|
Post by faune on Apr 9, 2014 14:03:49 GMT -5
Nathan ~ Thank you for providing some background regarding what Truitt Oyler did that got him kicked out of the work. It appears that he believed in the Trinity doctrine, but was afraid to preach it and only discussed it in homes of the friends in Alaska and to some Alaskan fellow workers. However, if William Irvine supposedly taught the same doctrine on the Trinity as you alleged in your earlier response concerning John Long's diary, why is it taboo today?
Basically, you just confirmed what Elizabeth, Ross, and I, along with a few others, have been saying all through this thread. Unfortunately, Bert doesn't agree with us on this matter of the Trinity along with other particulars regarding the beliefs of the 2x2's and the workers standard gospel message.
~~ Jesus has two natures within Him God and Man. God's nature/Being/Spirit which He/Christ possessed in heaven with His Father before the foundation of the Universe/earth, which was formed by Him. Jesus had Man/human nature when he incarnated himself as the Son of man through Mary's human body and the Holy Spirit/God.
A few senior workers, have taught the Trinity, Deity of Christ through the years and they DID NOT put out of the work! Truitt got Jesus is God part correct but NOT the part Jesus didn't have human nature. The Overseers in Truitt's days believe God refers ONLY to the Father! So, Truitt got two strikes against him.
Truitt got part of it right.... Jesus is God.... but NOT the part Jesus didn't have human nature. The Overseers/workers got part of it right... Jesus has a human nature.... But NOT the part Jesus is NOT God.Nathan ~ Bless your heart for clarifying the particulars for me here! I wondered what was the real problem here. However, I still don't remember any workers in my professing days speaking on the subject of the Trinity in a favorable way. In fact, it was just the opposite in which they related it always to Catholic doctrine, which wasn't biblical according to them. If these other workers did speak about it in their sermons, I would like to see some evidence in their very own words to this effect. It's just that I find it very hard to believe from my own long exposure to the 2x2 teachings of the past. From you description above, it seems the workers are still confused about this idea that Jesus was God in the flesh and pretty much teach the same old stuff today I heard years ago?
Didn't you mean by your last statement (highlighted above) that the overseers/workers get it right about Jesus having a human nature, but overlook the part relating to His divine nature, whereby Christian churches view Jesus as God in the flesh? Again, that gives me the impression again that the workers view Jesus as a "mere man in human body" and not as being "divine within a human body" due to his virgin birth and conception by the Holy Spirit within Mary's womb? In other words, an earthy mother who experienced the immaculate conception by the Holy Spirit fertilizing the seed (egg) within her. To view Jesus as divine, this also goes along with the scenario, IMHO? Could it be that the workers do not believe in the immaculate conception either as a result of this fact ~ or are they just plain confused entirely about what they do believe by the lack of clarity in their doctrine?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2014 20:21:35 GMT -5
Question if I may about Galatians 1.
The church was being troubled by people who didn't not abide by the church's doctrine. Peter also warned that his flocked would not be spared by the wolves who would enter in after his demise.
Within a century of two the face of Christianity was totally changed - instead of home worship we had temple worship, instead of Gospel preachers we had ministers and priests, instead of grace we had a rule bound system, instead of the Gospel we had forced conversions.
So who was Paul and Peter referring to? On the TMB it is "2x2's"
Somehow the church of Peter and Paul sailed along happily for 2,000 years, until their predictions about troublesome people and wolves finally came true in 1897?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 9, 2014 20:48:25 GMT -5
Question if I may about Galatians 1. The church was being troubled by people who didn't not abide by the church's doctrine. Peter also warned that his flocked would not be spared by the wolves who would enter in after his demise. Within a century of two the face of Christianity was totally changed - instead of home worship we had temple worship, instead of Gospel preachers we had ministers and priests, instead of grace we had a rule bound system, instead of the Gospel we had forced conversions. So who was Paul and Peter referring to? On the TMB it is "2x2's" Somehow the church of Peter and Paul sailed along happily for 2,000 years, until their predictions about troublesome people and wolves finally came true in 1897? Bert ~ I never suggested that troublesome people and wolves didn't come true until 1897 with William Irvine's new movement. In fact, there have always been people down through the centuries starting up some new movement and creating a following. There were many who did the same thing in Jesus' day who also claimed to Messiahs. It was a common practice back in time and has continued down through the ages even until today.
In fact, John in his epistles warned against the "spirit of antichrist" coming into the Church by people unawares and changing the focus of the gospel message. This was common in the Corinthian Church from the accounting in II Corinthians 11 and also in recorded in Galatians 1 pertaining to the church in Galatia. The Church at Rome and Jerusalem also had their problems, which brought the elders together to discuss a solution to the problem (Acts 26). Also, Revelation 3 speaks of all those different churches who had open the door to false teaching coming in and only two of those churches mentioned had a good testimony in God's eyes ~ Smyrna and Philadelphia.
So, as you can see, false teachers arising and deceiving many has been a common occurrence down through the ages and probably will continue to the end of time, according to Jesus' own words in Luke 21:7-12 below:
Luke 21:7-12 Amp Version
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2014 20:56:05 GMT -5
So we then are expected to believe that the True Church was the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox etc.. and a few pesky gnats on the side lines are what the Apostles referred to?
Guess this is the crux of every argument on the TMB.
|
|
|
Post by open mind on Apr 9, 2014 22:02:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Apr 9, 2014 22:34:00 GMT -5
Thanks for posting the link to the show! Nothing specific about the 2x2s on it, but a very interesting show about the mindsets people develop, and how hard they are to break. I was fascinated the worldwide "Twelve Tribes" group who have a presence in Australia (near Sydney). I have never heard of them before, despite them being, of course, another "one true way". I found this on one of their websites:
"We are grateful for the words our Master Yahshua spoke and the life He lived, and that we can be obedient to the things that have been recorded in the Bible. We are so grateful there is ‘a way’ to follow, and that it works."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 1:11:24 GMT -5
Ross, I need to get our two web sites back up and running again. In these we lay out carefully what was the nature of the foundation church. We base our church closely upon this church. A lot of what you mentioned doesn't require "proof texts" but rather is what we see clearly as being that church's practice.
Thus we don't rely on Matthew 10, for instance, for an understanding of the ministry - its there in the Epistles. And in the same vein our views about place of worship, role of women etc are largely based upon the same source.
Yes, I have read The Secret Sect. I have also read The Origin Of Species and even Dawkins.
I have often said it here - if I understood scripture, felt moved by it and began preaching Jesus and people asked me, "When did this begin?" I would say, "With Jesus." And if some should say "But you just started today" and dismiss what I was saying, I would see that as a poor excuse.
Scripture isn't based upon a line of succession, as the RCC's like to tell you. In fact, having a line of succession can blind people, and attract the wrong sort of people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 1:26:21 GMT -5
Quote - " In my experience, the doctrine of most workers was almost completely in the latter camp. It has to be when you create a ministry that positions itself as the arbiter of God's grace."That would be true if you could demonstrate the beliefs of the Workers are not in scripture, nor are their practices. You can certainly do that with churches like Catholic and Orthodox as they hold to "traditions." Can you identify ANY doctrine of the Workers which you believe is just a tradition?
Quote - "I simply recommend that friends ask a few different workers how people are saved by God and listen carefully to the answers. Line them up against the Bible and where there are differences ask why?"Don't bother with all this. Just tell us yourself.- they determine who can profess - do you mean they don't allow D&R to profess OR do you mean they actually pick who can and cannot profess?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 10, 2014 1:38:25 GMT -5
- they determine who can profess - do you mean they don't allow D&R to profess OR do you mean they actually pick who can and cannot profess? I believe that statement is universal, wally, and it shouldn't be. The correct statement would be " They can, they have, and they do prevent people from professing." Of course the same applies to baptism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 2:24:52 GMT -5
This ability to admit or refuse membership of the church is utterly scriptural. Peter saw himself as being a gatekeeper to the church, and saw what would happen after his death as he could no longer control membership. By way of example.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Apr 10, 2014 2:25:08 GMT -5
Bert, are you in Australia ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 2:26:11 GMT -5
I am an Aussie, yes.
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Apr 10, 2014 4:45:15 GMT -5
I am an Aussie, yes. Does that read: I'm an Aussie but not in Australia? Where did they ship you to Bert?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 10, 2014 7:14:58 GMT -5
I am an Aussie, yes. Does that read: I'm an Aussie but not in Australia? Where did they ship you to Bert? Hey, don't you remember ............. Bert lives in the Outback, sort of beyond the black stump, red plains and kangaroos grazing outside his window, with Prue cooking up a batch of pumpkin scones in the kitchen. Or maybe that was another incarnation.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Apr 10, 2014 9:48:02 GMT -5
Not my words - but very important when reading the bible....
Prescription vs description.
When we get hung up on a scenario that was described - it gets very confusing, as the scenario in another account could be different. Like where they met...or....if they were 2X2 or 3X3 or 1X1. When you begin to think that the description is prescription, it seems very contradicting. I'm wondering Bert - if you think the words "they believed, and were baptized" (nothing about a waiting period) was "description or "prescription"?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 10, 2014 12:37:46 GMT -5
So we then are expected to believe that the True Church was the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox etc.. and a few pesky gnats on the side lines are what the Apostles referred to? Guess this is the crux of every argument on the TMB. Actually Bert, I think the Gnostic Christians probably most resembled what Jesus was talking about. The RCC made quick work of them and their writings though.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 10, 2014 13:55:18 GMT -5
So we then are expected to believe that the True Church was the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox etc.. and a few pesky gnats on the side lines are what the Apostles referred to? Guess this is the crux of every argument on the TMB. Actually Bert, I think the Gnostic Christians probably most resembled what Jesus was talking about. The RCC made quick work of them and their writings though. Snow ~ You are so right in your assessment here! The victors definitely got to choose whose works were preserved for posterity and which works were destroyed and labeled heresy! Here's a link to the Gnostic Archives that we have preserved today through monks secretly burying much of these earlier Gnostic gospels to avoid them being destroyed by the RCC. However, they were discovered much later during the 19th & 20th centuries, which is why we have these fragments of Gnostic gospel accounts today.
gnosis.org/library/marygosp.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 19:20:10 GMT -5
I am an Aussie, yes. Does that read: I'm an Aussie but not in Australia? Where did they ship you to Bert? They sent me to Devil's Island, I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2014 19:23:17 GMT -5
Quote - "I'm wondering Bert - if you think the words "they believed, and were baptized" (nothing about a waiting period) was "description or "prescription"?"
I don't think there's a real "doctrine" about any "waiting period." Anymore than there's a real doctrine about married workers. It just makes sense. Remember, there's tons and tons of examples of things in the Gospels which people here blithely dismiss, so why bother focusing upon just one of them?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 10, 2014 21:36:46 GMT -5
Does that read: I'm an Aussie but not in Australia? Where did they ship you to Bert? They sent me to Devil's Island, I think. A Tasmanian Devil??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 0:27:12 GMT -5
In what areas are Workers "ignorant of the Truth"? What church have you found which belongs to "Truth"? If you belong to one of the thousands of churches which believe (contrary to Jesus) that "All ways lead to God" then how can "our way" not lead to God also?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 5:33:36 GMT -5
Quote - "Bert, I would encourage you to attend a few Bible based churches." You might need to define "bible based" here because all churches are "bible based."
Quote - "I quoted earlier on this thread of many areas where workers are ignorant of the Truth ie ignorant of who Jesus really is and how, through His sacrifice, we are clothed in His righteousness. We have been justified by His grace." We hold, as Peter did in Matthew 16 that Jesus is the Son of God. We understand that Jesus founded His church upon this revelation.
Quote - "There are thousands of Bible based churches around the world which are part of God's universal church." But the majority of bible based TMB people who replied to my question about the authenticity of the book of Revelations said that St John was a liar or on drugs. Do you believe that?
Quote - "The Greek word "ekklesia" in the NT is a gathering of God's people. There are many gatherings around the world happening every day." Yes, but most ignore Jesus who said that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands. Why therefor do so many continue going to such places? And did Jesus give them authority to build such temples in the first place?
Quote - "There are many, many churches who absolutely DO NOT BELIEVE that all ways lead to God. You seem to.
Quote - "There are also many churches which have false doctrine and there are many teachers who do not teach the gospel. It often is not divided along denominational lines - in some denominations you have churches in areas of the world which absolutely uphold the truth about Jesus but in other areas, sadly it is not the case." Yes but if they are Christian, and bible based (in some way or the other) then how can they be false?
Quote - "There are many people in the 2x2's who will have been saved by God and are saved by God but it seems unfortunately over the years the teaching and doctrine of the workers has strayed from the truth. Some folk in the 2x2's put their faith primarily in a system of worship - ministry and place of worship along with a fairly muddled view of who Jesus is. This is a leadership issue that ultimately needs to be addressed." You mean people who obey Jesus' Example? Find a way of worship Different to what He showed?
I have convention notes here from the 1940's. I don't see them as being an different in terminology or doctrine to 2013 convention notes. Try that on your local Anglican church where you have ministers tell you the bible is fake. And like the Methodist and RCC - doctrine, liturgy, wealth and influence unrecognizable to previous generations.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 11, 2014 9:53:58 GMT -5
Isn't telling Bert that his church is not the way to God, spiritual bullying? What's wrong with how they worship? Just because it's a little different from the mainstream churches it's no more fantastical than all of them? To make the 2x2's out to be 'less knowledgeable' and 'deceived' and any other number of things seems like you think your beliefs and ways of worship are superior and 'more right' than theirs and that is the definition of spiritual bullying is it not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 20:04:31 GMT -5
We believe that Jesus is the Son of God. We believe Jesus was the son of Mary We believe Jesus is our Lord We believe Jesus is the lion of the tribe of Judah We believe Jesus is our elder brother We believe Jesus is our high priest (and no other priest) etc..
I am not sure what you mean by our church being liberal than it was in 2000. Someone would have to elaborate. Some things change when community standards change - ie once strong colors were not approved because some used colors for attention seeking or social symbols - but now strong colors are everywhere (even in our food) and they have considerably less social meaning. Doesn't mean we have "changed" though.
Through family and friends I have attended many churches over the years. I find elements of service which I believe but not the general essence. In particular I am offended at their ministries.
|
|