|
Post by findingtruth on Aug 20, 2014 21:49:23 GMT -5
And the 2x2 sect was a breakaway from ....hmmm...protestants. Oh, but I guess they are still protestants aren't they? They represent nothing more than another breakaway group comprised of individuals who are dissatisfied with previous religious affiliations. I cannot help but view ANY religious sect as anything other than the result of disagreement and an unwillingness to work together in harmony. And that includes every group that you have mentioned. ~~ The early workers wanted to RETURN to Jesus New Testament teachings, fellowship, and apostolic ministry... They didn't want to go back to the denominational churches they CAME out of.Nathan, there was nothing unique in their motives. I would venture to guess that EVERY protestant church has the same motive...."to RETURN to Jesus New Testament teachings etc". It would seem that William Irvine and his cronies might have taken a deeper look into the message of Jesus before jumping into yet another religious movement. If you bother to study the start of all sects(including your beloved sect) you might actually see several similarities. IMO using the book "The Pilgrim Church" for a bible of sorts is probably not the wisest thing to do. When people read certain books in order to justify their position they can twist the message of the author.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 21, 2014 0:15:35 GMT -5
And we still don't have the name of the worker Irvine professed through ! Or his sister professed through !
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Aug 21, 2014 0:21:55 GMT -5
Yup! The age old question: Who was before Wm Irvine?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 21, 2014 3:33:18 GMT -5
And we still don't have the name of the worker Irvine professed through ! Or his sister professed through ! William Irvine and his sister professed through Jesus New Testament apostolic church elders.Nathan what were those elders names ? There must be some record somewhere, Irvine can be traced back to the Faith Mission so where did the New Testament elders come into the picture ? Why is it so hard to accept that Irvine started it all Nathan ? The proof is not there that it goes back any further so why try to convince people otherwise. Does it change your belief if in fact Irvine did started it ?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 21, 2014 3:46:26 GMT -5
Nathan may I suggest starting a new thread with the Confession Of Faith list above and see how many people & workers do agree, because the workers have no written list of doctrine I think it will be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 21, 2014 3:47:53 GMT -5
I have never heard a worker say the Virgin Mary was a saint ... ?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 21, 2014 5:20:48 GMT -5
Does it change your belief if in fact Irvine did started it ? That's a good question Nathan. I fear that your faith is wrapped up in the church. Best you get it refocused on to God.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 21, 2014 5:22:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 21, 2014 21:12:43 GMT -5
Goodhand pattern is good but I believe John Long's Journal, Robert Darling give us a better picture of the gospel work from ones who had been in ministry from the early days. Is Robert Darling's account hosted on a credible website?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 21, 2014 21:12:59 GMT -5
Goodhand pattern is good but I believe John Long's Journal, Robert Darling give us a better picture of the gospel work from ones who had been in ministry from the early days. But..... does he say who Irvine professed through Nathan ? Or does he only say who he thinks they professed through ? In about 1967 or 1968, Robert Darling spoke at Silverdale, British Columbia Canada Convention. His text was Daniel 2: 34, 35 & 45, particularly about the stone "cut out of the mountain without hands," which "filled the whole earth." He then said that the stone was William Irvine's sister. She became very ill and died. According to Robert, she supposedly had a dream which she related to William, which deeply stirred him and in some manner supposedly influenced him religiously from then on. Robert Darling's main point was that we should be crediting Wm's sister God took in death before William Irvine even began preaching--instead of crediting William Irvine with starting this fellowship; and thus, avoid any accusation that this fellowship is man-made. William's sister was, therefore, "the stone made without hands." Nathan: is this the only evidence you have about Irvine's sister ? Something spoken by a worker in 1967 or 68 ? Did Robert Darling know Irvine personally ? Was in in Ireland when Irvine & Cooney first preached ?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 21, 2014 22:04:24 GMT -5
Here's how the workers organization started Nathan:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 22:32:47 GMT -5
I am looking at establishing what the F&W's beliefs are. The trinity doctrine is one that seems to be unclear for me. Hence the poll. But there are other questions too that I'm not sure about. 1. Does the group believe in transubstantiation? 2. Does the Bread and Wine have to be consecrated? 3. If yes, is anyone (women, group members that are not workers/elders) allowed to consecrate? 4. Is celibacy really required for the workers? Has it always been that way from the formation of the group? There may be more as I go along. I am trying to establish the beliefs of the F&W, the Waldenses, and the Cathars to try and see if there is any reason to think that those groups might have been just a continuation/stepping stone to what Irvine started in 1897. Hi Snow, My 1st reaction to your post is ... good luck in that endeavor. In my experience, it depends on the individual you talk to, whether it be F or W. And imo, that's the way it aught to be. I'm glad it is that way. It is a microcosm of what Christianity is. It's like saying you'd like to pin down the doctrine of Christianity. It depends on the denomination you speak to, and then within any denomination it depends still on the individual, no matter what may be written down as "The Doctrine" which history continually demonstrates is never, nor ever has been, settled. Anyway for your poll, 1. I don't know what transubstantiation means. I'm sure it's a shorthand for something you have in mind, but I have no idea what. And even if you would tell me and I recognize it, we could probably argue until the cows come home about accuracy of or emphasis on one pt or another of The Correct Understanding. 2. It seems like an insignificant question, but I realize in some peoples minds it is a REALLY BIG DEAL. I find the answer ranges from an obvious symbolic representation of becoming one with, and as clean as, Him, to (as some would view it by act of a holy ritual) becoming the actual flesh and blood of Jesus that we eat and drink. And imo there's a whole lot of other understandings too, all acceptable. 3. Yes men and women, although in my experience the women are almost exclusively workers, though very occasionally a woman in the church may do so. Not that it has to be that way. 4. Required, no. But is the result of more extreme cases of devotion/dedication such as with Jesus and probably Paul, and I'm sure some others. For example a number of workers were married and in the work, but none lately. Anyway, it has always amused me to see ex's in particular saying the F&W are.... and it varies all over the map. So good luck, to the satisfaction of innie or outie. Ettu
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 22, 2014 1:07:38 GMT -5
Nathan, was its Irvine's sisters influence that got in ex-communicated ?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 22, 2014 4:20:08 GMT -5
I am looking at establishing what the F&W's beliefs are. The trinity doctrine is one that seems to be unclear for me. Hence the poll. But there are other questions too that I'm not sure about. 1. Does the group believe in transubstantiation? 2. Does the Bread and Wine have to be consecrated? 3. If yes, is anyone (women, group members that are not workers/elders) allowed to consecrate? 4. Is celibacy really required for the workers? Has it always been that way from the formation of the group? There may be more as I go along. I am trying to establish the beliefs of the F&W, the Waldenses, and the Cathars to try and see if there is any reason to think that those groups might have been just a continuation/stepping stone to what Irvine started in 1897. I'm not sure how far you got for answers to your questions Snow. Here's my 2 cents: 1. Does the group believe in transubstantiation? Absolutely not. 2. Does the Bread and Wine have to be consecrated? Absolutely not, at least in the sense that the Catholic Church consecrates the bread and wine. Special words are not uttered over the bread and wine before the meeting - they are simply emblems. 3. If yes, is anyone (women, group members that are not workers/elders) allowed to consecrate? Before being passed around the room, the bread and wine are given thanks for - as you will remember. Men usually fill that role but sometimes women do. 4. Is celibacy really required for the workers? In theory - yes. 5. Has it always been that way from the formation of the group? Married workers were accepted in the early years.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 22, 2014 13:49:10 GMT -5
Cherie K. posted this on TMB 5/15/2014 On my trip I found an official Statement made by Wm Irvine in a court case where WmI states that he preached in the Faith Mission for FIVE years. Faith Mission records show WmI entered FM on June 14, 1895. Here's the full statement:
Statement of Mr. William Irvine for the Trial of BURFIT V. HAYWARD JULY 1913 "Women and men observe strict separateness in meetings, at meals and quarters for sleeping; and any violation of these conditions would at once be disciplined by asking them to go home.
Half of the attendants at meetings are married people who have their families with them."
This rule of Irvine's was such an ridiculous rule! Of course multiple men wouldn't sleep in the same quarters where multiple women were sleeping! They wouldn't sleep that way at home so why would he even thing that they might want to go that at convention?
But to separate the men & women in different parts of the meeting & dinning tent was ridiculous!
Families would be broke up & usually the children were with the mother so she couldn't even have the support of her husband to help care for them!
(and yes, -I do remember when men & women sat in different parts of the meeting & dinning tents.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 23:08:59 GMT -5
Dmitchgood, it's called "culture." It was considered decenct behavior back then. Lots of "strange" things happened in bible times too, and were considered "strange" to bible authors of later times, ie the story in Ruth 4, "now this was the manner in former time in Israel...a man took off his shoe and gave it to his neighbor..."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 22, 2014 23:53:20 GMT -5
This rule of Irvine's was such an ridiculous rule! Of course multiple men wouldn't sleep in the same quarters where multiple women were sleeping! They wouldn't sleep that way at home so why would he even thing that they might want to go that at convention?
But to separate the men & women in different parts of the meeting & dinning tent was ridiculous!
Families would be broke up & usually the children were with the mother so she couldn't even have the support of her husband to help care for them!
(and yes, -I do remember when men & women sat in different parts of the meeting & dinning tents.)
That wasn't WI rule... It was tradition and rules for thousands of years until the late 1960s in USA... Segregation! Separation of men and women, Blacks Vs. White practices/rule and in many denomination churches down south of USA, Africa, Asia and many places in the world. Thanks, God we don't practice this separation/segregation tradition anymore in USA and many other nations. Nathan, you were the one that listed that under the your own post! 12 hours ago NathanB said: Cherie K. posted this on TMB 5/15/2014
On my trip I found an official Statement made by Wm Irvine in a court case where WmI states that he preached in the Faith Mission for FIVE years. Faith Mission records show WmI entered FM on June 14, 1895. Here's the full statement:
Statement of Mr. William Irvine for the Trial of BURFIT V. HAYWARD JULY 1913
"Women and men observe strict separateness in meetings, at meals and quarters for sleeping; and any violation of these conditions would at once be disciplined by asking them to go home."
Find examples of this "Separation of men and women" as a tradition and rules for thousands of years! Of course we know blacks were segregated from whites, but men from women?
What churches did this? Some maybe, like the Quakers, but as a tradition for all churches? Baloney! Will you go to any ends, no matter how nefarious, to protect W. Irvine?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2014 0:25:32 GMT -5
Dmichgood, is Irvine (the most famous exe) "ours" or "yours" ?
Our liberal culture prizes the "choice" over the "given." This means we have little respect for what was once a "given" such as sex, race, age and class. Separating men and women was thus quite a natural thing to do once - and caused a lot less problems.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 23, 2014 1:45:17 GMT -5
Dmitchgood, it's called "culture." It was considered decent behavior back then. Bert, What do you mean it was called "culture?"
Do you mean that it was due to "culture" that Irvine stated that, at conventions "Women and men observe strict separateness in meetings, at meals and quarters for sleeping?"
If it was a "cultural" type thing, why were women & men in the same "culture" at the same time period NOT separated at other places in society, such as theaters, both stage & movies later on. At the beach, in parks, museums, or other cultural sites?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 23, 2014 1:51:29 GMT -5
Dmichgood, is Irvine (the most famous exe) "ours" or "yours" ? Bert, you have absolutely lost me on this one. I have no idea what you are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 23, 2014 2:14:11 GMT -5
Nathan, you were the one that listed that under the your own post! 12 hours ago NathanB said: Cherie K. posted this on TMB 5/15/2014
On my trip I found an official Statement made by Wm Irvine in a court case where WmI states that he preached in the Faith Mission for FIVE years. Faith Mission records show WmI entered FM on June 14, 1895. Here's the full statement:
Statement of Mr. William Irvine for the Trial of BURFIT V. HAYWARD JULY 1913
"Women and men observe strict separateness in meetings, at meals and quarters for sleeping; and any violation of these conditions would at once be disciplined by asking them to go home."
Find examples of this "Separation of men and women" as a tradition and rules for thousands of years! Of course we know blacks were segregated from whites, but men from women?
What churches did this? Some maybe, like the Quakers, but as a tradition for all churches? Baloney! Will you go to any ends, no matter how nefarious, to protect W. Irvine?
NOT baloney... Here are some examples... WI and the early workers just follow the culture of the day! 1) My question is: did men and women sit together from the start or were they initially influenced by (separate seating arrangements of) the Synagogue? If not, how did it come to be a regular practice? christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6954/when-and-how-did-men-and-women-start-sitting-together-in-churchchurch-local early-church gender In some modern churches, men and women still don't sit together. I guess I've always had the opposite question: How did segregation start? – Flimzy Jun 6 '12 at 19:19 According to this source, women were not even allowed to be taught the Torah publicly in the Jewish faith, so they were not able to even sit in the same area as the men who were taught from the scriptures. Restrictions applied to any public reading of Scripture in the Synagogue (Megillot 73a) and they were unable to pronounce the benediction after a meal in the home (Mishna Beresh- 7:2).... This was practiced in the Second Temple period of Jesus’ time and in synagogues afterwards; they were separated from men in the service. This practice is continued today among Orthodox Jews. Although today in most areas of Judaism (the reform side) much of this has changed considerably. It is clear that Jesus challenged this trend in His public ministry. Even still, by the fourth century it appears that men and women were separated in churches, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem says, It should be noted that many Coptic Orthodox continue the practice of sitting on separate sides of the church to this day. Many Anabaptists also have followed this practice. Various cultures practice this also. Some old churches still have matroneums from when this was practiced. 2) Why do men and women sit separately in a baptist church? www.answers.com/Q/Why_do_men_and_women_sit_separately_in_a_baptist_churchAnswer: I have not seen this done in many, many years and I'm an old dude. Separate seating was common in many churches, not just Baptist, in the 17th and 18th Centuries. It was common in places in the US maybe as late as the 1940's. This practice was intended to keep the worship pure. They felt that intermixing the sexes would be distracting to worship and cause some to sin by looking on a woman. So, you have given a few instances of religious answers, but just people talking on boards as we are doing. example:
christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/6954/when-and-how-did-men-and-women-start-sitting-together-in-church and www.answers.com/Q/Why_do_men_and_women_sit_separately_in_a_baptist_church
This is not historical data.
These are peoples opinions.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Aug 23, 2014 7:50:07 GMT -5
I never understood why women support the church more than men. Check out JW take on women. youtu.be/Wqzc2M8_MBASent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 23, 2014 16:12:13 GMT -5
Separate Church Seating Arrangement By Leland M. HainesThe historical practice established by the apostles is for the men and women to be seated separately in the service. This practice was followed in the church until recent times when it became fashionable to throw out the historical practice and sit as families. This modern custom should be rejected for the following reasons: Nathan,Tell me why we would take Leland M. Haines word on the subject?
Leland M. Haines degrees were in engineering, not biblical or religious history.
Leland M. Haines worked as a research engineer for Detroit Diesel and Ford
Leland M. Haines authored several books on religion, however, Leland M. Haines's church was Salem Mennonite Church, New Paris, IN Mennonite Churches still practice separation of the sexes in their meetings
The point being why should we put any credence on what Leland M. Haines , a member of Mennonite Church, and who isn't even a religious or biblical historian?
(Unless you are a Mennonite, of course. )-
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 23, 2014 17:59:21 GMT -5
I'm surprised the necessity of nursing infants and small children was not mentioned. There were no outbuildings to go to for such activity "back then."
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Aug 23, 2014 21:48:39 GMT -5
I am looking at establishing what the F&W's beliefs are. The trinity doctrine is one that seems to be unclear for me. Hence the poll. But there are other questions too that I'm not sure about. 1. Does the group believe in transubstantiation? 2. Does the Bread and Wine have to be consecrated? 3. If yes, is anyone (women, group members that are not workers/elders) allowed to consecrate? 4. Is celibacy really required for the workers? Has it always been that way from the formation of the group? There may be more as I go along. I am trying to establish the beliefs of the F&W, the Waldenses, and the Cathars to try and see if there is any reason to think that those groups might have been just a continuation/stepping stone to what Irvine started in 1897. I think the reason we discuss the Trinity so much is because we understand so little about it. Nathan has clarified that quite well here, I believe. Snow, if you go back and read my Narrative Critique of the book "Name of the Nameless Sect", by "Irvine"I give a little explanation on the Trinity. But as to your question re transubstantiation--"No we do not believe that. We treat the bread and wine for what it represents but hold no sacred thoughts about it other than it being symbolic of the life and death of Christ. I often request that women offer thanks for the emblems. Women will mostly hesitate but I feel they have just as much right to take part in the offering of thanks (consecrating if that is what you suggest) as elders or workers. Celibacy is required today but was not always that way. In the early days a number of workers were married. We bear some semblance to what the Waldenses believed but about 100 years ago they merged with the Presbyterians and gave up their two by two ministry and church in the home. I visited their museum in our state about a year ago and talked with one of their leaders and asked why they gave up what they had been for centuries. His reply was..."we joined with the Presbyterians in order to survive.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 23, 2014 22:22:53 GMT -5
... but I feel they have just as much right to take part in the offering of thanks (consecrating if that is what you suggest) as elders or workers.
One of the workers in our field this year said, "Ladies, Jesus died for you, too!"
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 23, 2014 22:30:42 GMT -5
I am looking at establishing what the F&W's beliefs are. The trinity doctrine is one that seems to be unclear for me. Hence the poll. But there are other questions too that I'm not sure about. 1. Does the group believe in transubstantiation? 2. Does the Bread and Wine have to be consecrated? 3. If yes, is anyone (women, group members that are not workers/elders) allowed to consecrate? 4. Is celibacy really required for the workers? Has it always been that way from the formation of the group? There may be more as I go along. I am trying to establish the beliefs of the F&W, the Waldenses, and the Cathars to try and see if there is any reason to think that those groups might have been just a continuation/stepping stone to what Irvine started in 1897. I think the reason we discuss the Trinity so much is because we understand so little about it. Nathan has clarified that quite well here, I believe. Snow, if you go back and read my Narrative Critique of the book "Name of the Nameless Sect", by "Irvine"I give a little explanation on the Trinity. But as to your question re transubstantiation--"No we do not believe that. We treat the bread and wine for what it represents but hold no sacred thoughts about it other than it being symbolic of the life and death of Christ. I often request that women offer thanks for the emblems. Women will mostly hesitate but I feel they have just as much right to take part in the offering of thanks (consecrating if that is what you suggest) as elders or workers. Celibacy is required today but was not always that way. In the early days a number of workers were married. We bear some semblance to what the Waldenses believed but about 100 years ago they merged with the Presbyterians and gave up their two by two ministry and church in the home. I visited their museum in our state about a year ago and talked with one of their leaders and asked why they gave up what they had been for centuries. His reply was..."we joined with the Presbyterians in order to survive. christiansburg, What do you think about the survival of the F&W fellowship? I can't see that F&W would ever take that step of joining any church in order to survive.
But I really wonder how it can it can continue to survive as it stands even though it has loosened some of the more outward demands on the people regarding having TV and how women look etc.
Isn't there still the feeling that one must go to every Sunday meeting & a convention? Or has that changed any?
My husband has been dead for five years & that was the last time I was at a convention. Although I do have family still professing , I hesitate to ask them questions that might seem judgmental & offend them.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Aug 24, 2014 8:15:21 GMT -5
I think the reason we discuss the Trinity so much is because we understand so little about it. Nathan has clarified that quite well here, I believe. Snow, if you go back and read my Narrative Critique of the book "Name of the Nameless Sect", by "Irvine"I give a little explanation on the Trinity. But as to your question re transubstantiation--"No we do not believe that. We treat the bread and wine for what it represents but hold no sacred thoughts about it other than it being symbolic of the life and death of Christ. I often request that women offer thanks for the emblems. Women will mostly hesitate but I feel they have just as much right to take part in the offering of thanks (consecrating if that is what you suggest) as elders or workers. Celibacy is required today but was not always that way. In the early days a number of workers were married. We bear some semblance to what the Waldenses believed but about 100 years ago they merged with the Presbyterians and gave up their two by two ministry and church in the home. I visited their museum in our state about a year ago and talked with one of their leaders and asked why they gave up what they had been for centuries. His reply was..."we joined with the Presbyterians in order to survive. William Irvine's parents, sisters were raised as Presbyterians.... Many of the Presbyterians forefathers were Waldenses/Vaudois believers in the New Testament apostolic ministry and fellowship in the 15th-18th Century but the original Vaudois/Waldenses kept on holding the practice of the early apostles to the 18th century..Nathan, you are absolutely right about some holding onto the practice but the larger part do not. I was also told by the Waldensian elder last year that there were some who still practiced those earlier beliefs but they were confined to a small region in the northwestern part of Italy. I thought that quite interesting.
|
|