|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 1, 2010 15:12:05 GMT -5
Well, that's right, Jesse. However, it's often carnal knowledge that counteracts the universal tendency to self-righteousness, or in modern parlance, ego- or ethno-centrism. Head of gold and feet of clay. Should the workers speak of the actual movement history either when they are asked, or, as clearday suggested, right in the meeting if there are newcomers. I know you would agree with the former, but what about the mention of the actual history in a gospel meeting? Why does the latter not occur? One good reason is that we wish to emphasize the gospel message, not the particular history of our own people. That's a good motive. But at the same time, I think there is the thought that we do "carnally" go back to the time of Christ. And we don't explicitly teach that, but we plant a little seed and then water it bit by bit. Past experience has taught the workers that there are one or two things the novice listener is not ready for, so those are held back and left to the guiding of the Spirit. That makes sense in situations but are we sometimes deluding ourselves as to why we do this? "The workers" might not be 100% responsible for an individual's interpretation there is a carnal linage back to Galilee? Anyway whoever is asked should answer with what they know, and if it is not known say "I don't know". It's still interesting to me to read things like what Bert said about his relatives meeting in homes in CA, USA in 1890 because I've heard similar from an old lady here. How that factors in I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 1, 2010 15:15:44 GMT -5
Scripture is not always a good measurement of what is right or wrong. I don't believe scripture should be used to prove right and wrong. What makes something right for me is experience. I believe this is the point that Jesse is making. There are thousands of people in this way that declaring a history to, would not mean anything to them. Where they came from had a history,whatever the movement. What means the most to these people is their own experience and what this way has brought into their religious experience that was not there before. That is what makes this the only way to them. It has nothing to do with whoever introduced them to it. I have heard a lot of people say they knew what they were looking for, long before they ever heard of this. In Ireland in the beginning hundreds went in for this knowing full well of the history,because they were a part of the history. There's a lot to your post and worth kicking around. I agree about the value of experience, although relate Scripture in perhaps a different way than you do here. Another word for experience is "induction". For example, I've seen tons of crows by this point in my life, and everyone has been black. I'm not sure why crows are black, but I'm pretty sure that the next one I see will be black also. For many people, this Way just works for them. It's brought them peace, hope and joy. Also sacrifice and some suffering but it's all worth it to them. They might not know all the ins and outs of the doctrine, and get involved with doctrinal fine points and arguments, because this way just works. But it's also true that our experience can at times lead us to prejudice, to narrow-mindedness, and even self-deceit. Scripture, of which Jesus is Incarnate, is the rock on which we need to be standing. I think life's pathway will test us, prove us, and as one wag said, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Very true spiritually as well. So, yes, we can rely on our experience, but we should also remain open to change. The next white crow I see could change everything.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Feb 1, 2010 15:22:02 GMT -5
It's still interesting to me to read things like what Bert said about his relatives meeting in homes in CA, USA in 1890 because I've heard similar from an old lady here. How that factors in I don't know. How does that factor in? There are other Christian fellowships that meet exclusively in homes and public parks. I've encountered three home-meeting groups in the last decade who have never heard of our workers. (Some of them are amazed that a world-wide organization of affiliated home groups can actually exist.) These unrelated groups probably have just as much in common with Bert's relatives in California in 1890 as the friends and workers meetings do.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 1, 2010 15:23:33 GMT -5
Well, that's right, Jesse. However, it's often carnal knowledge that counteracts the universal tendency to self-righteousness, or in modern parlance, ego- or ethno-centrism. Head of gold and feet of clay. Should the workers speak of the actual movement history either when they are asked, or, as clearday suggested, right in the meeting if there are newcomers. I know you would agree with the former, but what about the mention of the actual history in a gospel meeting? Why does the latter not occur? One good reason is that we wish to emphasize the gospel message, not the particular history of our own people. That's a good motive. But at the same time, I think there is the thought that we do "carnally" go back to the time of Christ. And we don't explicitly teach that, but we plant a little seed and then water it bit by bit. Past experience has taught the workers that there are one or two things the novice listener is not ready for, so those are held back and left to the guiding of the Spirit. That makes sense in situations but are we sometimes deluding ourselves as to why we do this? "The workers" might not be 100% responsible for an individual's interpretation there is a carnal linage back to Galilee? Anyway whoever is asked should answer with what they know, and if it is not known say "I don't know". It's still interesting to me to read things like what Bert said about his relatives meeting in homes in CA, USA in 1890 because I've heard similar from an old lady here. How that factors in I don't know. Easy. "The workers began preaching in Ireland in the late 1890s. Around 1905, they established home meetings for those they reached with the Gospel. These meetings were modeled on the churches of the NT, and we know there have been meetings in homes throughout history even before the worker movement". Something along that line would be accurate. As I stated above though I think if the friends focused on the history without embarrassment a great deal of information of interest would come to light.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 1, 2010 15:26:03 GMT -5
Easy. "The workers began preaching in Ireland in the late 1890s. Around 1905, they established home meetings for those they reached with the Gospel. These meetings were modeled on the churches of the NT, and we know there have been meetings in homes throughout history even before the worker movement". Something along that line would be accurate. As I stated above though I think if the friends focused on the history without embarrassment a great deal of information of interest would come to light. Sounds good to me. freespirit
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 1, 2010 15:34:15 GMT -5
It's still interesting to me to read things like what Bert said about his relatives meeting in homes in CA, USA in 1890 because I've heard similar from an old lady here. How that factors in I don't know. How does that factor in? There are other Christian fellowships that meet exclusively in homes and public parks. I've encountered three home-meeting groups in the last decade who have never heard of our workers. (Some of them are amazed that a world-wide organization of affiliated home groups can actually exist.) These unrelated groups probably have just as much in common with Bert's relatives in California in 1890 as the friends and workers meetings do. Anyone who tries to restore the conditions and polity of the NT church is likely to do this, in fact. It's legitimate to read the New Testament and think there are aspects of how they worshipped then that are in alignment with the principles that Jesus taught. I have trouble going so far that Jesus literally told us how and what to do. He did in some respects of course, the sacraments and some aspects of our worship. Did he tell us to meet in homes? I don't see it in Scripture. I do see from Scripture that Jesus taught a meek and lowly way,and that home churches, as opposed to mega-churches, let's say, best exemplify that teaching. But does that mean if you go to a mega-church you won't obtain salvation? Not at all. If trying to show compassion, do the right thing, have and show thankfulness for God's goodness and grace, be content with our earthly portion, if those things rate "100" in having the marks of Jesus, then the kind of building in which you worship does not even rate "1".
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 1, 2010 15:50:55 GMT -5
It's still interesting to me to read things like what Bert said about his relatives meeting in homes in CA, USA in 1890 because I've heard similar from an old lady here. How that factors in I don't know. How does that factor in? There are other Christian fellowships that meet exclusively in homes and public parks. I've encountered three home-meeting groups in the last decade who have never heard of our workers. (Some of them are amazed that a world-wide organization of affiliated home groups can actually exist.) These unrelated groups probably have just as much in common with Bert's relatives in California in 1890 as the friends and workers meetings do. Yes it seems home church/2x2 ministry movments have ebbed and flowed like the Spirit itself - that kind of personal experience might have been in the mix in the fellowship that rose from the earth as one man around 1900. The current home church movements are pretty interesting, there are some around here that my wife has come in contact though music lessons. Interesting they didn't get the home meeting idea from William Irvine.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Feb 1, 2010 15:53:15 GMT -5
Sometimes mega-churches have smaller, more private/intimate groups that meet in homes.
freespirit
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Feb 1, 2010 16:11:58 GMT -5
fellowship that rose from the earth as one man around 1900 When you say it that way, it just sounds ridiculous. ;D Fellowship, by definition, requires more than one person. No offense intended, but I just couldn't suppress a giggle when I read that phrase!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 1, 2010 16:20:31 GMT -5
Sometimes mega-churches have smaller, more private/intimate groups that meet in homes. freespirit I was trying to be real careful to indicate that the mega church concept doesn't work for me personally, without being judgemental. But I'm glad to hear that.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Feb 1, 2010 16:44:46 GMT -5
Why? Because what you say hasn't been my experience, nor the experience of a lot of people I know. andBut it was my experience and I would feel safe saying the experience of the majority of the people I knew/know. Perhaps its not appropriate for Sunday meeting where Communion is being observed.
That leaves special meetings, convention and gospel meetings as very appropriate places to bring it before people.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Feb 1, 2010 16:51:45 GMT -5
"The workers" might not be 100% responsible for an individual's interpretation there is a carnal linage back to Galilee? 99%?
|
|
christopher
Senior Member
"When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek." -Ps. 27:8
Posts: 304
|
Post by christopher on Feb 2, 2010 1:11:14 GMT -5
You know, maybe God is already doing something about the "problem", "lie", "carnal history" or whatever. And if He is, it's probably not quite what most, or perhaps any, of us think it should be. None of us know for sure what He may be doing about it, just yet, but we can be sure He knows what to do.
Are you praying about any of this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 4:13:29 GMT -5
St.Anne. I was reading about Vatican II today. Someone said the modern Catholic Church began in 1965. When do YOU think it began?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 5:01:03 GMT -5
You know, maybe God is already doing something about the "problem", "lie", "carnal history" or whatever. And if He is, it's probably not quite what most, or perhaps any, of us think it should be. None of us know for sure what He may be doing about it, just yet, but we can be sure He knows what to do. Are you praying about any of this? Christopher, this isn't about parting the Red Sea or bringing down the Berlin Wall. All it needs is an honest heart to come clean. It is fear and denial that is stopping this from happening. It is not some huge, impossible matter beyond man. In real terms it hardly equates to me tying my shoe laces, but as we see in Hotshots Part Deux such a thing can be a big problem if we ignore it. I think it is more relevant to consider what God will do if they don't come clean?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 5:14:26 GMT -5
That's cute RAM. Tell me, when those early preachers went out preaching the Gospel 100 years ago (you know, with Irvine in their midst,) did they say it was from the beginning, or did they say it was from Irvine?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 6:15:16 GMT -5
Bert, you know as well as I do that many of the things that were preached were not from the Shores of Gallilee, they were misinterpretations by Irvine et al. Like just about every other sect, yes they preached some things from the beginning.
The argument Bert, which you carefully alter to ground of your choosing, is not about the Gospel being from the beginning, but about the origins of the sect, which many of the early workers were much more honest about than they are today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 9:37:55 GMT -5
Nathan, Irvine et al preached against Education." Parents, don't sacrifice your children on the altar of Education." That is just one example and it affected many!
Now Nathan, does this type of preaching go all the way back to the Shores of Gallilee, or did it stop at William Irvine ? No waffle please.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 10:28:27 GMT -5
To say it like that is a lie, and here's why:
To say your group is "from the beginning" implies to the listener that there is a continuous succession from the beginning. Only a few unusually smart listeners like bert and kiwi understand that from that that our group began its modern day organization around 1897.
To be said truthfully and understandably to the rest of us of average intelligence, it needs to be said something like this:
"Our group's practices are an attempt to be modeled upon the practices of Christian believers in the 1st century."
And for full honest disclosure, this needs to be added:
"We began a movement to model ourselves after the beginning 1st century church, led by William Irvine and others in the late 1890's."
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 2, 2010 10:35:26 GMT -5
"the lie" as a universal absolute truth has become a one-trick-pony that's lost his magic.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 2, 2010 10:42:55 GMT -5
Bert, you know as well as I do that many of the things that were preached were not from the Shores of Gallilee, they were misinterpretations by Irvine et al. Like just about every other sect, yes they preached some things from the beginning. The argument Bert, which you carefully alter to ground of your choosing, is not about the Gospel being from the beginning, but about the origins of the sect, which many of the early workers were much more honest about than they are today. ~~ hmmmmm... the gospel message of the 2x2s Jesus SAVES from the beginning... The method of the 2x2 apostolic ministry/church from the beginning/shores of Galilee... William Irvine and the 2x2 early follow Jesus, the gospel message=Jesus SAVES, and the method from beginning...
Then how can you say the origins, the message, and the method is NOT from beginning?..... The New Testament teachings wasn't created by WI and the early 2x2 workers did it?There you go again Nathan! No, they did NOT use the same method as they did in the New Testament, and they do NOT do so today. Although they try to pattern it off of a few verses in the bible they do NOT follow the same method that was used then. If they did they would be ONLY staying in one location when they reached a city. In fact, they specifically do NOT follow the instructions of Jesus on that point. This was from the first time the apostles were sent: Luke 9
Jesus Sends Out the Twelve 1When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. 3He told them: "Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. 4Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that town. 5If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them." 6So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere.The next time he sent the 72 out: Luke 10
Jesus Sends Out the Seventytwo
1After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go. 2He told them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. 3Go! I am sending you out like lambs among wolves. 4Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road. 5"When you enter a house, first say, 'Peace to this house.' 6If a man of peace is there, your peace will rest on him; if not, it will return to you. 7Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.Just by that one omission on the part of the workers negates your statement. I am not saying that the method they use now is wrong. After all, it is the way that the truth fellowship operates, and of course that is the same way other denominations conduct their business. They decide which part of the bible is important and then pick the verses that they wish to emphasize as part of their traditions and church doctrine.. It just isn't the same as Jesus instructed his disciples in those days, no matter how you try to put a spin on it. Can you explain why if the workers say they are going out the same way the apostles did why this instruction is not followed today?Here is my answer to those passages. It was the customs of that time that you needed a witness in order for something to be considered to be true. That is the reason that the disciples were sent in pairs (or more than a pair) You will notice that when he sent the 72 out, they went: " to every town and place where he was about to go."This was to prepare the way for his physical appearance in these towns and places. In reality, a pastor/preacher that lives in their own house follows this instruction more so than the workers do.... Of course there is this little tidbit of instruction that he gave the apostles also that seems to be conveniently overlooked as being a part of the method Jesus used: John 13:
14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.Can you explain why this very definite example is ignored if the workers claim to be following the example of Jesus or using the same method that was used in the New Testament? Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 2, 2010 10:50:17 GMT -5
Along with the above post of mine full of colors and bold highlighted sections, I should add that I do not think that how the workers go about being workers is wrong. My point is that what they do is not truly patterned on the words or actions of Jesus and the New Testament disciples. However, it is the way the truth fellowship operates, and no different than churches deciding how their churches will operate. It certainly doesn't make one better than the other, what is important is that the INDIVIDUALS in the respective churches have their personal relationship with Jesus/God that determines their salvation. Scott
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 2, 2010 10:50:30 GMT -5
Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
This is how old seeking God is.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Feb 2, 2010 10:52:09 GMT -5
Easy. "The workers began preaching in Ireland in the late 1890s. Around 1905, they established home meetings for those they reached with the Gospel. These meetings were modeled on the churches of the NT, and we know there have been meetings in homes throughout history even before the worker movement". Something along that line would be accurate. As I stated above though I think if the friends focused on the history without embarrassment a great deal of information of interest would come to light. That's good except for the " they established home meetings" which implies a two class system, workers ruling friends. (That's probably not what you intended.) I am involved in contract negotiations right now, (tonight in fact) and hate the us vs them mentality, and have told managment so. Management doesn't own the Coop - the union employees and management are in it together. I'm kind of proud of the fact the first negotiations meeting we had we did not have to caucus, we stayed in one room the whole five hours. We see so much of of the friends vs workers on the boards and counter-advocacy sites, the constant drum beat of criticism directed pretty much specifically at "the workers". I don't like it because I don't see the friends as beaten down voiceless automatons and the workers as ruthless whip-cracking totalitarians barking orders. Not at all, and never have. The friends and workers are in fellowship together. If the Spirit's involved it's a fellowship that's not easily broken.
|
|
christopher
Senior Member
"When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, LORD, will I seek." -Ps. 27:8
Posts: 304
|
Post by christopher on Feb 2, 2010 11:24:32 GMT -5
You know, maybe God is already doing something about the "problem", "lie", "carnal history" or whatever. And if He is, it's probably not quite what most, or perhaps any, of us think it should be. None of us know for sure what He may be doing about it, just yet, but we can be sure He knows what to do. Are you praying about any of this? Christopher, this isn't about parting the Red Sea or bringing down the Berlin Wall. All it needs is an honest heart to come clean. It is fear and denial that is stopping this from happening. It is not some huge, impossible matter beyond man. In real terms it hardly equates to me tying my shoe laces, but as we see in Hotshots Part Deux such a thing can be a big problem if we ignore it. I think it is more relevant to consider what God will do if they don't come clean? Ram, this is something that I believe God takes an interest in. I want him guiding in the least of matters, which I believe He often does, especially if one asks for His help. In something of this nature, who better to guide and direct? Who knows all that actually happened? Who else besides God knows best how to deal with men and their hearts, especially when it comes to His name and His work? Parting the Red Sea is nothing to God. Stopping the Sun from moving across the sky is trivial to Him. Flooding the earth takes little effort on His part. Yet He works with great interest in the hearts and minds of men and women. Often they need His power to help in matters that they hardly understand. He lets them run about doing as they please, sometimes getting themselves in trouble. They need His help. Too often they do things in their own strength, only to make a bigger mess of things. Sometimes they make it difficult for Him. That's when miracles can happen, if they have faith enough to believe that He can heal whatever ails them. And if they are willing to ask Him.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 2, 2010 11:30:53 GMT -5
~~ Matthew 10 and Luke 10 were Jesus instruction to the 12 and 70 apostles during their first missions of a month or so to the Jews and children of Israel with miracles, healing, raising the dead to prove to them the long waited Messiah has finally come. Working miracles were evidences, proof they must show Jesus was the Christ and the 12 and 70 are His apostles=sent ones by Him.Well.... good!!!! We can both agree that these instructions have no bearing on how the workers conduct their business now! As you say, these were specific instructions for a short duration and so they do not pertain to how churches and pastors/workers need to care for those in their church. The Great Commission had a total different set of instructions in Matthew 28 we read Paul and his fellows had plenty of money for their 3 missions in the book of Acts. They hardly perform any miracles when they preached among the Gentiles. They stayed in many locations and homes of believers in the book of Acts. They had more than 1 garment. They didn't always go 2x2 like they did in Matthew 10 and Luke 10.Again, we can agree that these are new instructions given by Jesus and that carrying out the great commision doesn't have anything with going out 2x2 for a requirement, that it was fine to have money and other posessions. Can we add that it was also fine to have a wife (as recorded in the bible) and that it was fine to teach in the temples and synagogues (as recorded in the bible) and that there is NO instruction that they must stay in peoples homes (as recorded in the bible) I must take my son to school be right back to answer the rest. Thanks. Should make him walk like I had to. 5 miles uphill both ways.... ;D What I would like to have you show with scripture Nathan are the passages in the bible that list the REQUIREMENTS for a pastor/apostle (or worker) in regard to how they are to go about their business. I am not looking for simply examples here, but the actual REQUIREMENTS. I am trying to see how these requirements pertain to workers/pastors/priests today. Thanks! Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2010 11:38:58 GMT -5
Bless you Nathan, by doing so you are being open and honest.
I doubt if anyone considers those events wrong or denies them. They just don't come up in conversation because few people see any relevance in them or any direct connection between them and our modern day fellowship. You have put a lot of effort into trying to connect the dots and I applaud you for trying, but there is still not enough there to make it relevant to us today.
I agree, and even a scholar like Dr Jaenen could not connect the dots between our group or any of the others. I think his book makes that perfectly clear.
The desire to have church practices similar to the early church is certainly nothing new, and certainly our group was not first nor will it be the last. We are just one of many who have independently attempted to do it. As Scott has pointed out, we do not follow all the 1st century practices, plus we have created some new ones. We have given the restorationist effort a good effort, but we should never consider ourselves exclusively righteous because we have been partially successful in replicating early practices. It's like trusting in the flesh, not in God.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 2, 2010 12:40:13 GMT -5
1) What I would like to have you show with scripture Nathan are the passages in the bible that list the REQUIREMENTS for a pastor/apostle (or worker) in regard to how they are to go about their business. I am not looking for simply examples here, but the actual REQUIREMENTS. I am trying to see how these requirements pertain to workers/pastors/priests today. ~~ New Testament church. Jesus, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Silas, Titus, John Mark, Luke, etc... and maybe most of the 12 and 70 were unmarried as Itinerant preachers of the gospel.
A few were married Peter, as the Lord's brother, and other apostles... there were more than 12 and 70 apostles. (I Cor. 9:5)
Both singles and married apostles depended on their followers to support/supplied their needs so they could be as itinerant preachers preaching the goodnews to all nations as Jesus had commanded them.
The Catholic church in Rome priests kept the celibate ministry... and the Orthodox Church in Turkey priests allowed them to have wives.
Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic church monk who practiced celibacy but after he became a Protestant he got married so MOST of the Protestant pastors today follow his example.
~~ There have been quite a few married 2x2 workers in the past... some married workers (Bill Carroll and his wife) had a daughter in the work... It wasn't an easy kind of lifestyle to raise a family as true Itinerant preachers of the gospel, too much stress to have their children (Christie's from Hawaii) along in the work so some of them allowed the friends to raise their children for them.
I don't believe the pastors today are following Jesus' apostlic Itinerant ministry example but Martin Luther's example as married preacher, attending seminary, paid salary, etc..I don't think anyone has a problem with how you organize your church, how you worship and how the workers go out and preach. The thing I see most Christians responding to is you're statement that you are the only right way. This belief is simply arrogant and quite illogical. It demeans your god too. Why would only "one" demonimation of a Christian belief system be the right one? How small do you think your god is? While I don't believe any one has figured out what god wants, or even if he wants anything, it seems blind to think the "truth" has a monopoly on the truth vs. other Christians beliefs or even other religions for that matter. This belief causes friction and conflict between humanity and is actually quite dangerous to humanity when taken to extremes by fringe elements in any religion. Early Christianity and now Islam are examples of how dangerous the mentality of "we are right and everyone else is wrong" can be. This mindset always has the potential to spawn atrocities in the name of god. Worship how ever you please, it's your right. But it is delusional to think you are the only ones who have it "right" and potentially dangerous when taken to extremes.
|
|