|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 4, 2014 11:55:38 GMT -5
Added August, 2014:Primrose Carroll's Testimony - 1913 (Youngest sister of Bill, Jack, May and Fannie Carroll) Laura A. Falkiner's Testimony - 1913 (pioneer in Western Australia) Robert McClung's Report - 1906 (Mr. Wilson's daughter Ellie staying at his home) Early Work in Oklahoma, USA Was William Irvine a Prophet? East-West Division in North America - when the West broke away from the East Divorce & Remarriage - Letters by Workers and other documents by F&W authors September 16, 1908 The Washington Times - Mob Burns Tents; Worshippers Asleep - "Irvinites" Driven from Baltimore Suburb by Enraged Citizens - Refusal to Leave met with Pistols. World War I New Zealand Newspaper Articles - Attempts to be recognized as the religious body "Testimony of Jesus" to obtain exemptions for workers and conscientious objector status for friends Click Here to read these
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 4, 2014 18:06:30 GMT -5
Was William Irvine a Prophet?A prophet of God could start out as a good prophet but because of pride, disobedience to God's words he can become a false prophet..... King Saul was a prophet of God but pride and disobedience, He didn't answer his prayers, or any requests.... Judas is another one.
Any prophet who refuse to obey God's words or instructions continuously will eventually become false prophet. God will not speak or respond to him. William Irvine started out a good prophet/messenger but because of his stubbornest and not willing to be corrected of his errors in teachings (he was one of the 2 living Witnesses in Revelation, the end of the world during WWI, misbehavior with women, etc)
I dont agree with the above. Not all who prophesy, even if accurate, are prophets in the OT sense. This includes King Saul. I view Wm Irvine as an evangelist--not a prophet.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 5, 2014 8:00:42 GMT -5
I studied prophets extensively and I wrote it.
Why does it matter who wrote it?
It doesnt matter if Obama wrote it or some one else.
Bottom line is ...IS IT TRUE? Does it reflect what the Bible says?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 5, 2014 9:26:32 GMT -5
Added August, 2014:Was William Irvine a Prophet? That's not "new";
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 5, 2014 9:46:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 5, 2014 10:40:11 GMT -5
The prophet document has been off line for some time now.
It was recently revised and reposted.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 5, 2014 10:42:59 GMT -5
I studied prophets extensively and I wrote it. Why does it matter who wrote it? It doesnt matter if Obama wrote it or some one else. Bottom line is ...IS IT TRUE? Does it reflect what the Bible says? Thanks, I read your article/study on Was William Irvine a Prophet? It seems you wrote that William Irvine wasn't a prophet so he is a false preacher/teacher.... Are you saying WI revelation about following Jesus 2x2 apostolic ministry and fellowship wasn't a revelation from God? A false idea?It says "YOU be the judge" - I'm not saying anything. I present the information and as you like to say, "let the readers decide."
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 5, 2014 13:48:38 GMT -5
"Was William Irvine a Prophet?"
Questions of that ilk seem like Don Quixote tilting windmills he mistook for giants. They beg primary questions like - who believes Irvine was a Prophet? If anyone thinks the friends and workers believe that - ask - is it really true that they do? If not, what is the point of the question and answer?? The question is not a matter of "history", so exactly what is the question - and answer - aimed at?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 5, 2014 14:26:51 GMT -5
The answer that WmI was a prophet was pretty standard about 25+ years ago to the question Who was Wm Irvine?
My brother found out about WmI after he went in the work from a worker and that was what he was told in 1982.
IF WmI received a revelation from God to start God's only true way--that makes him a prophet by definition. The prophets were God's mouthpieces; messengers God called and sent with His messages to men. God communicated through the prophets
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 5, 2014 16:34:37 GMT -5
Was William Irvine a Prophet?A prophet of God could start out as a good prophet but because of pride, disobedience to God's words he can become a false prophet..... King Saul was a prophet of God but pride and disobedience, He didn't answer his prayers, or any requests.... Judas is another one.
Any prophet who refuse to obey God's words or instructions continuously will eventually become false prophet. God will not speak or respond to him. William Irvine started out a good prophet/messenger but because of his stubbornest and not willing to be corrected of his errors in teachings (he was one of the 2 living Witnesses in Revelation, the end of the world during WWI, misbehavior with women, etc)
I dont agree with the above. Not all who prophesy, even if accurate, are prophets in the OT sense. This includes King Saul. I view Wm Irvine as an evangelist--not a prophet. Doesn't one of the references speak to the fact that prophets ceased to be when Jesus came into being....then it was Jesus and his Apostles...right? I think it's kind of said that Jesus and his Apostles were prophets in that they had revelations from God...but as to the major and minor prophets, those kind ceased to be....fact is they ceased several hundred years BEFORE Jesus' birth....wasn't it a bout 400 years?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 5, 2014 19:24:03 GMT -5
The answer that WmI was a prophet was pretty standard about 25+ years ago to the question Who was Wm Irvine? My brother found out about WmI after he went in the work from a worker and that was what he was told in 1982. IF WmI received a revelation from God to start God's only true way--that makes him a prophet by definition. The prophets were God's mouthpieces; messengers God called and sent with His messages to men. God communicated through the prophets. The first time I ever heard anyone suggest that Irvine was a prophet was here on TMB. I don't believe it, and don't know anyone who believes it. Aside from that the fellowship obviously wasn't because of Irvine alone, others there then have said "it was as if hundreds rose from the earth as one man." In the last paragraph note the "if" I was talking about on the thread resurrected from three years ago.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 5, 2014 19:43:01 GMT -5
Jesse, you and the F&Ws you know are not a representative sample of what 2x2s believe about WmI.
He was a prophet was the explanation the workers used when Doug Parkers book came out, and they were asked questions and it went over pretty well for a number of years...until computers and the internet came on the scene.
The explanation that "it was started by a group of men" and WmI was one of them came along later...
Jesse wrote: Aside from that the fellowship obviously wasn't because of Irvine alone, others there then have said "it was as if hundreds rose from the earth as one man."
Is this explanation still being given out?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 5, 2014 22:12:32 GMT -5
Jesse, you and the F&Ws you know are not a representative sample of what 2x2s believe about WmI. He was a prophet was the explanation the workers used when Doug Parkers book came out, and they were asked questions and it went over pretty well for a number of years...until computers and the internet came on the scene. The explanation that "it was started by a group of men" and WmI was one of them came along later... Jesse wrote: Aside from that the fellowship obviously wasn't because of Irvine alone, others there then have said "it was as if hundreds rose from the earth as one man." Is this explanation still being given out? Hi Cherie. As you know I read The Secret Sect before you did and still never heard "he [Irvine] was a prophet" from anyone. "Hundreds rose from the earth as one man" was simply the way it was in the early years. It makes logical sense, Irvine didn't brainwash those hundreds, they were all free to be part of the fellowship or not. It wasn't some theory invented because of the computers and the internet. Acting like it is commits the fallacy of too few alternatives. If I and the friends and workers I know are not a representative sample of what those in the fellowship believe about Irvine, who is? What does the correct representative sample believe about Irvine? How does anyone know what that correct sample believes about Irvine? Has someone done a survey?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2014 23:43:23 GMT -5
as far as we are concerned here that William was no more than a worker/servant of God just like the rest of them
|
|
|
Post by Ross.Bowden on Aug 6, 2014 0:35:16 GMT -5
From reading all the documents that have been written over the years, by those inside and outside of the fellowship, my conclusion is that William Irvine was a self appointed prophet or apostle.
It is clear from these writings that Irvine was charming, charismatic, authoritarian and independent - characteristics that attracted a number of people. This was presumably acceptable for those who joined up in the early years when his beliefs were relatively mainstream Christian. However, as his power base and financial resources grew so did his authoritarianism - a precursor for the development of the heresy that the church he lead would hold the mantle of being "the truth" or "the only right way" on earth. Those who belonged followed this errant doctrine as it progressively developed.
Nathan refers to Irvine's later womanising but when he started preaching on independent lines from the Faith Mission he already had a child out of wedlock and I presume if that had been publicly known at the time he would not have been allowed to take the leadership mantle. It seems that his preaching on worldiness was not exactly matched in his life - an indicator that he was a false teacher.
In my opinion, his "revelation" about Matthew 10 should be seen in the light of his later unusual revelations. Together, they are the hallmark of a man who desired attention, rather than point people only to Christ.
The Bible tells us that the mark of a true minister and servant is one who preaches the truth about Jesus, who He is and the complete sufficiency of His rescue mission for us. Their words will be backed by their lives.
Whilst Irvine may have initially preached the message that "Christ in you is your only hope of glory" within a few short years he and others were denouncing God's work in the world over past generations and they quickly claimed that they in fact were God's only true ministers on earth and were the sole arbiters of God's grace.
Rather than pointing people only to Christ, they emphasised their own role in the salvation process, and in doing so clearly undermined God's power and grace. By inserting themselves as God's only true intermediaries they subtly changed the focus away from "Christ alone" and onto themselves. Hence, the form of the ministry, where people meet and many other regulations take priority over the grace of God and Christ's humanity is emphasised over His divinity.
The workers' doctrine today is simply an extension of these early behaviours and teaching. It has resulted in many people placing a major part of their faith in an earthly ministry and associated sacrifices (eg celibacy, homelessness etc) which God does not require.
The Bible teaches that God requires complete trust in and commitment to the One who has created us and has rescued us and given us a certain hope for the future. Irvine's ministry does not offer that certain hope to anyone who turns and trusts in Christ - it refuses to acknowledge that God can save anyone that does not come through themselves as His only (self) appointed intermediaries.
Irvine may have been a prophet - but in my opinion from the moment he started to gain power and authority he preached a false message that has taken many over the years away from a 100% trust in Christ and what God has done for us by His grace.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 6, 2014 7:01:24 GMT -5
Indeed, hundreds did commit to telling the Gospel story, but that doesn't diminish the part that William Irvine played. It was him (with the help of several close to him) who marshalled and organised those volunteers and it was him who gradually shaped the doctrine.
Whether or not he was a prophet, an evangelist or a preacher is a moot point.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 6, 2014 10:12:57 GMT -5
Sounds like they all rose at once or in a short period...when actually the no. of workers grew until in 1905 there were 200...hardly enough to be called hundreds. I'll be sure to add that to my list of explanations on TTT here: www.tellingthetruth.info/history_articles/howstart.phpJesse, can you provide a workers/s name who stated this so I can include with it with the statement? Thanx CK
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 6, 2014 10:14:02 GMT -5
Does anyone know if William Irvine had a son before he became a Faith Mission preacher? or during the time he was a Faith Mission preacher?... At what age did William Irvine had his son Archie? The answers to your questions are in my WmI book on TTT.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 16, 2014 19:57:04 GMT -5
Judges 20:8: And all the people arose as one man, saying…
Using holy sounding terminology that doesn’t address the man who founded the 2x2 ministry & church.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 16, 2014 23:42:53 GMT -5
If you work backward from the idea that you can only receive the Gospel from the workers, sometimes referred to as the Living Witness Doctrine, you have to arrive at one of two conclusions.
(1) The worker tradition goes back to Galilee. Or, (2) the worker tradition was reinstated by a prophet.
Since the first friends and workers knew (1) could not be true, it seems likely that they would believe point (2), or at least point (2) would represent an answer for inquiring minds who needed to know how it all began.
However, it was something we never heard in our 30 years, but neither did we ever hear about anyone named William Irvine.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 17, 2014 0:44:35 GMT -5
Ross wrote: Irvine may have been a prophet - but in my opinion from the moment he started to gain power and authority he preached a false message that has taken many over the years away from a 100% trust in Christ and what God has done for us by His grace. ~~ I agree with you, Ross....Does anyone know if William Irvine had a son before he became a Faith Mission preacher? or during the time he was a Faith Mission preacher?... At what age did William Irvine had his son Archie?Nathan ~ You can find your answer here on Cherie's TTT site under "How was Archie Irvine Supported" towards the bottom of the article.
www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_family/archie.php
www.tellingthetruth.info/founder_book/04-4wmibook.php
|
|
|
Post by faune on Aug 17, 2014 1:48:39 GMT -5
If you work backward from the idea that you can only receive the Gospel from the workers, sometimes referred to as the Living Witness Doctrine, you have to arrive at one of two conclusions. (1) The worker tradition goes back to Galilee. Or, (2) the worker tradition was reinstated by a prophet. Since the first friends and workers knew (1) could not be true, it seems likely that they would believe point (2), or at least point (2) would represent an answer for inquiring minds who needed to know how it all began. However, it was something we never heard in our 30 years, but neither did we ever hear about anyone named William Irvine. What Hat ~ I believe they kept William Irvine safely hidden under the carpet along with the rest of the scandals? However, I do remember the workers referring to themselves as apostles of Christ, which I felt was quite strange when I first heard it. I guess they really don't know what distinguishes an apostle either? However, it's not uncommon to hear these TV evangelists today referring to themselves as some sort of prophet either ~ especially those connected to the chrismatic Word-Faith Ministries?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_(Christian)
|
|
|
Post by midwesterner on Aug 17, 2014 5:47:42 GMT -5
William Irving + Harold Camping = False Prophets
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 17, 2014 8:27:40 GMT -5
If you work backward from the idea that you can only receive the Gospel from the workers, sometimes referred to as the Living Witness Doctrine, you have to arrive at one of two conclusions. (1) The worker tradition goes back to Galilee. Or, (2) the worker tradition was reinstated by a prophet. Since the first friends and workers knew (1) could not be true, it seems likely that they would believe point (2), or at least point (2) would represent an answer for inquiring minds who needed to know how it all began. However, it was something we never heard in our 30 years, but neither did we ever hear about anyone named William Irvine. What Hat ~ I believe they kept William Irvine safely hidden under the carpet along with the rest of the scandals? However, I do remember the workers referring to themselves as apostles of Christ, which I felt was quite strange when I first heard it. I guess they really don't know what distinguishes an apostle either? However, it's not uncommon to hear these TV evangelists today referring to themselves as some sort of prophet either ~ especially those connected to the chrismatic Word-Faith Ministries?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle_(Christian)
Personally, I have no problem with workers calling themselves apostles. If we disallow it, we're putting Peter, Andrew, James, et cetera, on a pedestal to which they don't belong. The whole point of the Gospel is that God's work can be accomplished through any person without any divine pre-qualification. But given that 'apostle' does indicate some kind of special divine appropriation to many Christians, care has to be taken with the word to not offend some sensibilities. For example, the workers could call themselves 'popes' as far as I'm concerned, but the Catholics might not like it. There is an aspect of the erasing of the friends' history which is appealing. It's ashes to ashes and dust to dust, and what matters is what we do today. After this life is over, we don't need any kind of memento or memoir or diary. I think the friends see those things as idolatry of a sort. Only remembered by what we have done. It's a noble idea, but IMO, doesn't work. Santayana's concern for knowing history was greater than just avoiding the mistakes of the past. Rather he was stressing that without knowing history we couldn't make progress, and beyond that, wouldn't know who we are, as a nation, a people, and I believe, also goes for a church. Sure, Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, forever, but against that eternal and unchanging benchmark, we as individuals and as a church should make some kind of progress. If you ignore your history, how can you then actually deal with the consequences of your actions, and become more like Jesus, again, as a church or as an individual? Knowing your history, and owning it, is an essential first step, toward spiritual maturity ... I would think.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Aug 17, 2014 8:38:38 GMT -5
William Irving + Harold Camping = False Prophets It's also highly probable that Irvine thought of himself as a prophet only later in life. He was spontaneously moved by the Holy Spirit, I believe, along with all the other workers. Later, when questions arose around the growing exclusiveness of the f&w movement, is when the considerations of him being a prophet would come in. I've read some of Irvine's later diaries on TTT, and there is an incredible amount of hubris and thinking that major events all revolved around him. And Pattison and others testify to that as well. Probably, the 'exclusiveness' of the friends doesn't come from their doctrine. They just are exclusive and then the doctrine and explanations struggle to keep up with it. It's likely that after Irvine's expulsion some would have still thought of him as a prophet, especially anyone sycophantic or sympathetic to Irvine. But given that he was expelled the preponderance of thinking would be against that, and of course, he had been erased from the collective memory of the church some decades after his expulsion.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 18, 2014 2:05:46 GMT -5
Sounds like they all rose at once or in a short period...when actually the no. of workers grew until in 1905 there were 200...hardly enough to be called hundreds. I'll be sure to add that to my list of explanations on TTT here: www.tellingthetruth.info/history_articles/howstart.phpJesse, can you provide a workers/s name who stated this so I can include with it with the statement? Thanx CK You can have whatever opinion you want but 200 isn't tens - it's hundreds. Aside from that fact the hundreds doesn't include just workers, it includes friends. Just as Irvine didn't brainwash or program the hundreds of workers against their will, the workers didn't brainwash or program the friends against their will. Everyone had a choice. You don't have the quote right and I'm not providing any names.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 18, 2014 2:11:43 GMT -5
Judges 20:8: And all the people arose as one man, saying…Using holy sounding terminology that doesn’t address the man who founded the 2x2 ministry & church. Your assumption uses the fallacy of too few alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 18, 2014 5:40:16 GMT -5
"Was William Irvine a Prophet?" Questions of that ilk seem like Don Quixote tilting windmills he mistook for giants. They beg primary questions like - who believes Irvine was a Prophet? If anyone thinks the friends and workers believe that - ask - is it really true that they do? If not, what is the point of the question and answer?? The question is not a matter of "history", so exactly what is the question - and answer - aimed at? Some workers and friends consider workers to be prophets because they preach a message from God.
|
|