|
Post by fixit on Mar 11, 2017 0:28:10 GMT -5
Desperation seems to be mostly from the pro-trinitarian side. People I fellowship with don't seem to have any trinitarian hangups. It seemed the early workers taught and believed the Trinitarians hangups for years....They preached black stockings too.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 11, 2017 1:36:50 GMT -5
They preached black stockings too. Is that the best answer you can come up with?I could also add that preachers are human and not always right.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 11, 2017 1:44:56 GMT -5
Hi Bert
You said, "And Alistair "thinks" we think we shall repose in the earth, our bodies fully formed, until the moment of the resurrection."
No, I never said that. That is putting words in my mouth. Once again I was just being a smart-Alec (sorry - didn't mean to offend).
I love word play. And what I said about 'not thinking' was just a line that spun out of my brain. Didn't think it would be a major point of contention, as it must be obvious that I did not mean to say that people don't think, full stop. Look at the context.
I believe that the friends and workers do think about a great many things, and deeply, like anyone else.
The problem is when tradition and assumptions get in the way of common sense.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 11, 2017 2:05:41 GMT -5
You know Nathan,
It must be becoming obvious to you by now that preachers just going about having what you believe is the right 'form' of ministry is not nearly enough!
Our pastor does not have the 'form' of being a homeless, celibate, unmarried itinerant preacher, but he has EXCELLENT 'form' in preaching the grace, Trinity and other biblical truth consistently clearly and passionately.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Mar 11, 2017 2:32:01 GMT -5
You know Allistair, W&F are not that far from your thinking on the Trinity;
They believe that Christ was in Heaven before he came to earth. They believe he is Divine. In this belief, "divine" meaning that he is a Heavenly being. They believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are as one. United. The same as my wife and I are one. United.
So the divide isn't as large as many may make it out to be. The only really difference is that they believe that the word God in the Bible refers to the Father only.
My belief....I've expressed it many times. None of us can comprehend who/what God is. Its beyond our human thinking or comprehension. We all try to put God in a box and try to define him. Its impossible with our own thinking, or even words available in any language.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 11, 2017 2:49:52 GMT -5
Fair enough Jondough. I am not out for an extended debate. I just wanted to get those thoughts out there about what some senior and well-known workers have actually taught in the past.
If you do take time to read what I put up, especially the highlighted bits, you will see what is actually pretty much a Trinitarian position.
Remember, one worker said "He (God) is God the Son, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit."
And you say you believe that the word God only refers to the Father. Ok, let's test that assertion right here, right now.
In John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was With God and the Word was God." - is this referring to the Father here as God, or is it referring to the Word (Christ = the Word = the Son) as God, very explicitly? Just this verse alone refers to Christ (the Son) as God. What can you do with this verse if He is not God? Are you saying the word of God is in error in this passage?
I am not wanting to have a go here at all, please understand. But it's like you saying that when the bible refers to heaven, it's just referring to the sky. That's true in some contexts, but not all. Do you see?
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Mar 11, 2017 3:17:52 GMT -5
alistairhendersonBe clear of what my take is above. I'm just arguing the other side; The word, can mean the message. The Bible is the living word, or message. So that "word" or message was sent to earth through Christ. Christ delivered the "word" or the message. He came in the flesh to deliver the word or message to us. That's how that passage would be interpreted in a non-Trinitarian view.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 11, 2017 4:54:28 GMT -5
That's as may be. But remember that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." If we rightly divide the word of truth, then we need to read it in its context.
Yes, the word is the Bible. And, the Word is Jesus also. I think you will find this is widely accepted even amongst the workers and friends as applying to Christ as the Living Word of God. These verses in John have always been held by Christians of all persuasions as referring to Christ. There has never been any argument about that.
i would also like to point out that the JWs also accept that these verses are referring to Christ. The difference with them is that they come right out and say that we should insert the word 'a' before the word 'Word'. If you do that, you end up with 'God' and 'a god', in other words a 'big God' and a 'little god'.
To me it's easier to stick with one God. In three persons. Blessed Trinity.
And also there are those striking verses in Revelations about the rider on the white horse (symbolic or otherwise - it is definitely Christ).
Rev 19:11-14; 16 - "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."
Note the names of the rider: Faithful and True; the Word of God; KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS!
How much plainer does it have to be, friends?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 11, 2017 8:25:08 GMT -5
Theres a bit of religiosity going on with trinity advocacy thing, whether youve assumed a position for or against it. Ive advocated for the trinity in the past for what I believed to be a heavenly blessing or sign in Christ,---against religiousity, and towards a promulgation, blessing, and sanction of critical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 11, 2017 11:56:08 GMT -5
Quote from sharingtheriches
I have experienced this changing of the message from workers since 1954. The workers in those days preached Jesus and only Jesus. There was never a word about tthe 2x2 itinerant ministry. It wasn't discussed even at conv. I think that is why there were more young people offering for the work. They didn't know about the ministry except the visual evidence they saw. They didn't know that workers left all and went out with not much more then the clothes on their backs. They didn't know that marriage of workers were forbidden and this was the great sacrifice that workers gave. Most thought the giving up of all was simply being in the road all the time, plus they saw the glory and honor bestowed on the workers as if they were more than human. Now days the workers haveore money in their pockets then some of the young friends have, thus that is a pull. I know this for a fact. A worker relative said it. They have top brand clothing even undergarments. The message always gets back to the 2x2 itinerant ministry and the mtgs in the home. Sometimes it's as if Jesus becomes an after thought. These two tenets of faith is all they have and they are very defensive if them as if there aren't other 2x2 ministers/missionaries in the world and there aren't other mtgs in the home. It's as if this is the very sign that they are the true church. Boxing God up in a very small population as if God can't do or go anywhere on his own counsel. When a relative passed away a few yrs ago, shed wanted to be brought back to our home area to be buried. Well it is quite expensive to cross state lines with an embalmed corpse and for her purpose would have required several state lines. So it was suggested to cremate and then the ashes could be freely taken it sent anywhere. The relative where this deceased relative was was very against cremation. I asked why. The answer was it wouldn't be advisable for God's sake in resurrection day. I had to laugh. That didn't go over well. So I said, Why do you want to box God in on what he can do or not do? They had to admit that was exactly what they were doing. I reminded them that there would be nothing but dust and/or ashes in very many circumstances anyway. They'd never thought of that because 2x2s have always been more or less against cremation. I never read so much deceitful garbage rolled into one post on the TMB in 15 years.Alistair quote "And here is the crux of the matter. You said: "They'd never thought of that because 2x2s have always been more or less against cremation." They'd never thought of that. Exactly. They'd never thought of that. The problem. Not thinking." And Alistair "thinks" we think we shall repose in the earth, our bodies fully formed, until the moment of the resurrection. Again you judge something that was a real happening as "deceitful garbage". You should realize that often the real truth hurts esp. When we refuse to embrace getting to the truth. As to not thinking, this is a true situation amongst so many 2x2s, always accepting what workers say without thinking about them. So beware. Others may start calling your posts deceitful garbage.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 11, 2017 12:08:02 GMT -5
You know Nathan, It must be becoming obvious to you by now that preachers just going about having what you believe is the right 'form' of ministry is not nearly enough! Our pastor does not have the 'form' of being a homeless, celibate, unmarried itinerant preacher, but he has EXCELLENT 'form' in preaching the grace, Trinity and other biblical truth consistently clearly and passionately. I just reread Paul's words to the Philippians in chapter one. He was speaking about some who preached the word in contention and others preached the word with love. But Paul said he rejoiced when and however the gospel of Christ was preached. I think we all can say the same thing when the gospel of Jesus Christ is preached and not diluted with men's commandments made doctrine that will end at the grave. This is the best yardstick to measure preachers sermons and if there is much if man's ordeals or ideals within those sermons then we can be sure their gospel is not Jesus Christ and will end at the grave.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 11, 2017 14:02:02 GMT -5
Lee,
I'm sorry. Is it me that lacks comprehension, or is the meaning and intent of your last post deliberately obscure?
If you are referring to a defence of the trinity as religiosity, I beg to differ. It's a defence of the plain word of scripture.
Any religiosity I see is the ongoing denial of that plain truth based on the traditions of ill-informed teaching.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 11, 2017 17:18:59 GMT -5
I'm fine with trinity doctrine. Its just that if Jesus visited your town today I doubt he'd say, "Hey! I'm your God-man ...high five brother." Or to others, "Dont you love me?"
Generally God's more subtle than that and for good reason: If God was in your face all of the time like some people imagine heaven, where's the journey? Where's the struggle? Wheres the narrative? Wheres the epic?
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Mar 11, 2017 20:14:21 GMT -5
It's a defence of the plain word of scripture. Actually, it is a defense of your interpretation of scripture. And the word is anything but plain.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 11, 2017 22:48:58 GMT -5
I'm fine with trinity doctrine. Its just that if Jesus visited your town today I doubt he'd say, "Hey! I'm your God-man ...high five brother." Or to others, "Dont you love me?" Generally God's more subtle than that and for good reason: If God was in your face all of the time like some people imagine heaven, where's the journey? Where's the struggle? Wheres the narrative? Wheres the epic? This reminds me of Goodhand Pattison's testimony.... In addition to his bold and unusual methods already referred to, there were other outstanding features in William Irvine's preaching as compared with missions I had often attended before; particularly noticeable were his constant and oft repeated references to his own experiences, or as we might call it, "the work of his testimony," and right glad I am that this feature still gets the prominence it should have among our preachers of today. "Preaching" had developed into a 'fine art' in Methodism, but lacked the living touch of real personal experience, and he would persistently keep telling the people in every address that so many years ago (naming the number very definitely) he attended meetings and while doing so made up his mind to serve the Lord, that Christ came into his life, and was now living in his body, in a minor measure, as he had lived in the body of Jesus, and so realistic did he make this truth of 'Christ in You' and 'Christ in Me' that it seemed like a New Revelation, although we had been familiar enough with the words "Christ in you the hope of glory" and also "For me to live is Christ" and others like them.
Another expression he was fond of using in the first days was: "Jesus was a common man." And although at first to our Pharisaic ears, it sounded very irreverent and repulsive (so much so that some would-be-grandees, who in other respects were a bit interested in the work, took great offense and from this and other causes walked no more with us), yet none of us could contradict or deny the simple fact; and admitting and thinking it over, and making it real had a very healthy and corrective affect on me at any rate, (all events) changing completely my conception of who and what Jesus was and is, from the fictitious "Gentleman Jesus" to the Jesus of the New Testament, whom the 'common people' "heard gladly" and who had always been, both at home and abroad, from cradle to grave, the poorest and lowliest.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 11, 2017 23:37:06 GMT -5
John Long's Journal in 1899 wrote: William Irvine's Doctrines & Leaderships: "Concerning the principals of the Doctrine of Christ, he [Wm Irvine] was sound. He believed in the fall of man, in the Atonement, in the Trinity, in the Divinity of our Lord, in the immortality of the soul, in the resurrection of the body, the inspiration of the Bible, in Heaven for the saved, and in Hell for the lost. He believed in a personal Devil, the enemy of God and man. He believed and taught Repentance and that every person can be saved and know it, and that the conditions of Salvation were "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Romans 10:9. Goodhand Pattison doesn't mention trinitarian dogma.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 12, 2017 0:49:39 GMT -5
Don't forget Fixit and Nathan - William Irvine professed in a Presbyterian mission conducted by the Rev. John McNeill. As far as I can tell, he never repudiated that testimony of his 'beginnings'.
So, and I say this in jest, was the Presbyterian mode of preaching not such a 'fine art' as the Methodist mode?
Just curious as to how the fact of how William got saved can be explained away somehow?
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 12, 2017 0:54:15 GMT -5
It's a defence of the plain word of scripture. Actually, it is a defense of your interpretation of scripture. And the word is anything but plain. True, Brick, mine, and Jack Carroll's and George Walker's and Leslie White's and John Wegter's. And all evangelicals and Catholics and the vast majority of scholars of biblical Greek. But not of the JWs or Mormons, oh, or the modern 2x2 workers and friends. Why is that do you think, Brick?
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Mar 12, 2017 1:48:20 GMT -5
I like plain words, and your question is not plain. What exactly are you asking? Why you are defending this position or why others don't accept your position?
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 12, 2017 1:56:55 GMT -5
No I am asking plainly why today's workers preach a different view to many senior older workers.
Apart from the fact that every other Christian group except a few sects and the meetings are on the same wavelength as those who believe the trinity.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Mar 12, 2017 2:52:32 GMT -5
It's actually the opposite, from my observation. As a child growing up in the fellowship, workers preached that Jesus was the son of God, not God the son, or our elder brother, just an ordinary Jew with an extraordinary connection to God. In more recent years I have heard workers speak more about Jesus as God, although the word trinity is strictly taboo. Someone might mistake us for an ordinary Christian rather than God's chosen elect. As to why the message would change, I can only speculate that workers have succumbed to the evils of the internet and are getting their sermons and ideas from there.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 12, 2017 3:50:12 GMT -5
Thanks Brick.
I find it interesting that you say you have heard workers in recent years preach Jesus is God. In all my years up to 2000 when I left, I never did, not once.
I also had several workers deny to my face that Christ is God, or that the trinity is a valid concept. At least your account is consistent with my experience on the second point (that the word trinity is still taboo).
However, having said that, I recently came across (to my surprise) some notes of several senior workers, including overseers, from more than 60 years ago, who used the terms God the Son and the Trinity pretty freely. They would have been first generation workers who came out of mainstream evangelical churches. In particular, two names were Jack Carroll and George Walker.
They would have been in the minority even then, but they did preach in support of both concepts. They were the two main overseers in Nth America, which is interesting.
It seems that second, third and fourth generation workers have progressively moved away from that clearer position, particularly during our lifetimes! I'm 57.
The occasional worker has spoken in similar clear terms about the deity of Christ and the trinity since the 1950s, but no more than a couple I would say. Leslie White and John Wegter were two.
Some evidence of a move towards stronger denial is the fact that the 1987 Hymns Old and New saw the purging of any hymn or line of a hymn that even hinted at Christ as God or the Trinity.
Also, in Australia last year, a senior worker preached blatantly that Jesus was just a man like us who had the help of the Holy Spirit, and that he is certainly not divine.
I have to say that the only Australian worker I have ever heard about who preached the Trinity and deity of Christ was Jack's brother, Bill Carroll. My dad remembers him preaching it at the Melbourne Town Hall in the 1950s.
So anyway that's how things are here.
If you don't mind me asking, Brick, are you still going to meetings, and are you exclusive in your attitude to other Christians?
Also, I wonder, have you read this thread?
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Mar 12, 2017 4:03:52 GMT -5
I attend meetings pretty regularly. Exclusive? If you are asking whether or not I believe Christians outside of our fellowship can have a relationship with God, I believe that to think that God would only consort with people of a particular group is to limit both His power and love for his creation. And I have not read this thread in its entirety. Most of it, but not all.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 12, 2017 4:10:46 GMT -5
Thanks Brick.
If it is at all helpful, you might find it useful for providing some context for my comments about 'senior, older workers' teachings, to have a quick review of the earlier posts (pages 1 and 2) where I have clearly highlighted (bolded) the bits that show where those workers were really very explicit about the deity of Christ and the Trinity.
Were they misrepresenting what they believed? Who knows? But the words could have come out of the mouth of some preachers I know who do not go to meetings.
The notes came from a 'professing' web site as far as I can tell - Truth Archives.
Google 'truth archive' as it doesn't like me copying and pasting the link it seems....
Just wanted to be clear that I am not making this up.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Mar 12, 2017 4:25:10 GMT -5
A possible explanation--and I'm not stating this as a fact, but merely a possibility--is that during my younger years, religious literature was strictly forbidden in the fellowship. I personally witnessed an overseer admonishing an elder sister worker for her use of a bible dictionary. Now the earliest workers would have had some familiarity with trinity doctrine and the divinity of Christ, but in the absence of external training and literature, armed only the words of the Bible, these ideas faded away as did the earliest workers. Since the Bible makes no declarations of these concepts, but repeatedly refers to Jesus as the Son of Man or Son of God, AND worldly churches like throwing words like "trinity" and "God the son" around, it may have became a great divider between the fellowship of 2x2's and the rest of the Christian world.
|
|
|
Post by alistairhenderson on Mar 12, 2017 5:46:08 GMT -5
Maybe.
Or maybe it was a policy that was firmed up by the 'new guard' once the 'old guard' had shuffled off this mortal coil. A bit like the gradual watering down of communism after Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin died off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 13:05:10 GMT -5
I think the problem with Jesus Christ is God, is that then he could not have died for our sins. Which sort of throws the whole "... isn't it wonderful what he did for us..." as a "well, he sort of did, ... but not exactly"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 13:29:35 GMT -5
I think the workers realized that trinitarian dogma is a convoluted man-made theory that adds nothing to "Christ in you, your hope of glory". Workers should feel no obligation to expound or debate the creeds of men. They're better to teach of their own experience walking with God and leave theology to the theologians. I think you're right fixit. Just theologies. The landscape of Christian belief has been swaying left/right/up/down for ages, and will continue to do so long after we're gone. Does it matter one whit? Not much If you or Al have been taught wrong, and honestly believe "wrongly", you're both fine. Especially if that's what you "...honestly believe..." The lack of sufficient and definitive info in the one book considered "the word of God", in spite of what people insist otherwise, leads me to believe that If there's any purpose in it at all, it is that what matters is how we deal with these differences between one another. That's a lot more important.
|
|