Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 3:40:15 GMT -5
Did you know Irvine invented the home based church and itinerant ministry?
And that Jack Carroll invented the "being the only way" movement.
And Workers initiated the “quietness program” before the start of meetings in the 1960’s or 1970’s.
Also, the Faith Mission was started by the founder being highly influenced by the Holiness movement.
I thought home churches, itinerant preachers, being quiet in church and seeking to be Holy were all in the bible.
Just wonder if anyone else can inform me of what we are supposed to have invented?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 23, 2015 4:34:36 GMT -5
Hey Bert what about the "Living Witness Doctrine" !
So Bert, where in the Bible does it speak about a person being "Stood down for marrying an outsider" ? Did your Church invent that one ? Of course you will take a verse out of context to try & justify this one !
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 23, 2015 4:36:41 GMT -5
Did you know Irvine invented the home based church and itinerant ministry?
And that Jack Carroll invented the "being the only way" movement.
And Workers initiated the “quietness program” before the start of meetings in the 1960’s or 1970’s.
Also, the Faith Mission was started by the founder being highly influenced by the Holiness movement.
I thought home churches, itinerant preachers, being quiet in church and seeking to be Holy were all in the bible.
Just wonder if anyone else can inform me of what we are supposed to have invented? Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already in the ages before us.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 23, 2015 4:39:12 GMT -5
Hey Bert what about the "Living Witness Doctrine" ! Romans 10:14. How shall they hear without a preacher?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 23, 2015 4:41:38 GMT -5
Hey Bert what about the "Living Witness Doctrine" ! Romans 10:14. How shall they hear without a preacher? The Living Witness Doctrine was that you had to hear through a worker ! The above verse does not mean "Only a worker" Quotes about Living Witness Doctrine Ida West The doctrine of the living witness came about as a result of the very able preaching of William Irvine and others, of their exposition of the Scriptures in the clear light that had been revealed to them, and of the power (i.e., power from on high) they experienced in surrendering their lives unreservedly and unconditionally to Christ by going to preach in the same manner as he sent the Twelve and Seventy, first to Israel and then to the world. They thought that the effect thus produced had to be explained in this way. [Letter to M. A. Schoeff 5/14/81; REF #293; The Life and Ministry of Edward Cooney P.57] A person may be born again through a living witness, without one--never. [Patricia Roberts, The Life and Ministry of Edward Cooney, Page 58] REF #327
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 4:47:41 GMT -5
I am not really au fait on this "living witness" thing. Isn't that the idea that no-one can know the "truth" without a preacher of the "truth."?
Don't know about that. But anyone who comes into our church must do it through the Ministry.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 23, 2015 4:48:21 GMT -5
I am not really au fait on this "living witness" thing. Isn't that the idea that no-one can know the "truth" without a preacher of the "truth."?
Don't know about that. But anyone who comes into our church must do it through the Ministry. So God cannot speak to someone without the workers, Bert ?
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Jul 23, 2015 5:18:10 GMT -5
Did you know Irvine invented the home based church and itinerant ministry?
And that Jack Carroll invented the "being the only way" movement.
And Workers initiated the “quietness program” before the start of meetings in the 1960’s or 1970’s.
Also, the Faith Mission was started by the founder being highly influenced by the Holiness movement.
I thought home churches, itinerant preachers, being quiet in church and seeking to be Holy were all in the bible.
Just wonder if anyone else can inform me of what we are supposed to have invented? You covered most of it Bert. Now you should do non scriptural traditions!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 7:41:18 GMT -5
Quote - 'You covered most of it Bert. Now you should do non scriptural traditions!"
Thought I already did: home based church; itinerant ministry; "being the only way" quietness program and Holiness - apparently.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jul 23, 2015 8:17:25 GMT -5
I am not really au fait on this "living witness" thing. Isn't that the idea that no-one can know the "truth" without a preacher of the "truth."?
Don't know about that. But anyone who comes into our church must do it through the Ministry. So God cannot speak to someone without the workers, Bert ? . I give credit to you,Bert, that you understand your church is an organization, or "club", with certain rules, and one of those rules is that to join our church or be a part of it you must do it through and with the approval of the workers. Not unlike many many other clubs. If I don't like the rules or don't qualify, for financial, racial, lack of whayever,i simply cannot be a part of that club, and like many have stated to exes or outsiders, we don't want you, unless you follow our clubs rules. The difficulty arises when some of us have equated your church to God, and that if any church or club does not accept us, we are somehow not accepted by God. There is a growing movement in your club , like yourself, that this is false and merely enjoy the benefits, of which there are many, to being a member of it. Thanks, all, for your posts. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 23, 2015 9:51:17 GMT -5
Romans 10:14. How shall they hear without a preacher? The Living Witness Doctrine was that you had to hear through a worker ! The above verse does not mean "Only a worker" Quotes about Living Witness Doctrine Ida West The doctrine of the living witness came about as a result of the very able preaching of William Irvine and others, of their exposition of the Scriptures in the clear light that had been revealed to them, and of the power (i.e., power from on high) they experienced in surrendering their lives unreservedly and unconditionally to Christ by going to preach in the same manner as he sent the Twelve and Seventy, first to Israel and then to the world. They thought that the effect thus produced had to be explained in this way. [Letter to M. A. Schoeff 5/14/81; REF #293; The Life and Ministry of Edward Cooney P.57] A person may be born again through a living witness, without one--never. [Patricia Roberts, The Life and Ministry of Edward Cooney, Page 58] REF #327 I agree with you on the meaning of the verse. However, not everyone does, so it's incorrect to say that the LWD is not Biblically based. It's also not certain what kind of legs the LWD had among the friends.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 23, 2015 17:04:37 GMT -5
The Living Witness Doctrine was that you had to hear through a worker ! The above verse does not mean "Only a worker" Quotes about Living Witness Doctrine Ida West The doctrine of the living witness came about as a result of the very able preaching of William Irvine and others, of their exposition of the Scriptures in the clear light that had been revealed to them, and of the power (i.e., power from on high) they experienced in surrendering their lives unreservedly and unconditionally to Christ by going to preach in the same manner as he sent the Twelve and Seventy, first to Israel and then to the world. They thought that the effect thus produced had to be explained in this way. [Letter to M. A. Schoeff 5/14/81; REF #293; The Life and Ministry of Edward Cooney P.57] A person may be born again through a living witness, without one--never. [Patricia Roberts, The Life and Ministry of Edward Cooney, Page 58] REF #327 I agree with you on the meaning of the verse. However, not everyone does, so it's incorrect to say that the LWD is not Biblically based. It's also not certain what kind of legs the LWD had among the friends. Well I do know that my parents thought I was 'lost' when I quit professing. That didn't change even though they loved me and thought I was a good person. Unless I was professing in their religion I was lost for eternity. They never changed that view point ever. I don't know who started that belief that only those in the Truth were saved, but some certainly believed it. I believe Nathan is another one that openly claims that. He has said it to me several times on here and I respect his honesty about that (it's not a complaint).
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jul 23, 2015 17:12:54 GMT -5
I agree with you on the meaning of the verse. However, not everyone does, so it's incorrect to say that the LWD is not Biblically based. It's also not certain what kind of legs the LWD had among the friends. Well I do know that my parents thought I was 'lost' when I quit professing. That didn't change even though they loved me and thought I was a good person. Unless I was professing in their religion I was lost for eternity. They never changed that view point ever. I don't know who started that belief that only those in the Truth were saved, but some certainly believed it. I believe Nathan is another one that openly claims that. He has said it to me several times on here and I respect his honesty about that (it's not a complaint). A few workers will grudgingly accept that you could be saved in a different church, but you'll find the fellowship eventually if that's the case. I personally don't know of a single worker who doesn't believe you are lost once you leave the fellowship. There might be some, I just don't happen to know any. My folks were clear on that also: not in, not saved. You might not be saved while in, of course, but you couldn't be while out. Simple really. I'm sure a few other churches believe that also, but they wouldn't call it the LWD....just the old 'we're right and everyone else is wrong' doctrine. It must have a Latin phrase, but I just can't call it to mind at the moment. Nos rightus, Vos wrongus doesn't sound quite right.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 23, 2015 17:23:48 GMT -5
Well I do know that my parents thought I was 'lost' when I quit professing. That didn't change even though they loved me and thought I was a good person. Unless I was professing in their religion I was lost for eternity. They never changed that view point ever. I don't know who started that belief that only those in the Truth were saved, but some certainly believed it. I believe Nathan is another one that openly claims that. He has said it to me several times on here and I respect his honesty about that (it's not a complaint). A few workers will grudgingly accept that you could be saved in a different church, but you'll find the fellowship eventually if that's the case. I personally don't know of a single worker who doesn't believe you are lost once you leave the fellowship. There might be some, I just don't happen to know any. My folks were clear on that also: not in, not saved. You might not be saved while in, of course, but you couldn't be while out. Simple really. I'm sure a few other churches believe that also, but they wouldn't call it the LWD....just the old 'we're right and everyone else is wrong' doctrine. It must have a Latin phrase, but I just can't call it to mind at the moment. Nos rightus, Vos wrongus doesn't sound quite right. I agree. When I was in the 2x2's it was always my understanding the you are lost if you aren't in the fellowship.
I had not heard of the Living Witness Doctrine by that name, but we certainly knew we couldn't be "saved" by any "false preachers" in any outside "false church."
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jul 23, 2015 17:50:22 GMT -5
A few years ago, when we had kind of a unique opportunity to help an ex worker ( he says it saved his life but?), he said there might be an exception made for us, even though we were not professing. It seems he's backed away from that with the passing of time,now, but just in case anyone finds us in heaven and us not professing, that's the reason.- smiling. We communicate regularly and have some " heated " discussions, and care lots for one another, so maybe we get a ticket for the back door from him, anyhow. Such fun. Lol. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by rjkee on Jul 23, 2015 17:51:59 GMT -5
Re. Living Witness Doctrine, former 2x2 worker, Joe Kerr wrote the following:
c/o Norman Kerr 26 Roleigh Road Moaray, Cape South Africa January 28, 1956
Dear ****
Many thanks for the newspaper that you sent (Douglas Parker's report - A Spiritual Fraud Exposed). How did that man get hold of all that information? He is not altogether accurate in some things but ?? has a lot that is. It is almost criminal all they are doing and then denying that their origin is deceitful.
He has nothing right about South Africa. If you ever write to him, tell him that William Irvine was never working in South Africa, he only passed through, so I did not share in any divisions, and that I cut my association with them 40 years ago.
He states that I was the instigator of "The Living Witness" doctrine, and that I scooped up what was left of William Irvine's kingdom in South Africa. What they (the Christian Convention group) preach today about the "Living Witness" was not what I preached. I then taught the importance of preaching as follows:
1. That Christ said go ye therfore, and teach all nations --- Mathew 29:19 2. That it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them -- I Cor. 1:21 3. That God hath in due times manifested His word through preaching -- Titus 1:3 4. That people could not hear without a preacher --- Romans 10:14 5. That it is woe unto me if I preach not the Gospel -- I Cor. 9:16 6. That they went everywhere preaching the word -- Acts 8:4 7. That Philip went down to Samaria and preached Christ -- Acts 8:5
I gave instances such as that found in Acts 8:35, how the Lord sent Phillip to preach to the eunuch but while I emphasized the need of a preacher, it did not mean that the preacher has to be one of us. The idea that the preacher had to be William Irvine or one of his disciples was added to their doctrine after I had deliver my part.
The mistake I made in my ignorance was that I failed to take into account the sovereignty of God, who could speak from heaven and save one, as He saved Paul, Acts 9. He could save Timothy through reading of the scriptures, II Timothy 3:15. I forgot that the greatest preacher that the Lord had was the firmament of heaven, and that there was no place in the universe where the voice of that preacher cannot be heard, Psalms 19:1-4. That is the preacher to whom Paul was referring in Romans 10:14 when he asked, "how could they hear without a preacher?", for he immediately quotes from that Psalm, Romans 10:18. When I saw the mistake I had made, I tried to correct it, but was too late!
It was something new for people who had not been in the habit of thinking for themselves, and so off they set with it to the ends of the earth! Then it grew until they had it that the preacher had to be one of the testimony, and one who had either professed through William Irvine, or one of his direct descent. I could not have preached that, for I believe that I was saved before I met the "Testimony" (them) and I know that William Irvine professed through the Rev. John McNeil. So that theory could no more hold water than the one that says the Pope was a direct descendant of Peter.
In the book, Broadbent's "Pilgrim Church", a book that is well worth reading, we learn that there have been people all down through the ages who have sought to walk as near to the Scripture as they could. They were all given different names and were badly persecuted.
I just had another letter from one of the deceived this AM asking for information regarding the truth. I met this man 7 years ago and told him a few things, which are now just beginning to filter into his mind.
Now, lots of love in Christ to you and your wife,
Your brother in Christ,
Joe Kerr
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 18:23:07 GMT -5
The LWD is true. It might not be exclusively given to the workers, but it's none-the-less true. A person has to hear the gospel to be saved. If you believe in the bible, it's not a matter of whether the LWD is true or not. The question is "Can a person be saved apart from the workers?" In the fellowship there, some think you can be saved apart form a worker, others think you can't. Even workers have different opinions on this. To give my 2 cents worth on the original post by Bert: there have clearly been numerous movements working apart from Orthodoxy since the time of Christ. There have always been small groups of people meeting in homes, preaching freely, claiming to have 'the only way' and attempting to follow the biblical pattern of the Church. This did not begin in the late 1800s. This 'faith' has been around since the time of Christ. If anyone is interested, purchase a copy of MARTYR'S MIRROR or THE BLOODY THEATRE, an old Anabaptist book. It documents martyrdom and so-called heretics since the time of Christ in great detail. Is there a continuation from group to group. Probably. This fellowship is a continuation of the New Testament, whether it can be proved or not. I don't think the fellowship is into proving anything to anyone. It's faith-based. However, if one wants proof, educate yourself by reading true, historical books such as MARTYR'S MIRROR. Here's a URL to the actual book, which you can read online. It goes from CENTURY TO CENTURY showing that a remnant has always existed. homecomers.org/mirror/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 18:28:49 GMT -5
Quote - "1. That Christ said go ye therfore, and teach all nations --- Mathew 29:19 2. That it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them -- I Cor. 1:21 3. That God hath in due times manifested His word through preaching -- Titus 1:3 4. That people could not hear without a preacher --- Romans 10:14 5. That it is woe unto me if I preach not the Gospel -- I Cor. 9:16 6. That they went everywhere preaching the word -- Acts 8:4 7. That Philip went down to Samaria and preached Christ -- Acts 8:5
I gave instances such as that found in Acts 8:35, how the Lord sent Phillip to preach to the eunuch but while I emphasized the need of a preacher, it did not mean that the preacher has to be one of us. The idea that the preacher had to be William Irvine or one of his disciples was added to their doctrine after I had deliver my part.
The mistake I made in my ignorance was that I failed to take into account the sovereignty of God, who could speak from heaven and save one, as He saved Paul, Acts 9. He could save Timothy through reading of the scriptures, II Timothy 3:15. I forgot that the greatest preacher that the Lord had was the firmament of heaven, and that there was no place in the universe where the voice of that preacher cannot be heard, Psalms 19:1-4. That is the preacher to whom Paul was referring in Romans 10:14 when he asked, "how could they hear without a preacher?", for he immediately quotes from that Psalm, Romans 10:18. When I saw the mistake I had made, I tried to correct it, but was too late!
Some thoughts. Always it seems to be "exe" people who talk here. For balance you need to get the opinion of existing Workers. From what Workers say - "We can't judge anyone" (outside) In fact, we can't judge INSIDE the faith. All we can do is "judge what we believe to be right or wrong."
To say we don't accept Paul's conversion because there was no preacher was doubly absurd. Paul heard the greatest preacher from heaven, and was then sent to a preacher.
Timothy learned through "reading of the scripture" is also doubly absurd. Timothy's mother and grandmother were in the faith so we can be assured he too heard those 2x2 preachers - of which he himself became.
People here argue that Phillip wasn't a 2x2 style preacher. That's true - and he didn't stay a preacher because he married (and had daughters who went into the ministry.) But... Phillip was the preacher to show the Eunuch what scripture and false ministers couldn't show him - the revelation from God of His Son.
I cannot imagine some ornately gowned, bejeweled priest spurting doctrines not found in scripture - can ever speak of the lowly man of sorrows with any effect.
Yes, you can find God without a preacher. In many generations many people have done just that. But it's not how God wants it to be. And scripture is loaded with verses to that effect.
I understand people's passion about these things. There's a Lot riding on our beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jul 23, 2015 18:49:43 GMT -5
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 3;15
(Ephesians 1
1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) 2And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:......
11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. 15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. 20Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not. 21Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; 22And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: 23But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. 24And they glorified God in me.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 23, 2015 18:56:06 GMT -5
Well I think it really doesn't matter if the 2x2's are exclusive and think their version of Christianity is the only right one. It's not like they are alone in their belief. Christianity in general believes that about other religions so what's the difference really? Wars have been fought because of this belief for a very long time. I imagine it would be stranger if religions that believe in only one God allowed that other religions could also save you. The concept behind religions is to amass a following of like minded people. Some use hell as a threat, some don't, but I'm pretty sure most believe they are the right one. It just doesn't matter as much in the religions that don't believe that you are lost for eternity if you don't believe in what they believe in, or worship their God, their way. When an eternity of torture is a possibility the risk of possibly choosing the wrong way definitely goes up.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 23, 2015 19:20:11 GMT -5
Timothy learned through "reading of the scripture" is also doubly absurd. Timothy's mother and grandmother were in the faith so we can be assured he too heard those 2x2 preachers - of which he himself became. We read that Timothy, his mother and his grandmother had faith in them. You seem to be twisting the scripture to claim that they "were in the faith". 2 Timothy 1:5 (AMP)I am calling up memories of your sincere and unqualified faith (the leaning of your entire personality on God in Christ in absolute trust and confidence in His power, wisdom, and goodness), a faith that first lived permanently in [the heart of] your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am [fully] persuaded, [dwells] in you also.
2 Timothy 1:5 (KJV) When I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also.
2 Timothy 1:5 (NIV) I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Jul 23, 2015 20:04:02 GMT -5
I heard once in a convention in NSW that when there is no messenger to send, 'the Lord God speaks Himself...', can't remember it ever being said that people must hear it from the workers. Know of a lady many years ago, whose brother was attending Gospel meetings, after each meeting he went home and wrote her a letter of what was said, she attended convention and made her choice there, she'd never been to a gospel meeting, never met a worker until then!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 23, 2015 20:49:27 GMT -5
I heard once in a convention in NSW that when there is no messenger to send, 'the Lord God speaks Himself...', can't remember it ever being said that people must hear it from the workers. Know of a lady many years ago, whose brother was attending Gospel meetings, after each meeting he went home and wrote her a letter of what was said, she attended convention and made her choice there, she'd never been to a gospel meeting, never met a worker until then! Which just confirms what people are saying the workers say. People, if they are really searching, can find 'the truth'. And, so she did, and then she professed through the workers because she heard the workers words through her brother. But if she hadn't bothered to go to convention and profess, what would have been her final destination? My parents told me over and over what they believed when I quit professing. Where do you think they got that belief from if not the leaders of their church? It's okay, but it's not entirely honest to say the Friends believe people in other Christian churches are saved. It's not what was taught when I was attending, it's not what I was told by the workers and friends when I quit. That was one of the hardest things about it all for me because I knew what my parents believed and they believed I was going to hell. Hard to handle a fact like that when it was a child they loved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 21:10:19 GMT -5
I heard once in a convention in NSW that when there is no messenger to send, 'the Lord God speaks Himself...', can't remember it ever being said that people must hear it from the workers. Know of a lady many years ago, whose brother was attending Gospel meetings, after each meeting he went home and wrote her a letter of what was said, she attended convention and made her choice there, she'd never been to a gospel meeting, never met a worker until then! Which just confirms what people are saying the workers say. People, if they are really searching, can find 'the truth'. And, so she did, and then she professed through the workers because she heard the workers words through her brother. But if she hadn't bothered to go to convention and profess, what would have been her final destination? My parents told me over and over what they believed when I quit professing. Where do you think they got that belief from if not the leaders of their church? It's okay, but it's not entirely honest to say the Friends believe people in other Christian churches are saved. It's not what was taught when I was attending, it's not what I was told by the workers and friends when I quit. That was one of the hardest things about it all for me because I knew what my parents believed and they believed I was going to hell. Hard to handle a fact like that when it was a child they loved. I don't know when you left, Snow. Today, there are many who believe that those who leave are lost. But, I know there are also many who wouldn't believe this in their heart. In fact, I just heard a worker talk about his search for God, and how he found God in his youth, before he even met the friends and workers. He looked at me and said, "I don't know what you think about such a thing." You can tell the difference in meetings, through Testimonies, between those who are exclusive at heart and those who are not. The exclusive folks always speak in a manner that shows insecurity. Those who are more inclusive usually speak more on grace. I think there is room for both in the meetings. It creates an atmosphere where the grace of God can be preached through Testimony to those who are afraid that they wont make it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 23, 2015 21:30:31 GMT -5
Which just confirms what people are saying the workers say. People, if they are really searching, can find 'the truth'. And, so she did, and then she professed through the workers because she heard the workers words through her brother. But if she hadn't bothered to go to convention and profess, what would have been her final destination? My parents told me over and over what they believed when I quit professing. Where do you think they got that belief from if not the leaders of their church? It's okay, but it's not entirely honest to say the Friends believe people in other Christian churches are saved. It's not what was taught when I was attending, it's not what I was told by the workers and friends when I quit. That was one of the hardest things about it all for me because I knew what my parents believed and they believed I was going to hell. Hard to handle a fact like that when it was a child they loved. I don't know when you left, Snow. Today, there are many who believe that those who leave are lost. But, I know there are also many who wouldn't believe this in their heart. In fact, I just heard a worker talk about his search for God, and how he found God in his youth, before he even met the friends and workers. He looked at me and said, "I don't know what you think about such a thing." You can tell the difference in meetings, through Testimonies, between those who are exclusive at heart and those who are not. The exclusive folks always speak in a manner that shows insecurity. Those who are more inclusive usually speak more on grace. I think there is room for both in the meetings. It creates an atmosphere where the grace of God can be preached through Testimony to those who are afraid that they wont make it. I quit professing about 47 years ago. I was 12 and I'm now almost 60 so I think I did the math right? However, I did have to go to meeting until I left home at 17. I don't know much about things now except for what I hear on here. I just know what happened all those years ago. I think you're right and things have changed a little in that regard. I wish my parents could have believed that because it was very hard on them when I quit.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 23, 2015 21:54:59 GMT -5
I heard once in a convention in NSW that when there is no messenger to send, 'the Lord God speaks Himself...', can't remember it ever being said that people must hear it from the workers. Know of a lady many years ago, whose brother was attending Gospel meetings, after each meeting he went home and wrote her a letter of what was said, she attended convention and made her choice there, she'd never been to a gospel meeting, never met a worker until then! If God's messengers in 1905 were William Irvine, Edward Cooney, Jack Carrol, George Walker et al... Then who were God's messengers in 1895?
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Jul 23, 2015 22:04:57 GMT -5
Fixit, Reminds me of the story I was told of a witch doctor, he sent his daughter off to the city, where they had relations, to earn a living as he was getting old and felt he may not be able to provide for her. On her departure he told her one day two people will come to you and tell you about God, please send them to me.........so how did this man know, no bible, no workers, no professing people in his life.........ah the absolute wonder of the Lord God Himself....especially if our spirit would be willing and our flesh maybe not so weak!!!!
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jul 23, 2015 22:08:24 GMT -5
Just recently I was in a mission meeting where the worker started his sermon by saying that it was rubbish that people say "we can't judge". He spoke that we must exercise judgement every day, and it was quite a helpful sermon.
The thought that went through my mind at the time was that there is a subtle difference between 'judging' and 'discerning'.
|
|