT -5
believer: couldn't agree more, it's all about going out in faith. I don't want any financial support structure but to prove the power and provision of God, like the workers in times past knew of. So why don't you go out and do just that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2009 23:42:38 GMT -5
Today, Phillip's work would be scoffed at and he would be scorned if he kept it up. He would be deemed not in his "place" and would eventually be excommunicated. If Christ came back, he would have to sit through a series of gospel meetings and stand up in a tested meeting in order to be allowed to participate in a fellowship meeting. Then he would have to seek the approval of an overseer to go about his Father's business.
Let's not kid ourselves, that's just where we are at at this time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 1:35:40 GMT -5
Guess it won't be long (if it hasn't already happened) when we have drug dealers for Jesus. Seems Michael Jackson saw himself as some suffering Christ figure.
By the "Authority of Christ" I mean anything Jesus asked us to do, or, anything He showed us how to do. By way of example: religious pilgrimages do not have scriptural authority, loving our enemies has the blessing of scripture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 1:41:04 GMT -5
Today, Phillip's work would be scoffed at and he would be scorned if he kept it up. He would be deemed not in his "place" and would eventually be excommunicated. If Christ came back, he would have to sit through a series of gospel meetings and stand up in a tested meeting in order to be allowed to participate in a fellowship meeting. Then he would have to seek the approval of an overseer to go about his Father's business. Let's not kid ourselves, that's just where we are at at this time. Really? I think you are misrepresenting us. Phillip was commanded to go to Gaza, where he met the Ethiopian. It does not say either Phillip or the Ethiopian were with company or not (certainly the Ethiopian was with company because he couldn't have cross Egypt without it) And had the church reached the city where this "Ethiopian" lived (not modern Ethiopia) this man would have had to submit himself to the authority of that church. Recall those baptised by John who were asked to be re-baptised?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 11, 2009 3:45:21 GMT -5
Ministry can be done in ornate gowns, dancing girls, coast to coast television coverage and swimming pools of money - but it has no authority from Christ. Did Phillip's ministry to the Ethiopian have authority from Christ? Why would you think it didn't? Oh shock horror he was married, so? Who said he carried them around from house to house? If it's Gods will it will fit in fine Why? Why would he "think" he was a worker when God clearly had a work for him to do? Who said it was?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 11, 2009 3:46:38 GMT -5
Today, Phillip's work would be scoffed at and he would be scorned if he kept it up. He would be deemed not in his "place" and would eventually be excommunicated. If Christ came back, he would have to sit through a series of gospel meetings and stand up in a tested meeting in order to be allowed to participate in a fellowship meeting. Then he would have to seek the approval of an overseer to go about his Father's business. Let's not kid ourselves, that's just where we are at at this time. No kidding
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 11, 2009 4:54:07 GMT -5
Today, Phillip's work would be scoffed at and he would be scorned if he kept it up. He would be deemed not in his "place" and would eventually be excommunicated. If Christ came back, he would have to sit through a series of gospel meetings and stand up in a tested meeting in order to be allowed to participate in a fellowship meeting. Then he would have to seek the approval of an overseer to go about his Father's business. Let's not kid ourselves, that's just where we are at at this time. Really? I think you are misrepresenting us. Phillip was commanded to go to Gaza, where he met the Ethiopian. It does not say either Phillip or the Ethiopian were with company or not (certainly the Ethiopian was with company because he couldn't have cross Egypt without it) And had the church reached the city where this "Ethiopian" lived (not modern Ethiopia) this man would have had to submit himself to the authority of that church. Recall those baptised by John who were asked to be re-baptised? You're big on the authority of the church, but Jesus wasn't. He taught about a relationship with himself and the Father, hearing the Shepherd's voice and following him. Today's workers would feel threatened by a saint doing what Phillip did and would forbid it, quenching the Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 11, 2009 6:06:59 GMT -5
Really? I think you are misrepresenting us. Phillip was commanded to go to Gaza, where he met the Ethiopian. It does not say either Phillip or the Ethiopian were with company or not (certainly the Ethiopian was with company because he couldn't have cross Egypt without it) And had the church reached the city where this "Ethiopian" lived (not modern Ethiopia) this man would have had to submit himself to the authority of that church. Recall those baptised by John who were asked to be re-baptised? You're big on the authority of the church, but Jesus wasn't. He taught about a relationship with himself and the Father, hearing the Shepherd's voice and following him. Today's workers would feel threatened by a saint doing what Phillip did and would forbid it, quenching the Spirit. You are very big on saying what others would do
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 7:31:41 GMT -5
He's probably speaking from experience. In the case of the workers rejecting the evengelistic work of the friends, since they have done it over and over in the past, it doesn't take much guessing to know what they would do in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 7:43:03 GMT -5
Today, Phillip's work would be scoffed at and he would be scorned if he kept it up. He would be deemed not in his "place" and would eventually be excommunicated. If Christ came back, he would have to sit through a series of gospel meetings and stand up in a tested meeting in order to be allowed to participate in a fellowship meeting. Then he would have to seek the approval of an overseer to go about his Father's business. Let's not kid ourselves, that's just where we are at at this time. Really? I think you are misrepresenting us. Phillip was commanded to go to Gaza, where he met the Ethiopian. It does not say either Phillip or the Ethiopian were with company or not (certainly the Ethiopian was with company because he couldn't have cross Egypt without it) And had the church reached the city where this "Ethiopian" lived (not modern Ethiopia) this man would have had to submit himself to the authority of that church. Recall those baptised by John who were asked to be re-baptised? You can massage the story of Phillip all you like bert but the facts speak for themselves. It was Phillip's work sitting up on the chariot that opened up the scriptures for the eunuch and led to his rejoicing in his newfound relationship with God. Not only would we reject the work of a saint today in introducing someone to Christ, but we would subject the eunuch to scrutiny about his sex life before accepting or rejecting him. There's no misrepresentations here bert. Workers and workers only are allowed to do evangelical work to bring people to Christ. I personally know a friend who worked tirelessly to bring a person into faith in Christ and a personal relationship with God. I mean hours and hours of patient work. Finally, the man found God and peace even though the workers wouldn't visit him. When the man confessed his sin and his new found faith, the workers finally came and heard him. The next gospel meeting we heard all about what the workers did for that man.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 8:37:32 GMT -5
Some mistatements:
Quote - workers only are allowed to do evangelical work to bring people to Christ.
Wasn't Phillip in the Work also?
Quote - we reject the work of a saint today in introducing someone to Christ
No, not true
Quote - we would subject the eunuch to scrutiny about his sex life before accepting or rejecting him.
News to me. You might need to elaborate
Quote - When the man confessed his sin and his new found faith, the workers finally came and heard him. The next gospel meeting we heard all about what the workers did for that man.
Can't comment because I don't know all the facts or the other side of the story. But it appears that the work done here was firstly from God, then those who spoke to him and finally by the Workers. I have never heard a Worker taking credit for someone's salvation.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 11, 2009 8:43:16 GMT -5
Today, Phillip's work would be scoffed at and he would be scorned if he kept it up. He would be deemed not in his "place" and would eventually be excommunicated. If Christ came back, he would have to sit through a series of gospel meetings and stand up in a tested meeting in order to be allowed to participate in a fellowship meeting. Then he would have to seek the approval of an overseer to go about his Father's business. Let's not kid ourselves, that's just where we are at at this time. Really? I think you are misrepresenting us. Phillip was commanded to go to Gaza, where he met the Ethiopian. It does not say either Phillip or the Ethiopian were with company or not (certainly the Ethiopian was with company because he couldn't have cross Egypt without it) And had the church reached the city where this "Ethiopian" lived (not modern Ethiopia) this man would have had to submit himself to the authority of that church. Recall those baptised by John who were asked to be re-baptised? bert, I took it that those people who were re-baptized wished it to be so for they knew how short they fell of that which was right....however, think of this Jesus went through with only the baptism of John...this doesn't even agree with Jesus' experience....this seems to be something that was agreed upon between the baptizees and the baptizers!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 8:54:03 GMT -5
Phillip lived almost 20 centuries before there were workers.
Find me a worker who will always accept the profession of faith though the friends. There are none. The workers consider themselves as having the sole authority in the world to accept people into the kingdom of God.
No homosexuals allowed.
You have all the facts. There is no "other side of the story", you heard both sides.
Bert, have you ever heard the phrase "professed through xxxx"? That's taking credit for someone's salvation and it happens daily.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 11, 2009 8:54:49 GMT -5
Really? I think you are misrepresenting us. Phillip was commanded to go to Gaza, where he met the Ethiopian. It does not say either Phillip or the Ethiopian were with company or not (certainly the Ethiopian was with company because he couldn't have cross Egypt without it) And had the church reached the city where this "Ethiopian" lived (not modern Ethiopia) this man would have had to submit himself to the authority of that church. Recall those baptised by John who were asked to be re-baptised? You can massage the story of Phillip all you like bert but the facts speak for themselves. It was Phillip's work sitting up on the chariot that opened up the scriptures for the eunuch and led to his rejoicing in his newfound relationship with God. Not only would we reject the work of a saint today in introducing someone to Christ, but we would subject the eunuch to scrutiny about his sex life before accepting or rejecting him. There's no misrepresentations here bert. Workers and workers only are allowed to do evangelical work to bring people to Christ. I personally know a friend who worked tirelessly to bring a person into faith in Christ and a personal relationship with God. I mean hours and hours of patient work. Finally, the man found God and peace even though the workers wouldn't visit him. When the man confessed his sin and his new found faith, the workers finally came and heard him. The next gospel meeting we heard all about what the workers did for that man..... There was a man who worked under the supervision of one of the lady friends....he'd noticed her from day one and was impressed by her godliness, how she took verbal teasing about her hair, her clothing etc. without a word in return and she continued with cheerfulness, never taking out on someone else the angst she had to have been feeling about all of this at least in some point and time! So one day she'd finally been goaded enough about her long hair...and she turned on whoever it was goading her and told them in no uncertain terms that it was their business how they wore their hair and she made no fuss about it as long it was not a danger to themselves around the machinery! So she felt like she should be given the same courtesy and ended her tirade. This man applauded her privately later and then asked her about her faith....as it turned out it was just a week or two before their conv. in that part and she invited him to go with her and her husband and 3 children....the man went with them and they went back and forth everyday for they lived about 35 mis. from the conv. ground and he was faithful about being at their house in plenty of time....anyway when they tested the mtg. on Sat. nite at the conv. this man almost stood up...don't really remember his reasoning why he didn't....however he continued to go to Sun. a.m and Wed nite Bible studies with them until the workers got through with all their convs. of the year.....I remember the sister worker who was assigned to that field that year, at the last conv. she asked the overseer if she and her companion could go on because she said she was literally afraid the man was going to profess before they could have gospel mtgs. for him. I'd say that God had done a work in that man's heart long before he'd ever even gone to the conv. But do you think the workers really claim that? Do you think the workers even allowed that the silent testimony the lady friend carried before her employees had anything to do with it....maybe one of them does to a small extent for she is generally fair minded. This man's testimony later came out that his own father who had never darkened the door of any church had read his Bible faithfully and tried to govern and teach his family from it.....do you think that we can give the dead father a Chrisitan glory for his faithfulness though no worker had crossed his pathway...I certainly do. God was working in that young man's heart from his father's knee through his time under the lady friend's supervision at work and it was God who'd done the gospel work....not anyone else....there were people instruments that kept his eyes on the Bible for certain!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2009 8:58:16 GMT -5
Quote - " Bert, have you ever heard the phrase "professed through xxxx"? That's taking credit for someone's salvation and it happens daily." No, that's not credit if you understand the Message, that's appreciation. I deeply appreciate those who brought us the Gospel, but I don't give them credit.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 13, 2009 15:22:56 GMT -5
~~ I have stayed in Dave's son home and talked to him..... NOT an easy life.
Bill Carroll and his wife had a baby girl in the work. It was very tough for them to take care the sick baby so one the friends raised their daughter for them this way they could continue in the ministry.
Cherie, I like the thought it could be understood that if married worker has children-- they are automatically out of the work so they could take care their baby.... or the friends could adopt the baby so they could continue in the work of the ministry. Another wild statement? I hope for your sake that you have evidence of what you say when you come before the judge of the quick and the dead. First of all you need to prove that this happens and that doesn't just mean one isolated incident of some waywould worker gone astray.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 13, 2009 16:30:57 GMT -5
I think Periodot said workers and young girls in the fellowship had had babies....I got the impression that she was talking about female workers and female young girls and I'm sure when the numbers are counted that these would all be the mothers.....I'm not sure she indicated who the fathers were....could just be my interpretation.....the fathers apparently were not available or able so that's why the babies were adopted out! JMO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2009 17:05:49 GMT -5
~~ I have stayed in Dave's son home and talked to him..... NOT an easy life.
Bill Carroll and his wife had a baby girl in the work. It was very tough for them to take care the sick baby so one the friends raised their daughter for them this way they could continue in the ministry.
Cherie, I like the thought it could be understood that if married worker has children-- they are automatically out of the work so they could take care their baby.... or the friends could adopt the baby so they could continue in the work of the ministry. 1) Judy wrote: Nathan, I am appalled! Too many babies have been born of workers and young girls in the truth fellowship and adopted by other professing families--this is not a good solution for workers to give up their children for adoption. It has had many damaging effects both on the child and those involved. ~~ N9: Can you back up your claim about too many babies have been born of workers and young girls in the truth? Have you been keeping records? Can you tell us how many workers have babies with young girls that you know of. 2) Where in the Bible does it even suggest that a minister would have a child and give it to someone else to care for so they could continue in the truth fellowship as a worker??? ~~ Jesus said, " And everyone that has forshaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother or wife, or CHILDREN! or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundred folds, and shall inherit everlasting life." (Matt. 19:29)
Nathan, glad you mentioned that verse, was wondering when it would be brought up. I've thought a lot about it, whether I could get conviction for singleness through it. Some things I noticed and want to point out: A more complete account of what Jesus said is in Mark 10:28-30. 28 Then Peter began to say to Him, “See, we have left all and followed You.” So Jesus answered and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife[e] or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s, 30 who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life. Notice the emphasis is not on what people are giving up but the whole point of Jesus message is that they will receive 100 times more IN THIS LIFE and eternal life. Bearing this in mind I can't use this verse to justify a rule to something as serious as abandoning young children. It goes against everything Jesus stood for. There is no commandment in the verse. Only a law- that you will receive 100 times more of anything you give up for the gospels sake. If this was a commandment wouldn't Jesus have said so? Nowhere does it say it only applies to workers, for the gospel's sake applies to everyone does it not? We all support the gospel? How do we know that Peter's wife wasn't standing beside him when he said 'we have left all...'? See the difference?! We do know that his brother was certainly beside him, even though Jesus went on to mention leaving brothers, Peter hadn't left his brother, Andrew. A 55 year old couple recently moved to a far country to provide an open home- for workers, for new, young friends to meet on Sunday etc. They left their kids (adults) back home, they don't see them too often. But they have many new children. They are proving Jesus promise of 100 fold. I think Jesus meant leaving grown up children, does this not make a lot more sense? I've heard stories of workers leaving kids to others to bring up, and apparently in many cases the kids have become bitter. In Ralph and Rene's case, the kids they brought up themselves professed and seem balanced and happy. I think married workers and children go together. Either we believe in both or neither. God knows very well that married workers will inevitably lead to children, don't think he was depending on contraception when sorting out his plan for ministry to the world :-) or fobbing kids off to relatives/friends. Also notice Jesus is not recorded as including wife in the new translations, why not? Wife was either added in or taken out of the ancient manuscripts, did people like Jerome, early supporters of celibacy in the 100 to 300 years after Jesus life, add this in to support their aims? Also, Jesus said you would receive 100 times more of everything except apparently 'wife', does this ring true to you? I mean the whole point of the story was that you'd receive 100 times more of what you give up, but when you throw 'wife' in there the point of the story is lost. Don't know, but worth bearing in mind. Also, if the disciples did abandon wives (esp Peter) what does 1 Cor 9:5 mean? Seems a contradiction there? Remember that women were not considered to the same extent that they are today, just because they were not mentioned so much doesn't mean they didn't exist, e.g. Philip's wife is never mentioned but he didn't produce those daughters on his own! Why would he call people like Ralph and Rene to the work if he didn't want married workers? We've talked a lot about the practicalities of this issue but not that much about the doctrine/mind and will of God aspect, which I think is much more important. Interested to hear any thoughts on this. I've copied this post into the other thread, maybe we can keep this discussion all over there?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Oct 10, 2009 8:24:29 GMT -5
Hey!! Sorry, I've been busy and missed a few pages of conversation, but did anyone end up working out how it is that WI gets credited as a founder, or is that still a mystery? For anybody that is interested, we have a new baby boy (about a week ago), hence the reason for having a look at TMB... sitting up in the still of the night with a baby that is wide awake somehow makes TMB exciting in comparison.
|
|