|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 26, 2014 13:03:25 GMT -5
I believe that I have heard the same thing concerning Dr Jaenen, actually I dont know if he ever promoted the idea of "unbroken apostolic succession". From what I understand his book was just focusing on the various primitive style fellowship groups over the centuries (and thier persecution). There is a page in Dr. J book hinting of apostolic succession..... I will try to post it tomorrow night. In his book he didn't mention about WI sister.... I wonder if the senior workers who helped him proof reading his book felt it was better to leave it out. Too bad, he couldn't talk with Robert Darling and George Walker when they were still ALIVE in 1960s. It is my understanding that Corneilus DID talk with GW as well as other older brothers...he actually interviewed each for the purpose of writing this research......I'd been told how many of the older brothers Corneilius made contact with...and he also let them preread what he'd written before he published the book....so in all appearances GW and other older brothers must have at least had no pick over what CJ wrote!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 26, 2014 13:30:11 GMT -5
I also call myself a "Christian" meaning that I believe in Christ, according to the New Testament, and follow his teaching. Jondough ~ I believe Christian became the first identifying name attached to early followers of Christ according to this passage and continued to be used for identification purposes ~ so they did take a name after all. In this area, all Protestant church members claim to be Christians. I think even the Catholic in this area claim to be "Christians"! So that means that Methodist, Baptist, Nazarene, Church of Christ, Assembly of God, Disciples of Christ, etc are all Christians but for the part of not being able to unite in a single belief and that belief being that Jesus Christ's sacrifice is enough to save all men from their sins, they have to grab some few scripturals phrases or verses to be their "tenets of belief"....so if there is lack of "unity" among "Christians" now how in the heck do we all expect that any of us will know salvation? Seems there are adjustments to the Christian makeup due to believing in a set number of phrases/verses in the bible and another group don't hanker after the same, but pick their own? Like the 2x2 workers have picked the 2x2 itinerant ministry and the meetings in the home as their 2 tenets of belief. I guess that is an improvement over when they wouldn't post such tenets of beliefs......but the sad part is they've more or less moved away from the meetings that Jesus had in other venues...why? I think I would have loved being at the sermon from the boat just off the shore of the sea! Imagine that....or going into the mountain, or finding him in th edesert! Sheesh! All of that Jesus' experience left floating off in words.....
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 26, 2014 14:34:28 GMT -5
It is misleading to say the 2x2s are non denominational. They are a denomination in every sense except they do not take an unofficial name. They have a membership, their own set of beliefs and an official name. They are an organised group and have annual conventions and regular meeting places for members. They are no different from most churches except they rent halls instead of buying them but they in effect own convention grounds.
What is wrong with a name? Jesus' parents gave him a name. The Church of God claims that that is the name of the true church. The name Brethren was given to the Brethren Church by outsiders. Saying they have no name is all a part of the secrecy of the workers church. They are hoping that people will not identify them. Sometimes when people do identify them they deny they are part of them. That has been the experience of outsiders who later have said they asked someone professing about their church and when they realised who they were the professing person or usually worker said they are nothing to do with them. They get embarrassed and seem ashamed of their church and don't like people identifying them. Especially the workers who stop talking to people who seem to know a bit about them or have prior knowledge of them. Having no name is a way of trying to stop people identifying them and adds to the smoke screen and secrecy of the group. To me it is another way of trying to deceive the public about who they really are. The workers focus on the trivial things rather than the real Gospel.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Jan 26, 2014 14:48:12 GMT -5
Officially you haven't taken that name. Of course there are several names that have been registered and used. For the sake of clarity, would you rather be referred to as Christian Conventions? Always curious about that. I normally try to use 'truth fellowship'. When I asked one of the overseers what I should use (I had used 2x2's in conversation) that is what he suggested. I use "our fellowship" Most use "The Truth" but when asked what the name of our church, they will say "we don't have a name". As far as filling out official documents where they had to come up with something.....Yes, there have been various other names used. I have often thanked God for a "fellowship of truth". Much the same as "truth fellowship". I have often said also that no matter what adjectives we use it has always been difficult to define us. So we can rightly say, but only in a descriptive way: Christian Conventions, The Testimony, Truthers, etc. All are just merely adjectives and nothing more. So, really, why would you need anything more that just Christians?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2014 15:10:47 GMT -5
So, really, why would you need anything more that just Christians? Because most 2x2ers are not "just Christians". They're some of the most sectarian Christians on the planet. If a stranger came to gospel meetings and said he was "just Christian", would we he be in fellowship with friends and workers? Let's be truthful if we claim to value truth.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 26, 2014 15:11:45 GMT -5
Christian is the religion. Baptist, Brethren, Methodist etc is the denomination or fellowship within Christianity that you meet with.
It's also about openness and honesty.
If you were a continuation of the true church when they were just called Christians, then that is one thing, but you are not. You are a break away just like every other group. Other groups have no problem identifying themselves so why should you if you were honest and open about what you believe. Why the fear of identifying yourselves to outsiders? To me being open about your name would be another step to openness instead of trying to hide your group under a bushel.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jan 26, 2014 15:21:44 GMT -5
We've already been lied to by workers about the history so why should we accept another fairy tale about William Irvine's sister? Sorry for your belief about Irvine's sister being a fairy tale. Your assumption is not true. To those who knew Irvine and talked about him first hand it was a real event. And all the chatter won't change that. I was only one step away from Irvine. G Walker and C Hughes knew him and had no reason to be propagating a lie. What some of us are concluding is that they ceased talking about Irvine because his personal life was questionable. The gospel is what it is regardless of failures any of us may have. George and Charlie were remembering their early days among our group. It is a wonderful thing to witness whether you believe it or not. The thing is no one knows for sure what it was that WmI's sister did...how was she "the means of spiritual life to him"? Nor do we know for sure which sister had this impact on his life? WmI had TWO sisters die fairly close together at young ages...Margaret and Elizabeth. Either or both of their deaths could have caused him to take a serious look at his life and resolve to make some changes. The Impartial Reporter briefly mentions Irvine's sister: "Change of doctrine has made things different for many, especially for those who were not originally converts of Mr. Wm. Irvine or Mr. Edward Cooney, because unless you hear or believe through a Tramp Preacher, they say there can be no possibility of spiritual divine life, past, present or future. It is immaterial how definite your aspirations or what quickening towards God may have been wrought in your heart or soul previously. So that in other words, derivative or successive christianity is now re-established via William Irvine and Edward Cooney only. This is all the more remarkable and contradictory since William Irvine has a great difficulty to determine his own spiritual Father, and he professedly the great grandfather of all! Some say it was the Rev. John McNeill; some say Wm. Irvine’s sister was the means of spiritual life to him, and some are not very sure but that since Thomas was a doubting apostle, they are contented to be a brother of his, and some do not trouble much as long as they keep near the dinner hour, and do not fall out with headquarters." (8/25/1910 Impartial Reporter)
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jan 26, 2014 15:24:27 GMT -5
I use "our fellowship" Most use "The Truth" but when asked what the name of our church, they will say "we don't have a name". As far as filling out official documents where they had to come up with something.....Yes, there have been various other names used. You do realize that using 'The Truth' or putting down a name on an official document is actually 'taking a name' - theres no other way to describe it - so those who know about the names while continuing to claiming that 'we don't take a name' are technically lying. A court would quickly consider that perjury. It all seems like a ruse to support the nondenominational blurb that gets plastered on gospel meeting invites to attract those who might be looking for a new and different church or a Bible study and it is no less a denomination than a lot of those other denominations out there and some claim to be nondenominational too. A lot of denomination names first started by outsiders and stuck and now are used by insiders as well. Jondough ~ I believe Christian became the first identifying name attached to early followers of Christ according to this passage and continued to be used for identification purposes ~ so they did take a name after all. The other places in the Bible that the word Christian is used are Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul: Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. 1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man [suffer] as a Christian let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on [or in] this behalf [literally: 'name']. So it seems that it is used as a name and that we are to glorify God because of that name instead of belittling it.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jan 26, 2014 15:37:30 GMT -5
Why would Irvine start a new group if Irvine's sister already knew of an existing group. Who were those people and why didn't they join Irvine's new group. If they were Swiss then why did workers have to be sent to Switzerland for the first time in the early 1900s. Thats only the beginning of the serious problems with that theory - more holes in that than in a bolt of cheesecloth.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jan 26, 2014 15:45:32 GMT -5
Here's what Wiki says the definition of Christian;
A Christian ( pronunciation (help·info)) is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah.[1] Central to the Christian faith is the gospel, the teaching that humans have hope for salvation through the message and work of Jesus, and particularly, his atoning death on the cross[2] and resurrection.[3] Christians also believe Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible.[4] Most Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, a description of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This includes the vast majority of churches in Christianity, although a minority are Non-trinitarians.
This would describe many different Religions of many different names, and those without a name.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jan 26, 2014 15:49:34 GMT -5
This would describe many different Religions of many different names, and those without a name. That might be the definition now but I think Faune was pointing to that it was a name back in NT times when outsiders saw Christianity as a 'sect' of Judaism and it wasn't just vanilla Judaism but something a bit different that had to have a name so people would know which one. Same reason Essenes and Sadducees and Pharisees and Zealots all had been given names and eventually used those names themselves.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2014 15:50:28 GMT -5
I expect the "non-sectarian" claim started with the Faith Mission and the first workers who in fact were non-sectarian for a time.
The movement changed, but the terminology stuck.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Jan 26, 2014 16:11:25 GMT -5
So, really, why would you need anything more that just Christians? Because most 2x2ers are not "just Christians". They're some of the most sectarian Christians on the planet. If a stranger came to gospel meetings and said he was "just Christian", would we he be in fellowship with friends and workers? Let's be truthful if we claim to value truth. You can decide that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2014 16:16:01 GMT -5
Because most 2x2ers are not "just Christians". They're some of the most sectarian Christians on the planet. If a stranger came to gospel meetings and said he was "just Christian", would we he be in fellowship with friends and workers? Let's be truthful if we claim to value truth. You can decide that. It's the workers who decide whomever gets to have full participation with the friends and workers. From what I understand, anyone who is "just Christian" can't start participating in the fellowship meetings without acknowledging in some way the sectarian exclusivity of the friends and workers.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Jan 26, 2014 16:18:31 GMT -5
Here's what Wiki says the definition of Christian; A Christian ( pronunciation (help·info)) is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah.[1] Central to the Christian faith is the gospel, the teaching that humans have hope for salvation through the message and work of Jesus, and particularly, his atoning death on the cross[2] and resurrection.[3] Christians also believe Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible.[4] Most Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, a description of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This includes the vast majority of churches in Christianity, although a minority are Non-trinitarians. This would describe many different Religions of many different names, and those without a name. I use the description simply because I know we can never give a satisfactory answer. So Christian is good enough for me.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2014 16:30:33 GMT -5
Here's what Wiki says the definition of Christian; A Christian ( pronunciation (help·info)) is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah.[1] Central to the Christian faith is the gospel, the teaching that humans have hope for salvation through the message and work of Jesus, and particularly, his atoning death on the cross[2] and resurrection.[3] Christians also believe Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible.[4] Most Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, a description of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This includes the vast majority of churches in Christianity, although a minority are Non-trinitarians. This would describe many different Religions of many different names, and those without a name. I use the description simply because I know we can never give a satisfactory answer. So Christian is good enough for me. Why can't we give a satisfactory answer? Perhaps its because there's a contradiction between what we claim and reality. We're a very exclusive Christian sect, at least the ministry is. "Just Christians" have to confess their belief that the workers are God's one-true-ministry before they can become part of the sect.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 26, 2014 17:26:06 GMT -5
Yours is a sect within Christianity, so what sect do you belong to, christianburg?
Christian is not good enough for the workers as they do not accept other Christians in fellowship with them. They only accept those who join their church. So they are not just Christian in the sense of the word or they would accept those who also claim to be Christian.
A Christian accepts other Christians.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 26, 2014 17:26:38 GMT -5
Here's what Wiki says the definition of Christian; A Christian ( pronunciation (help·info)) is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah.[1] Central to the Christian faith is the gospel, the teaching that humans have hope for salvation through the message and work of Jesus, and particularly, his atoning death on the cross[2] and resurrection.[3] Christians also believe Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Hebrew Bible.[4] Most Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, a description of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This includes the vast majority of churches in Christianity, although a minority are Non-trinitarians. This would describe many different Religions of many different names, and those without a name. I use the description simply because I know we can never give a satisfactory answer. So Christian is good enough for me. "So Christian is good enough for me."
That answer may be good enough for you, however, how many times is that answer good enough for the person who asks you the question?
I doubt many people would be satisfied with that answer!
They want to know what denomination of Christianity that you belong to!
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jan 26, 2014 17:51:13 GMT -5
I've been reading in Acts for some time now. That is exactly what I've been noticing. If you believed in Christ - then you were simply considered a part of his family. Period.....
No certain traditions necessary. No "Works" necessary No certain name necessary No certain way to meet necessary No Pope necessary etc, etc, etc...
Just reading this morning;
Acts 19
Meanwhile, a Jew named Apollos, an eloquent speaker who knew the Scriptures well, had arrived in Ephesus from Alexandria in Egypt. 25 He had been taught the way of the Lord, and he taught others about Jesus with an enthusiastic spirit and with accuracy. However, he knew only about John’s baptism. 26 When Priscilla and Aquila heard him preaching boldly in the synagogue, they took him aside and explained the way of God even more accurately.
Then...
27 Apollos had been thinking about going to Achaia, and the brothers and sisters in Ephesus encouraged him to go. They wrote to the believers in Achaia, asking them to welcome him.
How awesome is this? The message was so simple. It was a message about Christ. Thats why, after straightening thing up about the Baptism of John the Baptist, he was good. Ready to go preach. Spread the same simple message to others. Accepted and encouraged to do so by the congregation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2014 18:05:52 GMT -5
I've been reading in Acts for some time now. That is exactly what I've been noticing. If you believe in Christ - then you were simply considered a part of his family. Period..... No certain tradition necessary. No "Works" necessary No certain name necessary No certain way to meet necessary No Pope necessary etc, etc, etc... Just reading this morning; Acts 19 Meanwhile, a Jew named Apollos, an eloquent speaker who knew the Scriptures well, had arrived in Ephesus from Alexandria in Egypt. 25 He had been taught the way of the Lord, and he taught others about Jesus with an enthusiastic spirit and with accuracy. However, he knew only about John’s baptism. 26 When Priscilla and Aquila heard him preaching boldly in the synagogue, they took him aside and explained the way of God even more accurately.
Then... 27 Apollos had been thinking about going to Achaia, and the brothers and sisters in Ephesus encouraged him to go. They wrote to the believers in Achaia, asking them to welcome him.How awesome is this? The message was so simple. It was a message about Christ. Thats why, after straightening thing up about the Baptism of John the Baptist, he was good. Ready to go preach. Spread the same simple message to others. Encouraged to do so by the congregation. JD, I like the "and you are there" technique of trying to get something from the NT.
Today some were thinking how it would be better if everyone just had the 10 Commandments to guide them. When I raised the question that everyone in the room believed in them, yes? That was quickly agreed. Then I asked for a show of hands how many could repeat them all? Called on them by name, none could. So, I gave them to them, but said, "If I break even one, I'm guilty of breaking all of them, according to a group belief, yes?" All agreed.
Simply said, "then I am guilty, what now?"
Quickly the light went on in each of their eyes as it dawned on them "THAT is why the love commandments!" A number thanked me afterward for getting them back on track.
Love is not mentioned even once in Acts, yet to me, it is a case of Love in Action.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Jan 26, 2014 18:32:31 GMT -5
I've been reading in Acts for some time now. That is exactly what I've been noticing. If you believed in Christ - then you were simply considered a part of his family. Period..... No certain traditions necessary. No "Works" necessary No certain name necessary No certain way to meet necessary No Pope necessary etc, etc, etc... I am not going to argue my point in this thread - just a comment - but you did miss a few things. The first is Acts 2:14 ... ' and Peter stood up ...' The expression ' stood up' would have been known to the Jews and would have immediately indicated authority. You missed a few others too. Acts 2:14 – Peter leads the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost Acts 2:41 – Peter received the first converts Acts 3:6-7 – Peter performed the first miracle at Pentecost Acts 5:1-11 – Peter inflicted the first punishment (Ananias & Saphira) Acts 8:21 – Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magnus Acts 15:7 – Peter led the first council in Jerusalem Acts 15:9 – Peter pronounces the first dogmatic decision www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/4b.htm
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 26, 2014 19:24:21 GMT -5
I've been reading in Acts for some time now. That is exactly what I've been noticing. If you believed in Christ - then you were simply considered a part of his family. Period..... No certain traditions necessary. No "Works" necessary No certain name necessary No certain way to meet necessary No Pope necessary etc, etc, etc... Just reading this morning; Acts 19 Meanwhile, a Jew named Apollos, an eloquent speaker who knew the Scriptures well, had arrived in Ephesus from Alexandria in Egypt. 25 He had been taught the way of the Lord, and he taught others about Jesus with an enthusiastic spirit and with accuracy. However, he knew only about John’s baptism. 26 When Priscilla and Aquila heard him preaching boldly in the synagogue, they took him aside and explained the way of God even more accurately.
Then... 27 Apollos had been thinking about going to Achaia, and the brothers and sisters in Ephesus encouraged him to go. They wrote to the believers in Achaia, asking them to welcome him.How awesome is this? The message was so simple. It was a message about Christ. Thats why, after straightening thing up about the Baptism of John the Baptist, he was good. Ready to go preach. Spread the same simple message to others. Accepted and encouraged to do so by the congregation. So are the workers and their followers Christian or not? If they were they would accept other Christians and they are not Christians if they do not accept Christians. Note that Jesus only had one group of followers and they were called Christians to separate them from Judaism. The same as each Christian group uses a name to separate themselves from each other to avoid confusion. I have not heard a Christian church say they are not Christian. They are Christian denominations. They are still Christian, their religion has not changed. Their religion is Christian. Interesting is that those in meetings do not call themselves Christians, they say they are professing. They talk about professing and not as becoming a Christian. They only use the term Christian when talking to outsiders as a way out of having to give a name for their church. Christians are those worldly people who go to worldly churches. How many people in meetings do you hear say when they became a Christian? No, they say when I met the workers and when I professed. Jesus is hardly in it. Their language is not like that in the Bible. The Bible talks about the church in someones house, professing people talk about the meeting in someones house. They hardly identify with the word church and Christian as it is in the Bible but only use these terms to outsiders.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jan 26, 2014 21:56:41 GMT -5
I've been reading in Acts for some time now. That is exactly what I've been noticing. If you believed in Christ - then you were simply considered a part of his family. Period..... No certain traditions necessary. No "Works" necessary No certain name necessary No certain way to meet necessary No Pope necessary etc, etc, etc... Just reading this morning; Acts 19 Meanwhile, a Jew named Apollos, an eloquent speaker who knew the Scriptures well, had arrived in Ephesus from Alexandria in Egypt. 25 He had been taught the way of the Lord, and he taught others about Jesus with an enthusiastic spirit and with accuracy. However, he knew only about John’s baptism. 26 When Priscilla and Aquila heard him preaching boldly in the synagogue, they took him aside and explained the way of God even more accurately.
Then... 27 Apollos had been thinking about going to Achaia, and the brothers and sisters in Ephesus encouraged him to go. They wrote to the believers in Achaia, asking them to welcome him.How awesome is this? The message was so simple. It was a message about Christ. Thats why, after straightening thing up about the Baptism of John the Baptist, he was good. Ready to go preach. Spread the same simple message to others. Accepted and encouraged to do so by the congregation. So are the workers and their followers Christian or not? If they were they would accept other Christians and they are not Christians if they do not accept Christians. Note that Jesus only had one group of followers and they were called Christians to separate them from Judaism. The same as each Christian group uses a name to separate themselves from each other to avoid confusion. I have not heard a Christian church say they are not Christian. They are Christian denominations. They are still Christian, their religion has not changed. Their religion is Christian. Interesting is that those in meetings do not call themselves Christians, they say they are professing. They talk about professing and not as becoming a Christian. They only use the term Christian when talking to outsiders as a way out of having to give a name for their church. Christians are those worldly people who go to worldly churches. How many people in meetings do you hear say when they became a Christian? No, they say when I met the workers and when I professed. Jesus is hardly in it. Their language is not like that in the Bible. The Bible talks about the church in someones house, professing people talk about the meeting in someones house. They hardly identify with the word church and Christian as it is in the Bible but only use these terms to outsiders. Maybe I 'm a little naive when it comes to this, but I've always called myself a Christian, to other F&W, and even have said it in my testimony. I'm B&R, but who knows....you learn something new every day.
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Jan 26, 2014 22:27:22 GMT -5
Mary's quote
Interesting is that those in meetings do not call themselves Christians, they say they are professing. They talk about professing and not as becoming a Christian. They only use the term Christian when talking to outsiders as a way out of having to give a name for their church. Christians are those worldly people who go to worldly churches. How many people in meetings do you hear say when they became a Christian? No, they say when I met the workers and when I professed. Jesus is hardly in it. Their language is not like that in the Bible. The Bible talks about the church in someones house, professing people talk about the meeting in someones house. They hardly identify with the word church and Christian as it is in the Bible but only use these terms to outsiders."
the last few years it has been more common for workers to use the word Christians in reference to F&W. I do use it regularly in my testimonies as do others . perhaps it's a regional thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2014 22:31:50 GMT -5
Guess that is one reason I found myself in the situation I was placed...I always thought of myself and those believing in the Lord as "Christian" likely needing more understanding just like myself.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 26, 2014 22:33:57 GMT -5
Maybe I 'm a little naive when it comes to this, but I've always called myself a Christian, to other F&W, and even have said it in my testimony. I'm B&R, but who knows....you learn something new every day. You and I have a little job to do JD. Just to keep the exes happy, we'll need to blank out the word "Christian" in our hymn #101.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 27, 2014 0:38:38 GMT -5
Mary's quote Interesting is that those in meetings do not call themselves Christians, they say they are professing. They talk about professing and not as becoming a Christian. They only use the term Christian when talking to outsiders as a way out of having to give a name for their church. Christians are those worldly people who go to worldly churches. How many people in meetings do you hear say when they became a Christian? No, they say when I met the workers and when I professed. Jesus is hardly in it. Their language is not like that in the Bible. The Bible talks about the church in someones house, professing people talk about the meeting in someones house. They hardly identify with the word church and Christian as it is in the Bible but only use these terms to outsiders." the last few years it has been more common for workers to use the word Christians in reference to F&W. I do use it regularly in my testimonies as do others . perhaps it's a regional thing. I agree that it's possibly a regional thing. I hear the word Church fairly often but not the word Christian in meeting. On the other hand we had a Canadian brother worker visit and he used the word Christian very frequently.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 27, 2014 2:03:45 GMT -5
Mary's quote Interesting is that those in meetings do not call themselves Christians, they say they are professing. They talk about professing and not as becoming a Christian. They only use the term Christian when talking to outsiders as a way out of having to give a name for their church. Christians are those worldly people who go to worldly churches. How many people in meetings do you hear say when they became a Christian? No, they say when I met the workers and when I professed. Jesus is hardly in it. Their language is not like that in the Bible. The Bible talks about the church in someones house, professing people talk about the meeting in someones house. They hardly identify with the word church and Christian as it is in the Bible but only use these terms to outsiders." the last few years it has been more common for workers to use the word Christians in reference to F&W. I do use it regularly in my testimonies as do others . perhaps it's a regional thing. Perhaps that is why I never knew how to answer that question when I was growing up. I never heard the workers to use the word "Christians" in reference to F&W.
In fact, it almost seemed to me that one wasn't suppose to use that word!
|
|