|
Post by Roselyn T on Jun 24, 2017 19:03:12 GMT -5
You are correct the Apostle Paul was not specifically replaced; it wasn't like the RC Pope system!But what we see is younger men Timothy, Titus and others being called and becoming colleagues of Paul and the other first Apostles. A perfect fulfilment of what Jesus said in Mat 28; that he would be with them to the end of the age! Timothy did not settle in Ephesus! He appointed elders in his role as a member of the apostolic ministry that will continue to the end of the age. One thing you have correct gifts were not given just to those in the ministry! We are so thankful for the gifts given to elders and all, we are different parts of the body of Christ working together in unity. It's patently clear in reading Eph 4.11 that it is misunderstanding Scripture to read and understand that other than in harmony and agreement to what plan Jesus himself gave of the apostolic ministry that will have his blessing until the end of the age Yes you are correct it was within 100-200 years that there was heresy with Bishops appointing the apostles/preachers rather than the Godly order that we see in the New Testament. I'm glad when people like you Ross propagate your 'church view' of it. It assures and confirms to me again what was planned in heaven, lived in the early church and will have God's blessing upon it until the end of the age. But Ross you are seemingly happy and convinced about what you refer to as your version of the NT ministry. I encourage you to stick with it and run with it. You would do far better if you wrote things without your personal barbs. They undermine everything you write. I'm interested in what Scripture says and what early church history says. None of that is my view.
There is absolutely no evidence in the early church that the apostolic ministry continued after the apostles died. That is why it is referred to as the Apostolic Age. There is every evidence that none could inherit the direct and universal commission from Christ held by the Apostles. Those who were commissioned by Christ had personally met with Him, either while alive or as the risen Lord. It is absolutely certain historically that the supernatural gifts of prophecy and miracle passed away. It is absolutely indisputable that the two functions of evangelism and pastorate were shared by overseers/presbyters/elders/bishops and deacons after the close of the Apostolic Age which occurred around AD100. There is clear evidence in the Bible that presbyters/elders/bishops were appointed who governed the churches in their cities/regions. These people were teachers/preachers and pastors and an overseer's church may have covered thousands of people - read the history of Antioch. We know that Timothy stayed in Ephesus and appointed elders there. There is some evidence that he was the first bishop in Ephesus (note Eusebius' writings). Most of us would refer to Apollos as an apostle/preacher etc - it's worthwhile looking at where he was primarily located. Ephesians 4:11 does not support what you have written at all. 1 Timothy 3 does not support what you have written. Some comments about the ministry of the 2x2 church
No-one is allowed to preach except a worker - that's neither a Biblical model nor an early church model. No-one is allowed to baptise except a worker - that's neither a Biblical model nor an early church model. Women enter an apostolic ministry in the 2x2 church - in direct contravention of the Biblical and early church model. Ministers are not allowed to marry in the 2x2 church - that is in direct contravention of the Biblical and early church model and follows a Catholic Church model. Ministers in the 2x2 church are required to sell all (or most things) when they enter the 2x2 ministry - this is not a feature of the Biblical or early church model. Whilst the Apostles clearly focused on preaching/teaching some clearly had homes and continued to have them after being appointed an Apostle. It doesn't worry me how your ministry is structured. Obviously, William Irvine and others decided that they would start a new church organisation with a different type of ministry based on a Matt 10 model. That's okay. They no doubt felt that some of the existing church structures put the focus on the wrong things or were corrupt etc. They may well have been - I don't know. But in establishing a new church with a new ministry they certainly didn't emulate the apostolic ministry that Jesus established because NO-ONE can do this. Jesus did it and gave the apostolic ministry special gifts and powers to establish HIS church after the resurrection. It became quickly obvious that William Irvine and the early workers couldn't do it when they introduced the Living Witness Doctrine and exclusivity. Rather than putting the focus on Christ as Lord and God they put the focus on their ministry and placed boundaries on the grace and work of God. In a very short time they became far more corrupt than the churches they derided - those churches did not place boundaries on the grace and work of God. Great post Ross.Bowden ! Seems @review005 has no answer as to why his church does the things you have listed, yet they claim to be "the only right way/church" !
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 24, 2017 21:44:21 GMT -5
Ephesians 4 is the basis of the different ministries within the church. Living on fresh air or money? I have no problem with people getting financial support for their work but I do have a problem with people saying that they don't when they do. Faith is an alternative to money. The workers claimed to be going out by faith with no financial support and condemn others who get financially supported by their church members. I already said that in Luke 22 Jesus made it clear that Matthew 10 instructions was when he was with them and reversed when he went to the Cross. If people didn't take swords those days I am sure that the apostle would have been arrested for having one. Do you think the apostle was breaking the law by having one. People have guns in the USA. Some apostles took the role of pastor at later dates but this didn't mean that pastors were apostles. Some missionaries also take the role of pastor when they give up the mission field. The apostles were not required to be like they were in Matthew 10 when pastors. Nothing to say pastors have to follow Matthew 10. That was when they were on the mission field not when they were pastors. I had no choice but to belong to the church i was brought up in, review. I knew of nothing else. When I found out the truth that this church was started by men and was not a continuation of the NT church I got free and went to a church were the truth was taught. Congrats for 'getting free' and going to a church where you feel truth was taught. Sarcasm is easily recognized, review005; -and again I remind you, -that we aren't so naive that we can't recognize it as for what it really is.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 25, 2017 11:56:13 GMT -5
Ross your twisting of others statements to your own purpose knows no bounds! It is only your fault seeking mindset and perhaps your troubled heart that can lead you to the conclusion you arrived at. It really hits a spot with you when I mention that people find spiritual life and salvation in listening to workers preaching the gospel doesn't it? Don't feel like that! When guys like you aren't happy in our church and leave and go to some other church I'm happy for them if they have found what makes them happy! It is no threat to me and my relationship with God if someone says they have gone to some protestant church or whatever and got life they never had in our church. That's great! Salvation and spiritual matters are a personal matter. You really seem to be tormented with the attitude you have against our church. I'm very sorry about that! I'd like you to be as happy and satisfied as those that have left protestant churches like where you are and are with us now! Be happy, it's grievous to see you with such a burden . Enjoy your new life and new church lots more! You are shooting yourself in the foot looking back over your shoulder in ill will at the church you left. Bollocks! review005!
Just how naive do you think that Ross and the rest of us are? We aren't "newbies" still wet behind the ears!
You are using an old, old trick. So old in fact, - it was used by the shamans of ancient times and as new as interrogators still use today !
first, -accuse someone of something, " twisting of others statements;" then diagnose their emotions, -"tormented," -"having a "troubled heart;" then, you assume a facade of compassion, -"it's grievous to see you with such a burden;" -"I'm very sorry about that!" Next and last, act the benevolent superior by giving advise, -"Be happy," -"Enjoy your new life and new church"
Review005, -that method is so recognizable to those of us who have left the 2x2's, that I wonder why you think that we would still fall for it ?
Of course the whole idea of wanting to be a part of the 2x2's or any other religion is based on winning over or playing on a person's emotions -like the familiar one we know well, "that last line of the last verse of that last song of the last meeting of the convention! " with the last line repeated if necessary.
Then there is always the passive-aggressive route of guilt and shame. I find the more fanatic religious believers go to the guilt and shame mode without even likely realizing they are. It's just so second nature for them and they feel justified to point out just how much more pious they are than the person they are plying with their guilt and shame game. I see it on here and I remember the feeling as a kid and teenager when it was used on me. Trying to make someone else feel 'less than' is something I was on the receiving end of so often growing up. Especially after I quit professing. I can even acknowledge that some did it out of love thinking it might bring me back to the fold, but it just pushed me farther away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 20:23:22 GMT -5
I don't get why certain ones in the fellowship (both servants and saints) dance around the history issue. There is nothing to be ashamed or uncomfortable about. Just admit it, put in out for others to think about and then move on in the business of salvation. If the 70s and 80s overseers lack the courage to do so, some young Turks need to step up to the plate and deal with this issue. Just admit that the fellowship began in Ireland around 1900 in an attempt to follow the NT church...Just do it, workers.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 29, 2017 0:48:12 GMT -5
I don't get why certain ones in the fellowship (both servants and saints) dance around the history issue. There is nothing to be ashamed or uncomfortable about. Just admit it, put in out for others to think about and then move on in the business of salvation. If the 70s and 80s overseers lack the courage to do so, some young Turks need to step up to the plate and deal with this issue. Just admit that the fellowship began in Ireland around 1900 in an attempt to follow the NT church...Just do it, workers. Ah, yes, but how?
How can they admit to that an still maintain it it the ONLY TRUE WAY when there were other churches which begin at that same time because of the circumstances of that era?
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Jul 9, 2017 20:44:02 GMT -5
I just want to give my opinion on a couple of things in here.
1) I am so disappointed to see the attitude of the Review005 suggesting that it's better for a square peg to leave the church, if he won't fit into the round hole, or words to that effect. To me, this is someone who is suggesting that Uniformity supplants Unity. The God who made Rahab, made Peter, Paul, Matthew, Zacheus, John, James etc.....people so different, all shapes and sizes of pegs! Also, it seems to me, to be the attitude of the hireling, who, when times get tough, is happy for people to be let go, rather than try and love them back into the fold! Now, that may not be the case, but it is how it comes across in what I read.
2) A lot of semantics have been bandied about with regard to Irvine, and being the founder. From the Review005 and Pruebert logic, Rutherford was not the father of nuclear physics, or the founder of splitting the atom, it was there all along (eg; in the Sun) he just found the pathway. The Wright brothers were not the founders of manned flight, they just happened to resurrect the form of what the birds were already doing. Michaelson was not the founder of Computing, as the way to do it was there all along. Edison was not the founder of electric lighting, as the materials for it were there all along, nor any of the other 1000+ patents he held. Irvine and co, were not the founders of the church, they just found the pathway. This is the logic that they employ, and it is a bending of the truth in order to align the actual history with the church view of the history, because the actual history does not suit the belief system. A bit of "don't let the facts disturb my faith". Of course the church today, bears no resemblance to what Irvine, Cooney or co ever envisaged. What would have happened if Irvine, Cooney, Long, Turner and Walker remained where they were in the Faith Mission? Would the church as we know it exist today? No, because they founded the new church, not found it. And because Irvine was the senior leader at the time, he could be considered the founder.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jul 9, 2017 21:34:15 GMT -5
I just want to give my opinion on a couple of things in here. 1) I am so disappointed to see the attitude of the Review005 suggesting that it's better for a square peg to leave the church, if he won't fit into the round hole, or words to that effect. To me, this is someone who is suggesting that Uniformity supplants Unity. The God who made Rahab, made Peter, Paul, Matthew, Zacheus, John, James etc.....people so different, all shapes and sizes of pegs! Also, it seems to me, to be the attitude of the hireling, who, when times get tough, is happy for people to be let go, rather than try and love them back into the fold! Now, that may not be the case, but it is how it comes across in what I read. 2) A lot of semantics have been bandied about with regard to Irvine, and being the founder. From the Review005 and Pruebert logic, Rutherford was not the father of nuclear physics, or the founder of splitting the atom, it was there all along (eg; in the Sun) he just found the pathway. The Wright brothers were not the founders of manned flight, they just happened to resurrect the form of what the birds were already doing. Michaelson was not the founder of Computing, as the way to do it was there all along. Edison was not the founder of electric lighting, as the materials for it were there all along, nor any of the other 1000+ patents he held. Irvine and co, were not the founders of the church, they just found the pathway. This is the logic that they employ, and it is a bending of the truth in order to align the actual history with the church view of the history, because the actual history does not suit the belief system. A bit of "don't let the facts disturb my faith". Of course the church today, bears no resemblance to what Irvine, Cooney or co ever envisaged. What would have happened if Irvine, Cooney, Long, Turner and Walker remained where they were in the Faith Mission? Would the church as we know it exist today? No, because they founded the new church, not found it. And because Irvine was the senior leader at the time, he could be considered the founder.
If William Irvine had stayed as a Faith Mission preacher in 12/1900, the 2x2 movement already in motion with Edward Cooney, Jack Carroll, George Walker, and John Long going on Faith Lines. in 1898-9.... without a salary, no seminary, but joining with older co-workers as mentors/teachers for the younger workers training as preachers and pastors of the churches feeding the lambs and sheep.
professing.proboards.com/thread/25658/william-irvine-founder-1897?page=1&scrollTo=746035
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Jul 9, 2017 23:11:29 GMT -5
I can agree with the concept of seeing someone off, when they're obviously wanting something completely different. At our cricket club, we would suggest that someone wanting to play baseball, go and join a baseball club. Someone wanting Requiem Mass services at funerals for example should join a Catholic Church. No problem with that. I see things though that have happened at a more micro level around the world, eg; the max ex-communications in Canada, the exodus in Sydney for example, where the issues weren't major. They didn't require a paradigm shift in doctrine, but in many cases, an acknowledgement of the issues being raised, an admission of somethings being handled wrongly with worker appointments etc.
I believe that some on this board may maximise the influence of Irvine and co, but I also see that some try and minimise it. All churches have the same dilemma, apart from the RCC. They claim that what their founders did was do what was laid out in the bible, therefore they they found the church, not founded it. At what time distance gap does this cease? 1500 years? 2000 years? A number of things the church does were already in the Faith Mission, so you could say Irvine was a plagiarist. What I am saying is that the church needs to be more open and honest about it's past. When a possible newbie is attending the missions for the first time, at some point, do they ever hear an acknowledgment of the events of 1897, or is it hidden, and then kept as a nice surprise for them after they profess? Unless they get on the internet of course? No, they take they inference from what they hear, to be apostolic succession, or at at least nothing like the events of the 1890's.
I heard of a case over the weekend where a person who has been coming to the mission all year, asked some question about money, and the beginnings? What they were told by one of the friends, was mis-leading, or a total fudge. "Keep coming", is not an answer. "The workers are well looked after" is not an answer. The person may stop coming. Maybe this person is a square peg not fitting into a round hole.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jul 9, 2017 23:25:34 GMT -5
I can agree with the concept of seeing someone off, when they're obviously wanting something completely different. At our cricket club, we would suggest that someone wanting to play baseball, go and join a baseball club. Someone wanting Requiem Mass services at funerals for example should join a Catholic Church. No problem with that. I see things though that have happened at a more micro level around the world, eg; the max ex-communications in Canada, the exodus in Sydney for example, where the issues weren't major. They didn't require a paradigm shift in doctrine, but in many cases, an acknowledgement of the issues being raised, an admission of somethings being handled wrongly with worker appointments etc. I believe that some on this board may maximise the influence of Irvine and co, but I also see that some try and minimise it. All churches have the same dilemma, apart from the RCC. They claim that what their founders did was do what was laid out in the bible, therefore they they found the church, not founded it. At what time distance gap does this cease? 1500 years? 2000 years? A number of things the church does were already in the Faith Mission, so you could say Irvine was a plagiarist. What I am saying is that the church needs to be more open and honest about it's past. When a possible newbie is attending the missions for the first time, at some point, do they ever hear an acknowledgment of the events of 1897, or is it hidden, and then kept as a nice surprise for them after they profess? Unless they get on the internet of course? No, they take they inference from what they hear, to be apostolic succession, or at at least nothing like the events of the 1890's. I heard of a case over the weekend where a person who has been coming to the mission all year, asked some question about money, and the beginnings? What they were told by one of the friends, was mis-leading, or a total fudge. "Keep coming", is not an answer. "The workers are well looked after" is not an answer. The person may stop coming. Maybe this person is a square peg not fitting into a round hole.
Most workers and the friends don't believe in apostolic succession.... What they don't know is the 2x2 have 117 years of 2x2 workers/apostolic succession since William Irvine...
Jesus said "Upon this Church I will BUILD my CHURCH and the gates of HELL shall NOT prevail against it." It seems Jesus teaches apostolic succession but people don't know or understand it .... It has been almost 2000 years and he hasn't return, yet. He said in Matthew 24 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be PREACHED to ALL nations, then shall the end comes."
In Acts 1:8 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Matthew 28:19-20 the Great Commission.... "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 9, 2017 23:42:53 GMT -5
I can agree with the concept of seeing someone off, when they're obviously wanting something completely different. At our cricket club, we would suggest that someone wanting to play baseball, go and join a baseball club. Someone wanting Requiem Mass services at funerals for example should join a Catholic Church. No problem with that. I see things though that have happened at a more micro level around the world, eg; the max ex-communications in Canada, the exodus in Sydney for example, where the issues weren't major. They didn't require a paradigm shift in doctrine, but in many cases, an acknowledgement of the issues being raised, an admission of somethings being handled wrongly with worker appointments etc. I believe that some on this board may maximise the influence of Irvine and co, but I also see that some try and minimise it. All churches have the same dilemma, apart from the RCC. They claim that what their founders did was do what was laid out in the bible, therefore they they found the church, not founded it. At what time distance gap does this cease? 1500 years? 2000 years? A number of things the church does were already in the Faith Mission, so you could say Irvine was a plagiarist. What I am saying is that the church needs to be more open and honest about it's past. When a possible newbie is attending the missions for the first time, at some point, do they ever hear an acknowledgment of the events of 1897, or is it hidden, and then kept as a nice surprise for them after they profess? Unless they get on the internet of course? No, they take they inference from what they hear, to be apostolic succession, or at at least nothing like the events of the 1890's. I heard of a case over the weekend where a person who has been coming to the mission all year, asked some question about money, and the beginnings? What they were told by one of the friends, was mis-leading, or a total fudge. "Keep coming", is not an answer. "The workers are well looked after" is not an answer. The person may stop coming. Maybe this person is a square peg not fitting into a round hole.
Most workers and the friends don't believe in apostolic succession.... What they don't know is the 2x2 have 117 years of 2x2 workers/apostolic succession since William Irvine...
Jesus said "Upon this Church I will BUILD my CHURCH and the gates of HELL shall NOT prevail against it." It seems Jesus teaches apostolic succession but people don't know or understand it .... It has been almost 2000 years and he hasn't return, yet. He said in Matthew 24 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be PREACHED to ALL nations, then shall the end comes."
In Acts 1:8 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Matthew 28:19-20 the Great Commission.... "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
Read it again Nathan. I believe Jesus said he'd build his church on personal revelation from Heaven. Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 9, 2017 23:50:06 GMT -5
I heard of a case over the weekend where a person who has been coming to the mission all year, asked some question about money, and the beginnings? What they were told by one of the friends, was mis-leading, or a total fudge. "Keep coming", is not an answer. "The workers are well looked after" is not an answer. The person may stop coming. Maybe this person is a square peg not fitting into a round hole. Perhaps the search should be for individuals willing to follow Jesus, rather than individuals who are willing to fit into a religious system?
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jul 9, 2017 23:51:07 GMT -5
Most workers and the friends don't believe in apostolic succession.... What they don't know is the 2x2 have 117 years of 2x2 workers/apostolic succession since William Irvine...
Jesus said "Upon this Church I will BUILD my CHURCH and the gates of HELL shall NOT prevail against it." It seems Jesus teaches apostolic succession but people don't know or understand it .... It has been almost 2000 years and he hasn't return, yet. He said in Matthew 24 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be PREACHED to ALL nations, then shall the end comes."
In Acts 1:8 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Matthew 28:19-20 the Great Commission.... "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."
Read it again Nathan. I believe Jesus said he'd build his church on personal revelation from Heaven. Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Yes, there has been thousands, and thousands men and women through the centuries/2017 years receiving personal revelation from the Godhead- Father, Christ and Holy Spirit to PRESERVE Jesus Church and the New Testament fellowship ALIVE on the earth to the time of Jesus returns to take the for the rest of his Bride left on the earth to receive the resurrection bodies.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jul 9, 2017 23:56:20 GMT -5
I heard of a case over the weekend where a person who has been coming to the mission all year, asked some question about money, and the beginnings? What they were told by one of the friends, was mis-leading, or a total fudge. "Keep coming", is not an answer. "The workers are well looked after" is not an answer. The person may stop coming. Maybe this person is a square peg not fitting into a round hole. Perhaps the search should be for individuals willing to follow Jesus, rather than individuals who are willing to fit into a religious system?
We read in the gospel, the books of Acts of the apostles, and many of the epistles.... the believers, who followed Jesus had fellowship with His apostles and followers, they gather together and having fellowship with each others.... they didn't have fellowship the Pharisees, Sadducees or any other groups except their OWN.
I John 1:1-7 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jul 10, 2017 0:16:48 GMT -5
I can agree with the concept of seeing someone off, when they're obviously wanting something completely different. At our cricket club, we would suggest that someone wanting to play baseball, go and join a baseball club. Someone wanting Requiem Mass services at funerals for example should join a Catholic Church. No problem with that. I see things though that have happened at a more micro level around the world, eg; the max ex-communications in Canada, the exodus in Sydney for example, where the issues weren't major. They didn't require a paradigm shift in doctrine, but in many cases, an acknowledgement of the issues being raised, an admission of somethings being handled wrongly with worker appointments etc. I believe that some on this board may maximise the influence of Irvine and co, but I also see that some try and minimise it. All churches have the same dilemma, apart from the RCC. They claim that what their founders did was do what was laid out in the bible, therefore they they found the church, not founded it. At what time distance gap does this cease? 1500 years? 2000 years? A number of things the church does were already in the Faith Mission, so you could say Irvine was a plagiarist. What I am saying is that the church needs to be more open and honest about it's past. When a possible newbie is attending the missions for the first time, at some point, do they ever hear an acknowledgment of the events of 1897, or is it hidden, and then kept as a nice surprise for them after they profess? Unless they get on the internet of course? No, they take they inference from what they hear, to be apostolic succession, or at at least nothing like the events of the 1890's. I heard of a case over the weekend where a person who has been coming to the mission all year, asked some question about money, and the beginnings? What they were told by one of the friends, was mis-leading, or a total fudge. "Keep coming", is not an answer. "The workers are well looked after" is not an answer. The person may stop coming. Maybe this person is a square peg not fitting into a round hole. I don't relate to what you write. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of about the beginning days of our fellowship. It's a wonderful story of men and women stepping out of the darkness of the denominations of the time and finding Jesus. I don't mislead them by telling that William Irvine was the founder. I tell them the truth of how it was. Yes workers at times have no handled situations as well as they could have and we have lost people. I learn from that. I am confused for the second time today. What do you mean by you don't misled them by telling that William Irvine was the founder. Are you saying you do tell them or don't tell them?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jul 10, 2017 0:24:02 GMT -5
Either you mean you are not misleading people by not telling them William Irvine is the founder or you mean you are not misleading them by telling them he is. To me it reads that you are not misleading them by telling them William is the founder but it can also be taken the other way.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jul 10, 2017 0:29:51 GMT -5
I don't relate to what you write. I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of about the beginning days of our fellowship. It's a wonderful story of men and women stepping out of the darkness of the denominations of the time and finding Jesus. I don't mislead them by telling that William Irvine was the founder. I tell them the truth of how it was. Yes workers at times have no handled situations as well as they could have and we have lost people. I learn from that. I am confused for the second time today. What do you mean by you don't misled them by telling that William Irvine was the founder. Are you saying you do tell them or don't tell them?
William Irvine was one of the leaders of the early 2x2 movement... He brought/taught the 2x2 converts the Faith Mission 2x2 worker apostolic ministry and that was it. It was Edward Cooney and John got the 2x2 Church started by forming the Sunday Morning fellowship/bread and wine going, and he started to baptize the 2x2 converts, and going in Faith line with John Long. John Long had many young workers under his guidance/teaching... William Irvine didn't do much.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jul 10, 2017 1:09:21 GMT -5
Either you mean you are not misleading people by not telling them William Irvine is the founder or you mean you are not misleading them by telling them he is. To me it reads that you are not misleading them by telling them William is the founder but it can also be taken the other way. Ok so with a 'like' by review to my post I am still none of the wiser. Double talk to me. A statement which can be taken either way.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jul 10, 2017 1:10:37 GMT -5
Nathan, Cooney and co started Sunday morning meetings in 1903 if I remember correctly but the workers were preaching and getting converts before then. The Sunday morning meetings were for the converts to meet so the workers were already out there preaching in order for there to have been people to attend these meetings.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jul 10, 2017 1:22:13 GMT -5
Nathan, Cooney and co started Sunday morning meetings in 1903 if I remember correctly but the workers were preaching and getting converts before then. The Sunday morning meetings were for the converts to meet so the workers were already out there preaching in order for there to have been people to attend these meetings.
I don't know where 2x2 converts met in 1901 for fellowship with one another.... but in 1902 Edward Cooney established the Sunday morning fellowship for the friends so they didn't attend the churches of their choice for fellowship.
~~ 7/ 1902: Edward Cooney (2x2 worker) baptizing his converts, and form Sunday morning meetings with communion/ Bread and Wine in remembering Jesus life, death and resurrection.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 10, 2017 1:31:10 GMT -5
I am confused for the second time today. What do you mean by you don't misled them by telling that William Irvine was the founder. Are you saying you do tell them or don't tell them? What do you think I mean? Have a guess, You have correctly identified that there are only two possible answers. I am sure that whatever you tell them won't be the truth!
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 10, 2017 2:16:18 GMT -5
I am confused for the second time today. What do you mean by you don't misled them by telling that William Irvine was the founder. Are you saying you do tell them or don't tell them?
William Irvine was one of the leaders of the early 2x2 movement... He brought/taught the 2x2 converts the Faith Mission 2x2 worker apostolic ministry and that was it. It was Edward Cooney and John got the 2x2 Church started by forming the Sunday Morning fellowship/bread and wine going, and he started to baptize the 2x2 converts, and going in Faith line with John Long. John Long had many young workers under his guidance/teaching... William Irvine didn't do much.
nathan are you trying to re-write history AGAIN? Or are you trying to downplay the influence WI had ?
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jul 10, 2017 7:43:33 GMT -5
nathan are you trying to re-write history AGAIN? No, I am telling the WHOLE truth not part of truth.Or are you trying to downplay the influence WI had ? No, William Irvine was one of the main leaders of our 2x2 fellowship as John Long wrote in his journal.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Jul 10, 2017 7:50:19 GMT -5
William Irvine was one of the leaders of the early 2x2 movement... He brought/taught the 2x2 converts the Faith Mission 2x2 worker apostolic ministry and that was it. It was Edward Cooney and John got the 2x2 Church started by forming the Sunday Morning fellowship/bread and wine going, and he started to baptize the 2x2 converts, and going in Faith line with John Long. John Long had many young workers under his guidance/teaching... William Irvine didn't do much.
It's obvious from multiple source documents that William Irvine founded the movement and took the lead role. There were others - John Long etc - but William was the main driver. The initial "revival" as it's called was in 1897 but as with most movements they become more structured over a period of years. It's similar to saying that a particular product was developed over a two or three year time frame. Who cares if it's 1897 or 1898 etc? 1897 is fine with me because of the first mission in Nenagh. But if someone wants to argue it's 1898 or 1899 that's fine as well. It doesn't really matter - the movement was started by William and co in that time period. If a worker won't state that in answer to a question they are being deliberately evasive or dishonest.
It does matter if you or someone claiming on his/her website title and making this statement TELLING the TRUTH for 25 years, when we can see the errors.... There are more errors on TTT and I will point it out later.
Without Edward Cooney, John Long, Jack Carroll, George Walker and others there would be NO 2x2 movement as we know today! All we have is just another William Irvine looks alike Faith Mission inter-denomination.... going/joining to the churches of your choice.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 10, 2017 14:10:48 GMT -5
I can agree with the concept of seeing someone off, when they're obviously wanting something completely different. At our cricket club, we would suggest that someone wanting to play baseball, go and join a baseball club. Someone wanting Requiem Mass services at funerals for example should join a Catholic Church. No problem with that. I see things though that have happened at a more micro level around the world, eg; the max ex-communications in Canada, the exodus in Sydney for example, where the issues weren't major. They didn't require a paradigm shift in doctrine, but in many cases, an acknowledgement of the issues being raised, an admission of somethings being handled wrongly with worker appointments etc. I believe that some on this board may maximise the influence of Irvine and co, but I also see that some try and minimise it. All churches have the same dilemma, apart from the RCC. They claim that what their founders did was do what was laid out in the bible, therefore they they found the church, not founded it. At what time distance gap does this cease? 1500 years? 2000 years? A number of things the church does were already in the Faith Mission, so you could say Irvine was a plagiarist. What I am saying is that the church needs to be more open and honest about it's past. When a possible newbie is attending the missions for the first time, at some point, do they ever hear an acknowledgment of the events of 1897, or is it hidden, and then kept as a nice surprise for them after they profess? Unless they get on the internet of course? No, they take they inference from what they hear, to be apostolic succession, or at at least nothing like the events of the 1890's. I heard of a case over the weekend where a person who has been coming to the mission all year, asked some question about money, and the beginnings? What they were told by one of the friends, was mis-leading, or a total fudge. "Keep coming", is not an answer. "The workers are well looked after" is not an answer. The person may stop coming. Maybe this person is a square peg not fitting into a round hole. I think bottom line is that the workers want members who don't question them. It's easier to have them leave than to answer questions. I know how my questions were received when I was 12. I was being genuine in my need to know, thought because they were workers they would know and be the best ones to answer my questions. I wasn't hostile or belligerent and at that point wanted to be a worker myself someday. When I got told I was the devil's spawn because I kept asking questions that is what woke me up. I was asking questions about the God of the OT because I had just started reading some of the OT and was having a very hard time with it. The God of the Hebrews wasn't a nice guy and I didn't know how to understand that. I was horrified by their answers which ultimately was an attempt to justify a God that asked for a genocide of other tribes. Of course it was the best thing that could have happened to me because it woke me up and sent me down a very different path then the one I thought I was on. So, maybe review is right in his answer that it's just best to let them go. It certainly turned out to be the best thing that could have happened to me.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 10, 2017 14:14:53 GMT -5
It's obvious from multiple source documents that William Irvine founded the movement and took the lead role. There were others - John Long etc - but William was the main driver. The initial "revival" as it's called was in 1897 but as with most movements they become more structured over a period of years. It's similar to saying that a particular product was developed over a two or three year time frame. Who cares if it's 1897 or 1898 etc? 1897 is fine with me because of the first mission in Nenagh. But if someone wants to argue it's 1898 or 1899 that's fine as well. It doesn't really matter - the movement was started by William and co in that time period. If a worker won't state that in answer to a question they are being deliberately evasive or dishonest. Ross you have stated your opinion, it is exactly as I expect from you. I will talk fully and openly about the beginnings of our fellowship with any who ask. I will not lie or mislead anyone by telling them that William Irvine is the founder. That is not true. If you wish to continue in your error that is fine with me. With the malignant attitude you have towards our church I would not expect otherwise of you. If Irvine wasn't the founder of your particular group then could you explain to me what he was? How do you see his role in the group that became what we know today as the 2x2's?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 10, 2017 14:41:47 GMT -5
If Irvine wasn't the founder of your particular group then could you explain to me what he was? How do you see his role in the group that became what we know today as the 2x2's? Snow, read my posts and you'll get the answer to your question. I've answered your question clearly and unambiguously in them. I have read your posts and what I got from them is that you recognize that he was one of the early workers but that you don't believe he was the founder. Is this understanding correct? He came out of the Faith Mission and started a group of his own. That group kicked him out at some point, but he was definitely responsible for the grouping of those people separate from the Faith Mission. That group went on to be what we now call the 2x2's. He was a key figure if not THE key figure in their coming together as a group. He never founded the gospel but he did work his own interpretation of that gospel into the group's beliefs. imo it's just a matter of semantics to argue he wasn't the groups founder. Do you believe that your group as we know it today would have existed if he hadn't left the faith mission and gathered like minded individuals around him to form a different group with slightly different beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 10, 2017 15:19:47 GMT -5
I have read your posts and what I got from them is that you recognize that he was one of the early workers but that you don't believe he was the founder. Is this understanding correct? He came out of the Faith Mission and started a group of his own. That group kicked him out at some point, but he was definitely responsible for the grouping of those people separate from the Faith Mission. That group went on to be what we now call the 2x2's. He was a key figure if not THE key figure in their coming together as a group. He never founded the gospel but he did work his own interpretation of that gospel into the group's beliefs. imo it's just a matter of semantics to argue he wasn't the groups founder. Do you believe that your group as we know it today would have existed if he hadn't left the faith mission and gathered like minded individuals around him to form a different group with slightly different beliefs? Who can answer your hypothetical question? But I can definitely say that God would have answered the prayers of those people disillusioned in dead churchianity. It most surely and definitely didn't depend on the man that 'fascinates' you so. That is where so many are in error this was of God, not of William Irvine (or any of the early workers). Well then I guess you could say all churches are 'of God' and none of them are started by men. If that's the case then why are traditional churches called false by the workers? Also, where have I ever said Willy fascinates me? I was initially appalled and angry to find out about him even though I was no longer a believer. It felt like a betrayal against my parents. They put their everything into that group thinking it was a continuous line of workers back to the shores of Galilee, when it wasn't. They were so proud of that little 'fact' about their church of choice. I wonder how they would have felt if they knew. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered, but then again, it really might have. They tended to be honest so it might have dealt a might blow to them. I found out about it just before they passed away but I never told them I knew about Irvine. I wasn't sure if they knew and I didn't want to be the one to upset them if they didn't. They might have known since they knew many of the first workers. My grandfather professed in 1915 so it is possible. I doubt it though as my dad said many times that the difference between the 2x2's and the other churches was that there workers had come from a long line that led back to Jesus on the shores of Galilee.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 10, 2017 15:21:56 GMT -5
Without Edward Cooney, John Long, Jack Carroll, George Walker and others there would be NO 2x2 movement as we know today!
John Long was a colporteur for the Methodist church when he met William Irvine and preached with him along faith lines. Jack Carroll and a number of other early workers professed in William Irvine's mission at Nenagh. George Walker met William Irvine and got involved in those early missions. Goodhand Pattison wrote a first hand account of how it all happened around him... www.tellingthetruth.info/publications_index/pattisong.php
|
|