|
Post by gloryintruth on Oct 14, 2007 23:44:47 GMT -5
3.It believes in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. How come they deny the Trinity?
Failure to believe in the formalised Doctrine of the Trinity (without which the church functioned for 180 years after the ascension of Christ) does not mean that a man may not believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
A lack of perfect knowledge of the Trinue doctrine, or even a lack of recognition of it, does not disqualify a man from saving faith.
|
|
|
Post by bluejay on Oct 15, 2007 0:27:30 GMT -5
A lack of perfect knowledge of the Trinue doctrine, or even a lack of recognition of it, does not disqualify a man from saving faith. I agree 100% git.
|
|
matia
Senior Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by matia on Oct 15, 2007 4:03:58 GMT -5
I believe in the FATHER < SON < AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, these three are one with the same Spirit
|
|
|
Post by selah on Oct 15, 2007 19:20:32 GMT -5
Denominational churches have names for the purpose of satisfying the law and for the purpose of identification. The f&w are identified by names that other people give them...like 2x2s, f&w etc. They are identified among themselves by the use of the name "The Truth" or "The Way." So, whether they want it to be so or not, it IS so. They do have names for identification too.
There is nothing wrong with that either....having a name. I have a name, and I'm glad I do. People know how to refer to me, and I am registered as a citizen of my country and world. Names are good things. God even thinks so.
People who live in Canada are called Canadians. Is that wrong? Using a name to identify a person, a group, a church, an organization, a store, a street..is a useful thing. Nothing wrong with that.
God's children, however, are called for HIS name. Some people have referred to God's children as Christians, but is that what God calls them? I don't know, but I have no reference for that. I believe God calls us each by name, and as a group, He calls us His family.
God's family should not be confused with the title or non-title of a local group gathered together for His purposes. Each of those local groups may or may not have a few or many of His children within it.
Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by sharonhargreaves on Oct 15, 2007 19:57:48 GMT -5
I am curious as to why you did not add the names of the workers who sent this 'invitation'
boy - would I love a chat with the workers who write this one up. sharon hargreaves
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 16, 2007 7:33:13 GMT -5
It is the New Testament church. Wouldn't that make you a Jew . If you followed the old law and not the new? This is their statement of exclusivity. If THEY are the New Testament Church, that makes the rest of Christianity deluded or non-existent! E
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 16, 2007 7:41:22 GMT -5
It has no denominational name The church has taken several names one of the legal names is "CHURCH OF THE CONVENTIONS"The statement printed on the invitation is correct. The Church has no denominational name. There is no title, legal or otherwise, which denotes the Church throughout the world. It is commonly acknowledged - even by fair-minded exes - that the names assumed by the Church are not "official" and are intended only as means to satisfy the law. If you equate " Church of the Conventions" to a denominational name such as "Lutheran", "Anglican" or "Roman Catholic" then you clearly are unable to differentiate between a name " assumed for this purpose only" and an official designation used by the church and its adherents as means of identification. Your statement here is simply semantics (again!) The workers registered with the government so their Church could have some of the "perks" of other Churches of the time (the 1940's during WWII and after so the soldiers could be conscientious objectors, and then later so the workers could go into some countries that would not accept them unless they were registered as a bona fide church.) Of course, in the USA, they are not incorporated as a 501 (c) (3) for tax purposes (as far as I know). You are correct that "they have no denominational name", but they are a denomination. If it walks like a duck and acts like a duck, and gets the 'privileges" of other ducks - well, it's a duck. That does not mean they are NOT a denomination! E
|
|
|
Post by DALE on Oct 16, 2007 9:19:39 GMT -5
A SIMPLY WONDERFUL INVITATION!!
HOPEFULLY MANY WILL COME TO THE GOSPEL MEETINGS AND RECEIVE A REVELATION OF GOD'S TRUE WAY!!!!
|
|
|
Post by I believe on Oct 16, 2007 9:40:29 GMT -5
A SIMPLY WONDERFUL INVITATION!! HOPEFULLY MANY WILL COME TO THE GOSPEL MEETINGS AND RECEIVE A REVELATION OF GOD'S TRUE WAY!!!! It is a FAKE
|
|
bevb
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by bevb on Oct 16, 2007 11:55:14 GMT -5
What is a fake? Their form of "religion" or the invitation itself?
The invitation is not fake. The religion is.
Bev
|
|
|
Post by wanttobewithGod on Oct 16, 2007 12:19:53 GMT -5
Neither, bev...but that's your opinion. M.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 16, 2007 12:27:01 GMT -5
I balked at: "It is the New Testament church."
A honest/true statement about their methods might read:
Our goal/mission is to... We believe that we... closely follow/imitate the methods of the NT church.
IF they had presented their belief system like this all along, instead of that is IS the NT church (insinuating that their method came down from the NT church in an unbroken line) perhaps they wouldn't be having all the problems they're having today with people feeling deceived and betrayed and lied to.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Oct 16, 2007 12:27:50 GMT -5
I believe the invitation is a form of denial of what exes say and others may have heard about the F&Ws group from bitter exes. Some believe if you say it often enough it will eventually be true.
|
|
arlis
Junior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by arlis on Oct 17, 2007 2:03:34 GMT -5
Someone told me that when you go into the work and you own a house etc, that you have to sell it and give the money to the workers? Is that correct? I thought it was given to their family? When I left to go in the work, what little money I had left, I gave to someone (s) who I considered poor, thinking I was following scripture. When I joined my companion, Virgie Lacy, she was quite aghast that I had not brought any money with me. It was then that I found out that (at least this worker) considered the poor to be the workers. I didn't think that was scriptural at all. Golly, I should have taken that as a cue that the whole ministry was not scriptural and gotten out, and saved myself 7 and a half years. But I was young and naive. Arlis
|
|
arlis
Junior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by arlis on Oct 17, 2007 2:06:09 GMT -5
3.It believes in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. How come they deny the Trinity? I can never keep straight what they believe regarding the trinity. To me that is splitting hairs.
|
|