|
Post by christiansburg on Nov 25, 2013 17:18:37 GMT -5
Many readers of Mr. Grey’s book have posted their opinions on TMB after reading the book Others have done reviews and posted them on Amazon.com as well as other web sites. It may have been in August that I promised an analysis of his book. It has been three months since then and so I have provided my belated narrative in the attachment. You may not agree with some of my thoughts. Your conclusions are freely yours. I will not be judgmental of any responses. My opinions about the book and its subjects as well as references to other books about the 2x2 movement are my own and so I have disagreed with much while agreeing with a lot of the conclusions that Mr. Grey states. I have found it extremely interesting to read beyond his book as well as reading beyond what is commonly believed among the movement. I believe any one who chooses to purchase and read his book will be challenged to examine why the 2x2's believe as they do. It may be that your commitments whether for or against the 2x2's will just be more polarized than ever. I believe we all hold firm in our positions and not much is likely to change us either way.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Nov 29, 2013 9:54:57 GMT -5
Many readers of Mr. Grey’s book have posted their opinions on TMB after reading the book Others have done reviews and posted them on Amazon.com as well as other web sites. It may have been in August that I promised an analysis of his book. It has been three months since then and so I have provided my belated narrative in the attachment. You may not agree with some of my thoughts. Your conclusions are freely yours. I will not be judgmental of any responses. My opinions about the book and its subjects as well as references to other books about the 2x2 movement are my own and so I have disagreed with much while agreeing with a lot of the conclusions that Mr. Grey states. I have found it extremely interesting to read beyond his book as well as reading beyond what is commonly believed among the movement. I believe any one who chooses to purchase and read his book will be challenged to examine why the 2x2's believe as they do. It may be that your commitments whether for or against the 2x2's will just be more polarized than ever. I believe we all hold firm in our positions and not much is likely to change us either way. The 2x2's do not reject the virgin birth of Christ. Where did this charge ever come from?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2013 10:48:56 GMT -5
That's a huge book review you did......you could have just re-written the book properly! I have skimmed the first part and you have done a lot of thoughtful work there. I will look forward to reading it in full in the near future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2013 11:43:48 GMT -5
The section on "back to the beginning" doctrine caused me to come up with a new explanation on how that disastrous concept ever came about.
Until now, I had theorized that when Irvine was dismissed and the word went around to not talk about him (not a cover up but to eliminate controversy about his dismissal), that also unintentionally created a vacuum of information about the beginning and the "lie" was able to take on a life of its own. I still think that is the case, but the question is, where did this "from the beginning" thing ever come from in the first place? It was certainly preached far and wide but I really can't imagine any but a few workers who would knowingly preach a falsehood about the fellowship beginning when they knew how it all started.
Here is my new theory: when the early workers (who all knew about their beginnings) preached "from the shores of Galilee", they were not referring to apostolic succession, but they were referring to the difference between their ministry group and mainstream Christianity in that their group sourced all its ideas directly back to the words and practices of Jesus (on the shores of Galilee so to speak), whereas mainstream Christianity sourced much of its doctrine from the much later Nicene Council. This fits into what we know about the early workers who were effectively starting a restoration movement (as suggested by Dr.Jaenen), and by doing so, they went back to "the shores of Galilee" where it all started and so their ministry goes back their for its guidance. Workers have always been adamant about staying away from Nicene which represents, to them, a partial departure from the shores of Galilee. They see themselves as the "true ministry" because they have gone back to the beginning as the basis of their founding in 1897 or so.
Regardless, it really created a mess that still is not fully resolved today. I am certain it is another case of good intentions running afoul of bad interpretation and then never getting corrected until it went too far.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Nov 29, 2013 13:31:39 GMT -5
That's a huge book review you did......you could have just re-written the book properly! I have skimmed the first part and you have done a lot of thoughtful work there. I will look forward to reading it in full in the near future. Thanks. I tried to be as fair as I could. I did acknowledge our problems while at the same time trying to clear up some things out there that misrepresent us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2013 13:41:58 GMT -5
That's a huge book review you did......you could have just re-written the book properly! I have skimmed the first part and you have done a lot of thoughtful work there. I will look forward to reading it in full in the near future. Thanks. I tried to be as fair as I could. I did acknowledge our problems while at the same time trying to clear up some things out there that misrepresent us. You come across as a reasonably fair apologist. One thing apologists do a lot (and so do you) is that when problems are pointed about the subject matter, they point out the same problems outside of the subject matter. It's a kind of a kneejerk reaction as though to blunt the criticism but in the end it's usually not very relevant. Just because someone else has a problem doesn't make your problem any better or justified. If the subject is a comparative study, then it becomes completely relevant but for the most part, the Shapeless book is not a directly comparative study even though Grey does use certain doctrines as his baseline for perfection from which to measure the dangerous cult status of the F&Ws. Anyway, I'll carry on reading your review. It is easy reading and well written.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Nov 29, 2013 13:45:24 GMT -5
The section on "back to the beginning" doctrine caused me to come up with a new explanation on how that disastrous concept ever came about. Until now, I had theorized that when Irvine was dismissed and the word went around to not talk about him (not a cover up but to eliminate controversy about his dismissal), that also unintentionally created a vacuum of information about the beginning and the "lie" was able to take on a life of its own. I still think that is the case, but the question is, where did this "from the beginning" thing ever come from in the first place? It was certainly preached far and wide but I really can't imagine any but a few workers who would knowingly preach a falsehood about the fellowship beginning when they knew how it all started. Here is my new theory: when the early workers (who all knew about their beginnings) preached "from the shores of Galilee", they were not referring to apostolic succession, but they were referring to the difference between their ministry group and mainstream Christianity in that their group sourced all its ideas directly back to the words and practices of Jesus (on the shores of Galilee so to speak), whereas mainstream Christianity sourced much of its doctrine from the much later Nicene Council. This fits into what we know about the early workers who were effectively starting a restoration movement (as suggested by Dr.Jaenen), and by doing so, they went back to "the shores of Galilee" where it all started and so their ministry goes back their for its guidance. Workers have always been adamant about staying away from Nicene which represents, to them, a partial departure from the shores of Galilee. They see themselves as the "true ministry" because they have gone back to the beginning as the basis of their founding in 1897 or so. Regardless, it really created a mess that still is not fully resolved today. I am certain it is another case of good intentions running afoul of bad interpretation and then never getting corrected until it went too far. You have summed that up very accurately I believe. I think most of those early workers knew exactly when the contemporary beginnings were but chose not to talk about it that way. It was, as you said the teachings that began at Galilee that they were referring to as "from the beginning". And as I mentioned in the review the mistake was in not talking about it as they should. I think this thing about apostolic succession seemed to flow into the perception about what they were and it did appeal to many people. The first century examples were a basis for what they brought to people. I found it very interesting to read about the Nicene Creed. There are some things in the creed that are fundamental to many Christian faiths. It just didn't seem practical to use that as our doctrine when you had the Scripture to refer to.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 29, 2013 14:30:37 GMT -5
The section on "back to the beginning" doctrine caused me to come up with a new explanation on how that disastrous concept ever came about. Until now, I had theorized that when Irvine was dismissed and the word went around to not talk about him (not a cover up but to eliminate controversy about his dismissal), that also unintentionally created a vacuum of information about the beginning and the "lie" was able to take on a life of its own. I still think that is the case, but the question is, where did this "from the beginning" thing ever come from in the first place? It was certainly preached far and wide but I really can't imagine any but a few workers who would knowingly preach a falsehood about the fellowship beginning when they knew how it all started. Here is my new theory: when the early workers (who all knew about their beginnings) preached "from the shores of Galilee", they were not referring to apostolic succession, but they were referring to the difference between their ministry group and mainstream Christianity in that their group sourced all its ideas directly back to the words and practices of Jesus (on the shores of Galilee so to speak), whereas mainstream Christianity sourced much of its doctrine from the much later Nicene Council. This fits into what we know about the early workers who were effectively starting a restoration movement (as suggested by Dr.Jaenen), and by doing so, they went back to "the shores of Galilee" where it all started and so their ministry goes back their for its guidance. Workers have always been adamant about staying away from Nicene which represents, to them, a partial departure from the shores of Galilee. They see themselves as the "true ministry" because they have gone back to the beginning as the basis of their founding in 1897 or so. Regardless, it really created a mess that still is not fully resolved today. I am certain it is another case of good intentions running afoul of bad interpretation and then never getting corrected until it went too far. That's pretty much how I see it. I don't believe it started as a lie, but workers were wrong to allow the lie to develop. In the early 1980s when The Secret Sect was published the overseers should have corrected the fallacy of apostolic succession. Fobbing off those who questioned was at best poor leadership, and vague "shores of Galilee" preaching was at best misleading.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2013 15:54:19 GMT -5
The section on "back to the beginning" doctrine caused me to come up with a new explanation on how that disastrous concept ever came about. Until now, I had theorized that when Irvine was dismissed and the word went around to not talk about him (not a cover up but to eliminate controversy about his dismissal), that also unintentionally created a vacuum of information about the beginning and the "lie" was able to take on a life of its own. I still think that is the case, but the question is, where did this "from the beginning" thing ever come from in the first place? It was certainly preached far and wide but I really can't imagine any but a few workers who would knowingly preach a falsehood about the fellowship beginning when they knew how it all started. Here is my new theory: when the early workers (who all knew about their beginnings) preached "from the shores of Galilee", they were not referring to apostolic succession, but they were referring to the difference between their ministry group and mainstream Christianity in that their group sourced all its ideas directly back to the words and practices of Jesus (on the shores of Galilee so to speak), whereas mainstream Christianity sourced much of its doctrine from the much later Nicene Council. This fits into what we know about the early workers who were effectively starting a restoration movement (as suggested by Dr.Jaenen), and by doing so, they went back to "the shores of Galilee" where it all started and so their ministry goes back their for its guidance. Workers have always been adamant about staying away from Nicene which represents, to them, a partial departure from the shores of Galilee. They see themselves as the "true ministry" because they have gone back to the beginning as the basis of their founding in 1897 or so. Regardless, it really created a mess that still is not fully resolved today. I am certain it is another case of good intentions running afoul of bad interpretation and then never getting corrected until it went too far. That's pretty much how I see it. I don't believe it started as a lie, but workers were wrong to allow the lie to develop. In the early 1980s when The Secret Sect was published the overseers should have corrected the fallacy of apostolic succession. Fobbing off those who questioned was at best poor leadership, and vague "shores of Galilee" preaching was at best misleading. Yes, at least by the 1980's that those who knew should stood up firmly and stated the truth. We have people even on this site who say "oh I always knew" but didn't play any role in making sure that the true story was corrected for those who thought there was an unbroken line of workers back to Jesus. A lot of people got hurt as a result and even today most people aren't forthcoming about the beginnings of the fellowship and the modern day ministry group. People quit the meetings, workers quit the work over it and many people felt deceived. Had the overseers came right out front in the 1980's clearly and plainly about it, the damages would have been minimal and all over in a short time. Today, few outsiders get a straight answer on the question so it is still making a major impact, to say nothing of the negative impact it has on the integrity of those who won't give a straight honest answer. I suppose they just get used to it.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Nov 29, 2013 16:03:44 GMT -5
That's pretty much how I see it. I don't believe it started as a lie, but workers were wrong to allow the lie to develop. In the early 1980s when The Secret Sect was published the overseers should have corrected the fallacy of apostolic succession. Fobbing off those who questioned was at best poor leadership, and vague "shores of Galilee" preaching was at best misleading. Yes, at least by the 1980's that those who knew should stood up firmly and stated the truth. We have people even on this site who say "oh I always knew" but didn't play any role in making sure that the true story was corrected for those who thought there was an unbroken line of workers back to Jesus. A lot of people got hurt as a result and even today most people aren't forthcoming about the beginnings of the fellowship and the modern day ministry group. People quit the meetings, workers quit the work over it and many people felt deceived. Had the overseers came right out front in the 1980's clearly and plainly about it, the damages would have been minimal and all over in a short time. Today, few outsiders get a straight answer on the question so it is still making a major impact, to say nothing of the negative impact it has on the integrity of those who won't give a straight honest answer. I suppose they just get used to it. I personally spoke up about it whenever the subject came up. When workers visited in our home I talked about it with the knowledge that I knew and had it right.e.g. No apostolic succession existed. But I could not get on the platform and talk about it myself. Your are right if it had been handled right it would have saved "many heartaches".
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 29, 2013 16:38:23 GMT -5
hmmmmm...... Jesus said even the gates of HELL can't prevail his church! (Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Jesus also said this in Matt 28: 18-20 And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, “All power is given unto Me in Heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Amen. ) And.... His true church went missing.... for 1800 until WI, John Long, George Walker founded in 1897 of all places on earth, Ireland and Scotland far away from Jerusalem. Does this making any sense? Did Jesus lie to his disciples and us? I don't THINK SO!
I believe you guys don't understand the MIGHTY POWER of Jesus words and information on Church history! so your conclusion of an apostolic succession is NOT 100% correct.
The church Jesus was talking about never went missing. Its a spiritual church, not a carnal church. If you think it went missing, its because you were trying to trace a carnal church.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 29, 2013 16:41:49 GMT -5
That's pretty much how I see it. I don't believe it started as a lie, but workers were wrong to allow the lie to develop. In the early 1980s when The Secret Sect was published the overseers should have corrected the fallacy of apostolic succession. Fobbing off those who questioned was at best poor leadership, and vague "shores of Galilee" preaching was at best misleading. Yes, at least by the 1980's that those who knew should stood up firmly and stated the truth. We have people even on this site who say "oh I always knew" but didn't play any role in making sure that the true story was corrected for those who thought there was an unbroken line of workers back to Jesus. A lot of people got hurt as a result and even today most people aren't forthcoming about the beginnings of the fellowship and the modern day ministry group. People quit the meetings, workers quit the work over it and many people felt deceived. Had the overseers came right out front in the 1980's clearly and plainly about it, the damages would have been minimal and all over in a short time. Today, few outsiders get a straight answer on the question so it is still making a major impact, to say nothing of the negative impact it has on the integrity of those who won't give a straight honest answer. I suppose they just get used to it. Some like the power trip of being the gateway of eternal life, mankind's only hope.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 29, 2013 17:57:03 GMT -5
When did the Waldensians cease to be the one true church?
Which was the one-true-church in the United States before George Walker arrived?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Nov 29, 2013 19:13:13 GMT -5
You haven't answered my questions yet Nathan.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 29, 2013 21:55:43 GMT -5
Yes, at least by the 1980's that those who knew should stood up firmly and stated the truth. We have people even on this site who say "oh I always knew" but didn't play any role in making sure that the true story was corrected for those who thought there was an unbroken line of workers back to Jesus. A lot of people got hurt as a result and even today most people aren't forthcoming about the beginnings of the fellowship and the modern day ministry group. People quit the meetings, workers quit the work over it and many people felt deceived. Had the overseers came right out front in the 1980's clearly and plainly about it, the damages would have been minimal and all over in a short time. Today, few outsiders get a straight answer on the question so it is still making a major impact, to say nothing of the negative impact it has on the integrity of those who won't give a straight honest answer. I suppose they just get used to it. I personally spoke up about it whenever the subject came up. When workers visited in our home I talked about it with the knowledge that I knew and had it right.e.g. No apostolic succession existed. But I could not get on the platform and talk about it myself. Your are right if it had been handled right it would have saved "many heartaches". It wouldn't have helped any for me to speak up about it at the time the book came out.
I wasn't professing and anything I said would (& was) discounted because of that.
My family who I gave the book to, just got upset and wouldn't believe it even though I told how I had really heard it from my & their own parents!
If people can't accept something like that, they will simply NOT believe it.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Nov 29, 2013 22:05:49 GMT -5
When did the Waldensians cease to be the one true church? Which was the one-true-church in the United States before George Walker arrived? They passed on the torch to others to carry on! Look for these marks! Do they exist before George Walker, WI, Irvine Weir, etc... A later writer. Pilichdorf, also a bitter opponent of Waldenses, says they existed from the time of the Pope Sylvester (A.D. 335-390) were the Waldenses. Some have suggested that Claudis, of Turin (A.D. 817) was the "Founder" of the Waldenses in the mountains of Piedmont. He and they had much in common, and must have strengthen and encouraged one another, but the "Brethren" called Waldenses, were of MUCH older origin. Marco Aurelio Rorenco was ordered in (A.D 1630), to write an account of the history and opinions of the Waldenses. He wrote that the Waldenses are so Ancient as to afford no absolute certainly in regard to the precise time of their origin, but that all events in the 9th and 10th Century they were NOT a New Sect. The Waldenses believe there is ONE holy Church, compromising the whole assembly of the "Elect and Faithful", that have existed from the beginning of the world, or that shall be to the "END" thereof. Of their church, the Lord is the head. It is governed by his Word and Guided by the Holy Spirit. In the Church, it behooved "ALL Christians" to have fellowship. For Her (the Church) He (Christ) prays incessantly, and his prayer for it is most acceptable to God, without which there could be "NO Salvation". They "passed the torch"? This makes no sense....They are still around today Nathan. Did they cease to being the "one true way" after William Irving took the torch? The Waldensian Evangelical Church (Chiesa Evangelica Valdese, CEV) is an Italian Protestant denomination. The church was founded in the 12th century, and centuries later, after the Protestant Reformation, it adhered to Calvinist theology and became the Italian branch of the Reformed churches.[1][2] As such, the church is a member of the World Communion of Reformed Churches.[3] In 1967 the Waldensian Church, which has now 30,000 members in Italy (plus some 15,000 affiliates in Argentina and Uruguay),[4] was a founding member of the Federation of Evangelical Churches in Italy (FCEI).[5] In 1974–1979 the CEV joined forces with the Italian Methodist Church (5,000) to form the Union of Methodist and Waldensian Churches.[2][6] [7]
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 29, 2013 22:48:03 GMT -5
The section on "back to the beginning" doctrine caused me to come up with a new explanation on how that disastrous concept ever came about. Until now, I had theorized that when Irvine was dismissed and the word went around to not talk about him (not a cover up but to eliminate controversy about his dismissal), that also unintentionally created a vacuum of information about the beginning and the "lie" was able to take on a life of its own. I still think that is the case, but the question is, where did this "from the beginning" thing ever come from in the first place? It was certainly preached far and wide but I really can't imagine any but a few workers who would knowingly preach a falsehood about the fellowship beginning when they knew how it all started. Here is my new theory: when the early workers (who all knew about their beginnings) preached "from the shores of Galilee", they were not referring to apostolic succession, but they were referring to the difference between their ministry group and mainstream Christianity in that their group sourced all its ideas directly back to the words and practices of Jesus (on the shores of Galilee so to speak), whereas mainstream Christianity sourced much of its doctrine from the much later Nicene Council. This fits into what we know about the early workers who were effectively starting a restoration movement (as suggested by Dr.Jaenen), and by doing so, they went back to "the shores of Galilee" where it all started and so their ministry goes back their for its guidance. Workers have always been adamant about staying away from Nicene which represents, to them, a partial departure from the shores of Galilee. They see themselves as the "true ministry" because they have gone back to the beginning as the basis of their founding in 1897 or so. Regardless, it really created a mess that still is not fully resolved today. I am certain it is another case of good intentions running afoul of bad interpretation and then never getting corrected until it went too far. I just thought about what people in the first and second chapters of Acts murmured about the Apostles who when they received the Holy Spirit they were able to suddenly speak the language(tongues) of different groups of people and they seemed to speak with "authority" and this caused those who had known them before they had become Apostles for Jesus, to wonder or to question how in the world they could speak with authority for they were all unlearned men. Now, I think that is perhaps a over analogized thing for if we consider these Apostles were Jews and we know that the male Jews were taught scripture at a very young age and they have such a thing as the Bar Mitzpha that is kind of a religious graduation declaring a certain amount of knowledge of a certain subject met by the young men being so reckonized at the Bar Mitzpha. Again the "bad interpretation" was from the beginning....a restlessness caused by the "flavor" of the established churches of that day kind of worked on those young men into a rebellion as some one has already said and this rebellion was more of a great experiment just like WI said....I don't think they had any idea it would be the success it was UNTIL it WAS TOO LATE. Otherwords they were not prepared in any possible way to handle that success....they were giddy with success and at first tried to make room for everybody in the workership, like the Faith Mission does, I suppose....but then it came to the fact that it would displace many good homes with good families therein....and then the distaste of sending their new converts right back to the established churches that they themselves had no good thought about, that caused them to begin to think of opening up the workership to include a fellowship/friends.....and the rest is of some interesting spurts of sensible activity and also some cruel things that have taken root and still there, and I'm speaking to the excommunication...the cruelity of disfellowshipping someone......the shunning, the whispered implications against someone so everybody will treat them alike and that is that they are afraid to even be in their presence much less sit in mtg. with them! So my main thought was that the workers DO NOT share the blessedness that the unlearned Apostles did and that blessedness was having Jesus Christ with them for over 3 years....this was better then any seminary or bible college or perhaps it was the best mixup of both of kinds of religious training. So the workers feel like they can just step out there and being just like the Apostles without education that would help them along their way. I thought this morning about how much the workers and friends both, speak in allegory....they seem to think that is a good way to speak because Jesus spoke in parables....but Jesus said that even though he spoke in parables those who saw would not see and those who heard would not hear....or understand........someone else mentioned that parable preaching or allegorical preaching wasa sign of still being on the milk of the word and not able to withstand the meat of the word....and I have to say that even for myself I definitely wa still on the meat of the word UNTIL after I had studied about Jesus Christ for about 3 years and no, I still don't know and understand it all, but I'm sure willing....as I often tell the Father that Jesus Christ IS my treasure in heaven....all these years of being told to lay our treasure up in heaven...well if we've taken the yoke of Jesus then we know what that treasure will be, itw will be the Son of God resurrected sitting on the right hand of the FAther on His throne.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 29, 2013 22:58:01 GMT -5
Yes, at least by the 1980's that those who knew should stood up firmly and stated the truth. We have people even on this site who say "oh I always knew" but didn't play any role in making sure that the true story was corrected for those who thought there was an unbroken line of workers back to Jesus. A lot of people got hurt as a result and even today most people aren't forthcoming about the beginnings of the fellowship and the modern day ministry group. People quit the meetings, workers quit the work over it and many people felt deceived. Had the overseers came right out front in the 1980's clearly and plainly about it, the damages would have been minimal and all over in a short time. Today, few outsiders get a straight answer on the question so it is still making a major impact, to say nothing of the negative impact it has on the integrity of those who won't give a straight honest answer. I suppose they just get used to it. Some like the power trip of being the gateway of eternal life, mankind's only hope. Yes, power has corrupted the 2x2 fellowship and to the detriment of even those who are tripping on that power. As I used to say some time ago, that the friends have not done the workers any favors by presenting the workers with so much power and glory and honor.....this will all be counted into the rewards for their deeds and IF they've already been rewarded for being workers, then what are they going to have to look forward to in the Judgment Day for rewards for their deeds? They've already had their rewards! I've seen letters from even some of the first workers in which they plainly spoke about the "only true way" and that no one can be saved without ever having become before some worker(s)...that IF God is drawing them into salvation then they will eventually end up before the worker(s). This is thinking a bit too highly of their human office! This IS dangerous thinking....otherwise they're condemning millions of people to a lost eternity! This IS unconscionable.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 29, 2013 23:01:26 GMT -5
I personally spoke up about it whenever the subject came up. When workers visited in our home I talked about it with the knowledge that I knew and had it right.e.g. No apostolic succession existed. But I could not get on the platform and talk about it myself. Your are right if it had been handled right it would have saved "many heartaches". It wouldn't have helped any for me to speak up about it at the time the book came out.
I wasn't professing and anything I said would (& was) discounted because of that.
My family who I gave the book to, just got upset and wouldn't believe it even though I told how I had really heard it from my & their own parents!
If people can't accept something like that, they will simply NOT believe it.
I think you make a good point, DMB. It sure seems to me that some people who get upset about even the Secret Sect and now Cherie's website, denying that any of it is truth because they can't live with the idea that what they have attached to their lives is nothing more then a manmade religion....so they prefer to live in deniable of the "real truth" about it.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Nov 30, 2013 2:27:22 GMT -5
So they passed the torch to William Irving? is that what you're claiming. Once WI came along, they became the Truth? - and the Waldensian became a false way.....Is this what you are claiming?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2013 5:20:58 GMT -5
9/1898 Wm Irvine wrote: “In September, 1898, I was put out of the Faith Mission for not being willing to conform to all their piccadilly discipline, etc.” (October 13, 1920 Letter to Dunbars).
Yet a similar trait is practiced by the new movement.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Nov 30, 2013 9:45:23 GMT -5
When did the Waldensians cease to be the one true church? Which was the one-true-church in the United States before George Walker arrived? The Waldensians have a museum in an Eastern state which tells most of their story. Their written records pick up about the 11 century. I visited the museum recently and talked with their historians. The guide himself was one of their group. He goes back to Italy at least once a year. The largest part of this group have now merged with the Presbyterians. I think this happened in the 19th century. I asked the guide why they merged with the Presbyterians after such a long history. This is what he told me: "We joined with the Presbyterians solely for the sake of survival." I was surprised.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Nov 30, 2013 10:00:56 GMT -5
So then after so many years, why would they drop the name?
Not only that, but all the exes keep the name?
Your theory doesn't make logical sense.
I have no problem with you telling me that God was with the Waldensians, and was with WI and his movement. But these were clearly two different groups/fellowships/organizations, and today, still are. There is absolutely no evidence of a meeting that was mixed with Waldensians and 2X2/Irvinites/Cooneyites.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 30, 2013 10:16:38 GMT -5
Yes, at least by the 1980's that those who knew should stood up firmly and stated the truth. We have people even on this site who say "oh I always knew" but didn't play any role in making sure that the true story was corrected for those who thought there was an unbroken line of workers back to Jesus. A lot of people got hurt as a result and even today most people aren't forthcoming about the beginnings of the fellowship and the modern day ministry group. People quit the meetings, workers quit the work over it and many people felt deceived. Had the overseers came right out front in the 1980's clearly and plainly about it, the damages would have been minimal and all over in a short time. Today, few outsiders get a straight answer on the question so it is still making a major impact, to say nothing of the negative impact it has on the integrity of those who won't give a straight honest answer. I suppose they just get used to it. I personally spoke up about it whenever the subject came up. When workers visited in our home I talked about it with the knowledge that I knew and had it right.e.g. No apostolic succession existed. But I could not get on the platform and talk about it myself. Your are right if it had been handled right it would have saved "many heartaches". Some of those heartaches were actually caused by the workers putting those who questioned them about it...such as an elderly sister worker told me "I don't know what you all have been so upset about, this started before the world became!" I never said another word and thankfully she excused herself and took her companion back on the road to wherever....fact is that was the last worker I had over to my apt. She was perpetuating the lie instead of saying well, that she had understood differently, etc. But her talking down tone put the comment to be very very adverse! I had to wonder what her young companion was thinking about....seems like to me that that companion wasn't in the work very long after that! I have wondered if she was a hurt over the "lie" and it was a "lie" and a purposeful "lie" for the workers used that phrase about going back to the shores of Galilee in such a way as to insinuate that they, themselves were Apostles and that made everything they did unquestionable. I know for certainty that my Gram thought that the fellowship was a continuance of the fellowship from the days of the Acts of the Apostles in reality, for that is what she'd been told by the 2 sister workers who worked the mission that Gram and Grandpa professed in. My Gram often would say that it was too bad that the Apostles' complete lives had not been recorded so we could see just who and what was the "next" generation of apostles. Now I know that she thought this for even her Baptist preacher of a father professed under that idea but he found out that he wasn't going to be allowed with the workers to ferret out their secrets....so he got upset and left. I know my Gram would not have had anything to do with the 2x2's if she'd known the truth about the truth...of course in 1920 there wasn't a whole lot known about the sect!
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Nov 30, 2013 10:18:09 GMT -5
So then after so many years, why would they drop the name? Not only that, but all the exes keep the name? Your theory doesn't make logical sense. I have no problem with you telling me that God was with the Waldensians, and was with WI and his movement. But these were clearly two different groups/fellowships/organizations, and today, still are. There is absolutely no evidence of a meeting that was mixed with Waldensians and 2X2/Irvinites/Cooneyites. I didn't suggest that these two groups were part of a joint effort. My suggestion was that history seems to show that there was an effort to follow the same pattern in different eras of time. Both groups believed it was something that could be done.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Nov 30, 2013 10:26:07 GMT -5
The church Jesus was talking about never went missing. Its a spiritual church, not a carnal church. If you think it went missing, its because you were trying to trace a carnal church. I didn't SAY the True Church of Christ was missing! According to those who came up with WI founded Jesus 2x2 apostolic ministry in 1897. The New Testament church which Jesus and apostles started has been on the earth all along! it was hidden/going underground because the enemies TRIED to destroy it but the church was Visible for all to see. The Waldesians believed and taught apostolic succession! for 1800 yrs.
The TRUE church of Jesus Christ is BOTH spiritual/hidden and Carnal/Visible. Read the parable of mustard seed Jesus spoke It is VISIBLE! for all to see and the birds/People to take refuge in the tree! Matthew 13:31-32 Another parable put He forth before them, saying, “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which indeed is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown it is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.”
2) And Like the Yeast the woman took , and hid in the dough, till the whole was leavened. It is hidden/working of the Spirit in the hearts of men and women and the Church is VISIBLE for all to SEE! Matthew 13:33 Another parable spoke He unto them: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till the whole was leavened.”
Then Nathan, I have to ask "why" are the workers not putting into words that Jesus is their first tenet of belief instead of saying that their 2 main thrusts within their believing is the 2x2 itinerant ministry AND the mtgs. in the home. Those are exactly the 2 tenets of belief that LY wrote to Brandon Miller. LS did NOT espouse any word about where Jesus stands within the beliefs of the 2x2 fellowship! I find this an unacceptable belief system because of that. And yes, I know there are workers who do preach the real Christian gospel, but it all comes back down to the potential converts "getting it" and the "getting it" is that the 2x2 itinerant ministry and the mtgs. in the home are the "2 tenets of faith" for the 2x2 church!
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Nov 30, 2013 10:26:37 GMT -5
So then after so many years, why would they drop the name? Not only that, but all the exes keep the name? Your theory doesn't make logical sense. I have no problem with you telling me that God was with the Waldensians, and was with WI and his movement. But these were clearly two different groups/fellowships/organizations, and today, still are. There is absolutely no evidence of a meeting that was mixed with Waldensians and 2X2/Irvinites/Cooneyites. I didn't suggest that these two groups were part of a joint effort. My suggestion was that history seems to show that there was an effort to follow the same pattern in different eras of time. Both groups believed it was something that could be done. I was having a conversation with Nathan. Sorry, I should have quoted him. The problem with quoting Nathan, is then you re-post all his long cut & Paste.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 30, 2013 22:02:00 GMT -5
|
|