|
Post by Will on Jun 24, 2006 17:21:03 GMT -5
I just had another dose of baloney hurled my way about the F&W system being the ONLY way that lines up with the New Testament.
I think it's time we called the Friends for what they really are: "Irvinites".
To be sure, a few others were involved getting it started with Willie. But, the term "2x2" is not descriptive enough to testify to the fact that it is man-made. They may well have chosen a few verses here and there to "base" it on and they certainly added their own spin, but it is man-made. To call it "The Truth" is nearly blasphemous, IMO. Only Jesus is "The Truth".
|
|
|
Post by Tooo Late Mate on Jun 24, 2006 21:03:57 GMT -5
I just had another dose of baloney hurled my way about the F&W system being the ONLY way that lines up with the New Testament. I think it's time we called the Friends for what they really are: "Irvinites". You're already too late someone has made the suggestion that we take no other name than the Fathers name.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jun 24, 2006 21:11:35 GMT -5
You're already too late someone has made the suggestion that we take no other name than the Fathers name. How do you take the Father's name? I read someone else post "We take no name but that of Jesus." I asked that person how they take the name of Jesus? Best I can recall there was no reply from that poster. Someone else posted along the line of "we take the name of Jesus by accepting his teaching and spirit".
|
|
|
Post by Will on Jun 24, 2006 21:26:56 GMT -5
The F&W can continue to play the game "we have no name...". It does help deceive outsiders; makes it hard for them to research what the group is. However, I suggest that as sites such as this refer to the F&W, they are called by what they are: Irvinites.
Actually a good test is this. Ask one of the F&W to define "The Truth". Their answer is indicative of what they serve. The Bible defines "The Truth" and it ain't the same answer! The F&W are in bondage to their own system and format.
|
|
|
Post by to Greg on Jun 24, 2006 22:10:54 GMT -5
You're already too late someone has made the suggestion that we take no other name than the Fathers name. How do you take the Father's name? I read someone else post "We take no name but that of Jesus." I asked that person how they take the name of Jesus? Best I can recall there was no reply from that poster. Someone else posted along the line of "we take the name of Jesus by accepting his teaching and spirit". Greg!! You must have been sleeping when we would sing ''I am now a child of God, Christ redeemed me by His blood'' So there you have it !!
|
|
|
Post by to Greg on Jun 24, 2006 22:13:20 GMT -5
You're already too late someone has made the suggestion that we take no other name than the Fathers name. How do you take the Father's name? I read someone else post "We take no name but that of Jesus." I asked that person how they take the name of Jesus? Best I can recall there was no reply from that poster. Someone else posted along the line of "we take the name of Jesus by accepting his teaching and spirit". Greg!! You must have been sleeping when we would sing ''I am now a child of God, Christ redeemed me by His blood'' So there you have it !! [children usually take their fathers name, but not always]
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jun 25, 2006 0:28:12 GMT -5
All Christians today can call themselves Paulites because Paul's gentile mission defined Christianity today - so the theory goes. Critics will tell you that other groups, such as James and Peter, with their emphasis on the Torah and Jewish traditions, failed to gain headway in the critical early century. I don't believe this, myself.
So, there you are - everyone on this board is a Paulite.
p.s. There's an old saying, "call me what you like, just don't call me late for dinner." Bert
|
|
|
Post by Roy on Jun 25, 2006 1:10:38 GMT -5
"You're already too late someone has made the suggestion that we take no other name than the Fathers name. " Perhaps calling the group by the "Fathers Name" is really a good idea. Since the Father of the group is William Irvine, then "Irvinites" should be the name. Any seconds on this?
|
|
|
Post by tellingthetruth on Jun 25, 2006 2:06:54 GMT -5
Not everyone on this board believes the Gospel Paul proclaimed.
Paul was given the true Gospel of salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
William Irvine invented his and he was self proclaimed so there is no comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jun 25, 2006 5:44:13 GMT -5
To not-so tellingthetruth
It is truely amazing how things never change, and that what we read in the New Testament is a metaphor for what happens in every age, including our own, right here and now
Yours is the same accusation many would have made about Paul, that is, "he invented it."
Consider:
We know Paul persecuted those who followed the apostles. We know that Paul wasn't really an apostle We know that Paul claimed to have seen Jesus, last of all. We know that Paul disputed with those who knew Jesus We know that Paul self-proclaimed it as his own gospel We know that Paul was into form, procedure, dress codes etc. We know Paul became one of the most influential people in history.
And on this basis I am sure many people broke away when the real truth about Paul was revealed. And those who did, condemned themselves because they were focussed upon the messenger and not the message.
Bert
|
|
|
Post by Slabodan on Jun 25, 2006 5:51:58 GMT -5
I agree with Will about the term "2x2" not being descriptive enough. Where I come from a "2x2" is a concrete slab that you make pavements or patios out of. In some places these are called concrete tiles.
I don't think the F&W's should be called "slabs," unless of course they regard themselves as "paving the way !"
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 25, 2006 7:53:31 GMT -5
to Will: Actually, the Omega Message People (nickname of the group who followed Wm Irvine after he was ousted from the friends & worker group he founded--they don't take an official name either) are more deserving of the title "the Irvinites." They followed his teachings from 1914 til the end of his life in 1947. If someone mentioned the Irvinites, I would immediately think of that group--and not the 2x2s. Just as I think of the group that followed Edward Cooney to his death (after he was excommunicated in 1928) as the real Cooneyites.
Many people thru the years have not related to or cared for the term "2x2s." I had never heard the term before I read the David Stone book. For easy identity, that author chose to use that term and it has stuck. In Oklahoma, 2x2 is a particular size of board/lumber. Since the term has been used in several books about the group, and is very short and easy to write, it has stuck and probably you'll have to resign yourself to it. It's here to stay. However, you can call them whatever you want when discussing them.
Just my thots... CK
|
|
|
Post by Will on Jun 25, 2006 9:21:10 GMT -5
Just venting after being argued with yesterday... One of the "friends" must have been emboldened by convention lately and just lit into me out of the blue. He is in such a state of denial about what The Truth (F&Wism) is that it is really sad. I finally had to just walk away. The claim that only 2x2s "line up" with the NT is so bogus. It is truly a worship of the messengers -- especially self worship by the messengers themselves.
|
|
|
Post by to Will on Jun 25, 2006 9:38:15 GMT -5
"denial about what The Truth (F&Wism) is "
What did you mean by this?
What specifically are you referring to here?
|
|
|
Post by I thought on Jun 25, 2006 10:50:41 GMT -5
All Christians today can call themselves Paulites because Paul's gentile mission defined Christianity today - so the theory goes. Critics will tell you that other groups, such as James and Peter, with their emphasis on the Torah and Jewish traditions, failed to gain headway in the critical early century. I don't believe this, myself. So, there you are - everyone on this board is a Paulite.p.s. There's an old saying, "call me what you like, just don't call me late for dinner."Bert I thought it was Peter who had the first mission to the Gentiles. If it was should not they be called Peterites?
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jun 25, 2006 11:03:31 GMT -5
To not-so tellingthetruth It is truely amazing how things never change, and that what we read in the New Testament is a metaphor for what happens in every age, including our own, right here and now Yours is the same accusation many would have made about Paul, that is, "he invented it." Consider: We know Paul persecuted those who followed the apostles. We know that Paul wasn't really an apostle We know that Paul claimed to have seen Jesus, last of all. We know that Paul disputed with those who knew Jesus We know that Paul self-proclaimed it as his own gospel We know that Paul was into form, procedure, dress codes etc. We know Paul became one of the most influential people in history. And on this basis I am sure many people broke away when the real truth about Paul was revealed. And those who did, condemned themselves because they were focussed upon the messenger and not the message. Bert Is speculation the right word? Or assumption?
|
|
|
Post by Will on Jun 25, 2006 12:10:05 GMT -5
I remember a novel we read in HS 30+ years ago and have often thought these past few years how similar "The Truth (F&Wism)" is in its ability to rewrite history. The novel is George Orwell's '1984'. Consider the following quote from Wikipedia: <quote> Throughout the first half of the novel, Oceania is allied with Eastasia, and Oceania's forces are engaged with fighting Eurasian troops in northern Africa. Mid-way through the novel, the alliance breaks apart and Oceania, newly allied with Eurasia, begins a campaign against Eastasian forces in India. During "Hate Week" (a week of extreme focus on the evilness of Oceania's enemies), Oceania and Eurasia are enemies once again. The public is quite blind to the change, and when a speaker, mid-sentence, changes the enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia (speaking as if nothing had changed) the people are shocked as they notice all the flags and banners are wrong (they blame Goldstein and the Brotherhood) and quite effectively tear them down. </quote>
I remember in (gee, about 1984 or a little later) when the word about founding evangelist William Irvine first began to circulate. I witnessed many contort their integrity to accept a complete rewrite to the history of the 2x2s. They allowed themselves to be pawns in the word games of "from the beginning". Within a few years the claim of succession since New Testament days was changed to "as in the days of the NT".
This self-delusion is perverse and obscene.
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jun 26, 2006 6:07:11 GMT -5
To "I thought" You stand correct. Peter did have the first conversion. But as far as I recall - Paul had the first gentile ministry. There was a conflict here over interpretation of the gospel - Peter backed Paul, and then he backed James, and then Paul again. Many apostates would have made a big deal out of this; one can just imagine what they would have said about a ministry (yes, there's that word again!) that can't even agree on basic things. And perhaps those things happened to separate those who looked on the outside from those who looked on the inside.
Bert
|
|
|
Post by Greg lee unplugged on Jun 26, 2006 6:11:53 GMT -5
Many apostates would have made a big deal out of this; one can just imagine what they would have said about a ministry (yes, there's that word again!) that can't even agree on basic things. And perhaps those things happened to separate those who looked on the outside from those who looked on the inside. Bert You might be right. That is how the workers' church started.
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jun 26, 2006 6:32:25 GMT -5
To Will
Seems Orwell is a man who everyone champions, including his own foes, who still engage in "Orwellianisms."
You wrote with Orwellian cynicism, "I witnessed many contort their integrity to accept a complete rewrite to the history of the 2x2s. They allowed themselves to be pawns in the word games of "from the beginning". Within a few years the claim of succession since New Testament days was changed to "as in the days of the NT". This self-delusion is perverse and obscene."
Well, when I asked about our history, and was told none was kept, I pretty well assumed that any such gospel preaching would have been fragmentary, given a cursory reading of the history of religion. I understood what I was told - the Truth is from the beginning, not an unbroken line of succession to the first apostles (look where that got the Catholic church.)
No, Will, there is no re-write of 2x2 history. The gospel was before Irvine - and for that matter, before Jesus. God doesn't back Catholics one day and Protestants the next. We still say the same things I heard in the meeting nearly 60 years ago. Go find that in a church today.
As for "worker worship." I am sure some who can't see beyond what the worker is preaching might engage in this. But that would be distressing. Who tried to worship a preacher in the NT and was told to stand up, for the preacher himself was a man?
We have no name - period. Just as that first church had no name for 70 years of NT history.
I get tired of this Irvine, Irvine, Irvine, Irvine, Irvine business all the time. It is a straw man argument. If there was no Irvine, but another preacher further back and out of historical sight, you characters would simply find another argument.
Your own logic is selective, perverse and obscene.
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jun 26, 2006 6:47:27 GMT -5
Hi Greg. You asked "Is speculation the right word? Or assumption?"
We know Paul persecuted those who followed the apostles. Fact
We know that Paul wasn't really an apostle Fact (in as much as an apostle here meant a disciple who was with Jesus, which Paul wasn't)
We know that Paul claimed to have seen Jesus, last of all. Fact
We know that Paul disputed with those who knew Jesus Fact (his conflict with the Jerusalem church is still the stuff of books.)
We know that Paul self-proclaimed it as his own gospel Fact, he "my gospel" three times.
We know that Paul was into form, procedure, dress codes etc. Fact, and something ignored almost completely on these bulletin boards.
We know Paul became one of the most influential people in history. Fact, with a tinge of assumption. The entire Western World could very well be living under many Jewish laws without the forcefullness of Paul in his preaching and letters. I am sure God meant there would be a Paul.
Regards, Bert
|
|
|
Post by Will on Jun 26, 2006 7:12:40 GMT -5
I agree that Jesus as "The Truth" has been since the NT -- even since the beginning of creation. Logos. The message of Jesus knows no bounds of any man-made denomination. For one man-made denomination barely 100 years old to claim it IS exclusively Jesus' way is presumptuous in the extreme. That is what I'm saying. That is what many on this discussion group try to say. Perhaps it is the egos of those in who enjoy being self-labeled as "chosen" who insist that the Irivine bunch were raised up to make it so?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 26, 2006 10:12:22 GMT -5
I get tired of this Irvine, Irvine, Irvine, Irvine, Irvine business all the time. It is a straw man argument. If there was no Irvine, but another preacher further back and out of historical sight, you characters would simply find another argument. How is it a straw man argument?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 26, 2006 10:25:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by no other name on Jun 26, 2006 11:14:39 GMT -5
Call it what you like////....so what....I am not required to know what someone else does. That is their business. If you give my nephew a nickname, that is NOT his name, even if you think it is. The FACT remains, their is no official name other than ''children of God''. [being born into His family] when this happens, then we take HIS name. [no other name]
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 26, 2006 11:17:31 GMT -5
Ok, we'll call it what we like.
2x2ism pretty well covers it.
|
|
|
Post by what we like on Jun 26, 2006 11:29:05 GMT -5
Ok, we'll call it what we like. 2x2ism pretty well covers it. Hmmm, thanks for the tip, I kinda like that nick you suggest. I think I might suggest it, when I get a chance. ''what we like'' , does pretty much cover it! . Especially for those that ''like IT!!''
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 26, 2006 11:39:35 GMT -5
Ok, you do that.
|
|