|
Post by guesst on Oct 12, 2007 14:44:45 GMT -5
Who chose to start teaching improperly and why?
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Oct 12, 2007 14:46:58 GMT -5
Don't forget the alpha and omega revelations that Irvine sold when getting the followers togather. And then there is the issue of separating the workers from the saints. He (Irvine) did that to create a large body of believer who would support the workers. So then the last statement is very relevent. Ahhh, we've switched gears and started talking about how Irvine later went berserk, rather than discussing the "founding" of a "f&w church", right? In that, I'd say he is about as false a prophet as any other religious leader. I'll give you that one. I have no allegiance to the Church of Latter-day Irvines.
|
|
|
Post by so then on Oct 12, 2007 15:06:44 GMT -5
All of this that Irving changed absolutely nothing, corrected absolutely nothing, started absolutely nothing new. Don't forget the alpha and omega revelations that Irvine sold when getting the followers togather. And then there is the issue of separating the workers from the saints. He (Irvine) did that to create a large body of believer who would support the workers. So then the last statement is very relevent.[/q Whoa there, nobody believed Irvine as a person, [as was later demonstrated] , but there was some message that he expounded on that others joined the chorus on. The revelation was given to all from the same source. I repeat there is NO indication of anyone giving Irvine any credit for being necessary in its continuation, as Irvines place was very very unnecessary to the understanding of the verses that Irvine taught. For instance, just because Irvine saw the errors of false doctrine, and made an effort to follow true doctrine, does not change the validity of true doctrine. If a scientist contributes to the world of science, does it matter or not how he died, whether from a mental breakdown or other?
|
|
|
Post by guesst on Oct 12, 2007 15:53:00 GMT -5
The thing is, truth, the way, the meetings, whatever you want to call it was started, jump started, reformed, whatever you want to call it by WILLIAM IRVINE. Why this man was air brushed out of the picture will always be hard to swallow because the group who did this touts never air brushing. It's not a rule but it is a rule. Go figure. Now, who ever want to say he didn't is not being honest. With themselves or anyone else. But we can say he began doing what got lost in the shuffle somehow so therefore we are doing what was done from the shores of Galilee from the beginning etc., etc., etc., Let the brainwashing begin.
|
|
|
Post by sharing the goal on Oct 12, 2007 16:07:44 GMT -5
The thing is, truth, the way, the meetings, whatever you want to call it was started, jump started, reformed, whatever you want to call it by WILLIAM IRVINE. Why this man was air brushed out of the picture will always be hard to swallow because Now, who ever want to say he didn't is not being honest. . So you think we should say that Irvine jump started the truth, eh? Well.....I should get up in meeting and start pointing to Irvine instead of Jesus? By all means we get bombarded with this comment more than enough, why do I need to make it my duty, when I was not there to help out back in 1897. Believe me, I would have liked to help out getting people to see the truth just as much if I was alive then, too, but do I get my self bent out of shape because I wasn't there in 1897, also? I am glad to be living today, and reading the same confirmation of faith that many others read back then, along with Irvine.... Boy, it sure is weird how those false teachers got all irked up with the meetings back then, huh?
|
|
|
Post by who said on Oct 12, 2007 16:36:16 GMT -5
Well.....I should get up in meeting and start pointing to Irvine instead of Jesus? NO! NOBODY SAID TO DO THAT! WHY DO YOU HAVE TO GO OVERBOARD?!? My God, are you that brainwashed to think that is what we are suggesting? Get real!
|
|
|
Post by even more so on Oct 12, 2007 16:37:26 GMT -5
Boy, it sure is weird how those false teachers got all irked up with the meetings back then, huh? How would you know. You just said you weren't there to get all irked up.
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Oct 12, 2007 16:40:57 GMT -5
The thing is, truth, the way, the meetings, whatever you want to call it was started, jump started, reformed, whatever you want to call it by WILLIAM IRVINE. So, likewise, Paul "started" Christianity. Do we worship Paul and his revelation? Nor would there likely be any Christians around were it not for Constantine. Do we worship him, and his revelation? Why this man was air brushed out of the picture will always be hard to swallow because the group who did this touts never air brushing.Air brushed...I actually like that! I don't know what you mean about the group touting never air brushing, though. Now, who ever want to say he didn't is not being honest. With themselves or anyone else. Well, of course. We are not in the business of being honest, with ourselves or anyone else. We are in the business of religion. If you were "honest", you would admit that all of your Christian beliefs are just as goofy. But we can say he began doing what got lost in the shuffle somehow so therefore we are doing what was done from the shores of Galilee from the beginning etc., etc., etc., ...but everyone claims an alliance with Christ, and with God, don't they? We are just a bit more forthright with our beliefs. Let the brainwashing begin.Now you're getting the hang of religion!
|
|
|
Post by guesst on Oct 12, 2007 17:12:38 GMT -5
I don't know why everyone gets in a tizzy over William Irvine. So I don't get everything technically right. OK then, Jesus started the way to get to heaven and William Irvine founded upon it and continued. That better? Why wouldn't you want to speak about Irvine in the meeting? You speak about Paul don't you. Where would we be without Paul? Where would we be without Irvine?
|
|
|
Post by Wait a Second on Oct 12, 2007 18:12:43 GMT -5
Did I miss something. I am curious, in that if WI really did not start the F&W but just jump started a leading to correctness;
Then why do the 2x2's not have fellowship with the Faith Mission and the many other groups of that time which started up using the same model?
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Oct 13, 2007 0:14:08 GMT -5
Why wouldn't you want to speak about Irvine in the meeting? You speak about Paul don't you. Where would we be without Paul? Where would we be without Irvine? I've heard plenty of people speak in meeting about other workers who have died, and the inspiration they were. Guess nobody knows Irvine well anymore. But why does Paul get more reverence than current-day workers, preachers, or religious writers? I suppose because the Bible has already been canonized, and the Bible is supposed to be perfect (every word approved by God)? It is curious how we elevate Paul and his writings.
|
|
correction for dummy
Guest
|
Post by correction for dummy on Oct 13, 2007 2:01:45 GMT -5
And like any other religious belief it can't be proven or disproven, just believed or not believed. Correction, it has been proven that William Irvine started the 2x2 church. To say otherwise is a flat out lie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2007 7:03:51 GMT -5
quote - "Let's say I asked you "What time is it?" and you responded by saying "Anchovies and Pepperoni." Did you answer the question?"
I would say yes: that would be 6.30 pm ;D
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Oct 13, 2007 10:51:44 GMT -5
And like any other religious belief it can't be proven or disproven, just believed or not believed. Correction, it has been proven that William Irvine started the 2x2 church. To say otherwise is a flat out lie. Man, I am trying to be as clear as I can. Are you guys stupid, or just not listening? This is not that difficult. According to f&w traditions, WI may have discovered and renewed and began to teach again the way of Jesus, but he did not "start" a new "church". I know none of you believe this. But you should respect the beliefs of others.
|
|
|
Post by guesst on Oct 13, 2007 12:23:00 GMT -5
There is no evidence historical, traditional, or otherwise of anyone before William Irvine. So in a sense he did "start" a new "church". He started something that had obviously stopped. It was new in that it was and is something different from all other "churches". Now before you pick apart the historical and traditional part, I'm speaking of all paperwork ends with William Irvine concerning how far we can go back in these things. Kinda like our ancestors. Some of us can only go back only so far yet we realize there were others before us. Adam or apes, considering what you believe. Once you get past the hurt, you can continue in this, or as others feel the need, to go on to something else. I think most of the problem stems from those who felt hurt, duped, deceived, repeating things that turned out not to be so very true, their feelings were never taken into consideration, ultimately breaking their spirit, especially when things were said about their having a wrong spirit. I think helping all to understand the reasoning behind covering up WI would have let some healing to take place in those whose only recourse was to leave.
|
|
|
Post by I Also on Oct 13, 2007 12:42:36 GMT -5
Did I miss something. I am curious, in that if WI really did not start the F&W but just jump started a leading to correctness; Then why do the 2x2's not have fellowship with the Faith Mission and the many other groups of that time which started up using the same model? I don't believe Faith Mission ministry today is the same Faith Mission ministry in 1886-1897 founded by John Govan. They have changed too much. Did the Faith Mission group in 1897 had Bible Siminary Bible school?
Which denomination or group do you know today that have 2x2 workers/apostles itinerant ministry and having the communion= the bread and wine in the homes of believers?Do not believe that the 2x2's are any thing like the true Church of Christ. I do not believe that are as they were when the first started.--Some good but to much customs which have found its way into the binding legalisms. There are diversities of administration but all are part of the Body. Oh yes the fruit of the spirits litmus test by the 2x2. Are you like us? Man on The Cross with Jesus - BELIEVED-ADMITTED HIS SIN- CONFESSED and asked for MERCY not expecting any. The works of repentence and grace all of our LORD Jesus said that the man was HIS.
|
|
|
Post by for dim coke on Oct 13, 2007 16:06:47 GMT -5
Correction, it has been proven that William Irvine started the 2x2 church. To say otherwise is a flat out lie. Man, I am trying to be as clear as I can. Are you guys stupid, or just not listening? This is not that difficult. According to f&w traditions, WI may have discovered and renewed and began to teach again the way of Jesus, but he did not "start" a new "church". I know none of you believe this. But you should respect the beliefs of others. Beliefs have nothing to do with the proven fact that William Irvine started the 2x2 church. Just like beliefs didn't have anything to do with whether or not the earth was flat. If you insist that William Irvine was not the first worker, then who did he profess to?
|
|
|
Post by it doesnt matter on Oct 14, 2007 3:26:14 GMT -5
What I think or believe about William Irvine does not alter the fact that he started the 2x2 church.
|
|
|
Post by so answer this on Oct 14, 2007 3:26:59 GMT -5
If you insist that William Irvine was not the first worker, then who did he profess to?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2007 6:47:01 GMT -5
quote from Paul - "We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain"
Was Paul a worker?
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 14, 2007 7:32:55 GMT -5
#1. (True or False) William Irvine started the church you attend.
You cannot ask a complex question and expect a simple answer.
I see many parallels between the Fellowship and the Lutheran Church. Martin Luther never wanted his name to used as a denominational descriptor, and obviously he never set forth new doctrines. In fact, the magesterial reformers cited from classical church theologians more frequently than from among themselves precisely in order to demonstrate that they were not setting forward anything novel, anything new, but that they were connecting with the best and truest of theology.
Is it fair to level a hostile question against Lutherans and say, "Did Luther start your church"? On a purely organisational level, this might be true to some degree, but on a theological level, Luther started nothing new, but merely rearticulated what had always been biblical and true, from heaven itself.
Again, to say to a Calvinist - "Did Calvin originate your beliefs"? might be true to some extent (there was no "Calvinism" per se before Calvin), but where by extention and projection did Calvin come to his beliefs?
Likewise when we consider William Irvine (not Irving, as some people have written). Did he "start" our church? On a purely organisational level there was no fellowship before Irvine came on the scene, yet we believe that our fellowship is described and exampled in scripture (as indeed did Irvine). Did Irvine provide a novel set of doctrines not to be found in scripture? No he did not - at least, no doctrine which is presently accepted by the Church.
It comes down to the vacuous nature of the term "start". I believe Irvine may well have re-discovered the true form of "church", just as Luther re-discovered the true form of "grace". But I do not hold him as the exclusive originator of our beliefs or our Christianity, which are not novel, but are found in the pages of the Bible.
I also think it is to the great credit of the Church that Irvine was ejected and excommunicated as a heretic when he fell into the trap of believing himself to have a prophetic mission. I haven't examined much of Irvine's writings, and so I cannot comment on his theology - though, I don't think him much of a theologian or a philosopher - but his introduction of outrageous doctrine and self-glorifying conceits prompted strong action. How many churches can lay claim to having evicted, excommunicated, expunged, erased and to some extent, demonised their "founder"?
I think this is one area in which exes could give the Church more credit that they have.
So if you are seeking from me an unequivocal "true" "false" answer, I cannot give that to you, and I will plead the logical fallacy of false alternatives. Of course I anticipate frenzied attacks by those who simply cannot understand that others can see things differently from themselves, and I await (as if on cue) the drumbeat of personal insults, GISsing, and other unkind comments. But quite frankly, I don't give a damn. Here I stand, these are my views, and I can do no other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2007 7:46:36 GMT -5
quote - "#1. (True or False) William Irvine started the church you attend.
You cannot ask a complex question and expect a simple answer."
I can. My answer is NO.
|
|
|
Post by and thus on Oct 14, 2007 13:13:54 GMT -5
and thus the blind (git and bert) are leading the blind (anyone who actually believes anything those two have to say)
|
|
|
Post by love to been there on Oct 14, 2007 14:11:09 GMT -5
I think it is a disgrace to humanity the way that those protestants and catholics treated the workers in 1900 in Ireland. What was there problem anyways? Couldn't they put up with the idea that there organizations were corrupted up to their necks ?? Just wondering what it was that caused them to get their undies bunched up. ;D I would hope that I would have listened to what they were saying, instead of throwing stonnes at them.
|
|
|
Post by a believer on Oct 14, 2007 14:45:49 GMT -5
So did Joseph Smith start the Mormons, or Russell the Jehovah Witnesses or did Jesus?
The same can be asked for the 2x2s, did William Irvine start it or did Jesus? That right, men started every other church but Jesus started the 2x2s. Who would fall for such a thing except those who want to believe one thing applies to everyone else, while another applies to them.
If the Mormons started denying Joseph Smith would you want to be part of their church? No!! The same with the 2x2s, no matter how much the group changes the group was started by a false preacher.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Oct 14, 2007 15:22:12 GMT -5
and thus the blind (git and bert) are leading the blind (anyone who actually believes anything those two have to say) Oh please. GIT gave a quite rational, well thought-out response to the question, and to my mind it makes a lot of sense -- at least from the perspective of many Christians. Irvine, in an organisational sense, might be said to have started a fellowship. But the truths he claimed were not founded, discovered, initiated, or given birth to by him. This "if it's written by GIT it's got to be wrong" attitude is really tiresome. Gene
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Oct 14, 2007 16:01:30 GMT -5
Oh, Geneeeeeeeeeee!!!!
You said that SO well. Amen to THAT. M.
|
|
|
Post by diet coke on Oct 15, 2007 10:06:22 GMT -5
ok, I give, y'all win , Irvine "started" the f&w "church". While we're wallowing at this level of cold hard facts, where miracles, Christian belief, faith, and hope have been dashed, let's nail down some more facts. The fact is, Jesus did not walk on water. Not really. That's physically impossible. The fact is, he did not feed thousands with a few loaves and fishes. That's mathematically impossible. The fact is, he didn't physically rise from the dead. We all know that's the stuff of fairy tales and mythology. When we're ready to lift ourselves above this level, to a more spiritual plane, we can rediscuss "founding" the f&w church. But that's been my point all along: there are many levels to the question, as any Christian would know. We make a point of living at a higher level.
|
|