|
FOUNDER
Feb 10, 2009 21:15:13 GMT -5
Post by JO on Feb 10, 2009 21:15:13 GMT -5
Jesusonly, I thank you for your posts. I think we are actually seeing the same thing, but perhaps putting a different a finger on it. From the time Irvine decided to think about going out on faith lines and then discussed things with Cooney, they started to reject all organisation and traditions of the traditional churches. By "form," I'm largely referring to the ministry without a home and the meeting in the home. This became the "form" of the only true ministry and church. I was not referring to form in an organised substance sort of way, but rather one which lacked this. So much so did this form of ministry and church become the only righteous way, to the exclusion of all others, that it was likened by the likes of Jack Carroll to the emblems of Christ itself. It has become a "slogan" for the sect and used to underline what they believe the right form of ministry and worship is. In fact, within their circles the slogan "the ministry without a home and the church in the home" has taken on the role of the two new commandments of Christ, "to love God and love thy neighbour as thyself." It took on a focus all to itself and has remained a core belief ever since, bringing with it exclusivity and prejudices against all other Christian faiths. Their differences with these other churches were more about ministerial form and where the church assembled. The disorganised, simple form of the ministry and church in the home, was what separated them from other churches much moreso than teachings of the gospel message. It was the form of ministry behind the message, rather than the message itself. I did not have the accruing "organisation" over the years in mind when I was referring to "form." The misunderstanding of Joe Kerr's LWD seems to have been really enforced the idea that salvation could only come through their form of ministry. In other words it was actually the form of ministry which saved people, not the message itself. This is why many friends will quote the form of their church and ministry when asked about beliefs. It is the only piece of doctrine they are sure about. Ram, you mean our “form” is actually the opposite of the “form” of the established churches? Yes, we’re probably seeing the same thing. I’m not sure we can blame William Irvine and the very first workers for the form we ended up with. In fact, it seems most of the prominent “founders” were themselves excommunicated during the process of the eventual form taking shape. Wasn’t it nearer the middle of the 20th century when the “we were not started by a man” sermons started to appear on the record? It may not have happened until the 1930s after some of the older less-exclusive workers died or got the heave-ho like Eddie Cooney, Irvine Weir, Alfred Magowan, Joe Kerr etc. The worker/system worship that eventually evolved (and is still practised by some) is disgusting and perhaps could even be described as idolatry. Sure, the seeds of it were planted quite early, by the time Irvine was insisting no clergyman could be saved.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 10, 2009 21:22:09 GMT -5
Post by Sharon on Feb 10, 2009 21:22:09 GMT -5
Jesusonly, I thank you for your posts. I think we are actually seeing the same thing, but perhaps putting a different a finger on it. From the time Irvine decided to think about going out on faith lines and then discussed things with Cooney, they started to reject all organisation and traditions of the traditional churches. By "form," I'm largely referring to the ministry without a home and the meeting in the home. This became the "form" of the only true ministry and church. I was not referring to form in an organised substance sort of way, but rather one which lacked this. So much so did this form of ministry and church become the only righteous way, to the exclusion of all others, that it was likened by the likes of Jack Carroll to the emblems of Christ itself. It has become a "slogan" for the sect and used to underline what they believe the right form of ministry and worship is. In fact, within their circles the slogan "the ministry without a home and the church in the home" has taken on the role of the two new commandments of Christ, "to love God and love thy neighbour as thyself." It took on a focus all to itself and has remained a core belief ever since, bringing with it exclusivity and prejudices against all other Christian faiths. Their differences with these other churches were more about ministerial form and where the church assembled. The disorganised, simple form of the ministry and church in the home, was what separated them from other churches much moreso than teachings of the gospel message. It was the form of ministry behind the message, rather than the message itself. I did not have the accruing "organisation" over the years in mind when I was referring to "form." The misunderstanding of Joe Kerr's LWD seems to have been really enforced the idea that salvation could only come through their form of ministry. In other words it was actually the form of ministry which saved people, not the message itself. This is why many friends will quote the form of their church and ministry when asked about beliefs. It is the only piece of doctrine they are sure about. Ram, you mean our “form” is actually the opposite of the “form” of the established churches? Yes, we’re probably seeing the same thing. I’m not sure we can blame William Irvine and the very first workers for the form we ended up with. In fact, it seems most of the prominent “founders” were themselves excommunicated during the process of the eventual form taking shape. Wasn’t it nearer the middle of the 20th century when the “we were not started by a man” sermons started to appear on the record? It may not have happened until the 1930s after some of the older less-exclusive workers died or got the heave-ho like Eddie Cooney, Irvine Weir, Alfred Magowan, Joe Kerr etc. The worker/system worship that eventually evolved (and is still practised by some) is disgusting and perhaps could even be described as idolatry. Sure, the seeds of it were planted quite early, by the time Irvine was insisting no clergyman could be saved. jo! It was my understanding that the "outward show of professing" has always been one of the key issues!
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 9:59:20 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 11, 2009 9:59:20 GMT -5
RE Sharon:
Makes quite a bit of difference, according to the Bible. Falls under the subjects of: bearing false witness unrepented sins; Last, but not least, liars aren’t in heaven.
Sharon wrote
You’re right--I haven’t read a description on this board for Wm Irvine’s role in the 2x2 church that was any more right, correct or true than “founder.” I never a problem with the definition of the word “founder”—the definition for founder is quite simple. Someone posted the dictionary definition, and I thought it covered WmI’s role quite well.
Main Entry: 1found•er Function: noun Etymology: 4found Date: 14th century : one that founds or establishes ------------------ Main Entry: 4found Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French funder, fonder, from Latin fundare, from fundus bottom — more at BOTTOM Date: 13th century 1 : to take the first steps in building 2 : to set or ground on something solid : BASE 3 : to establish (as an institution) often with provision for future maintenance
I fail to see why the noun "Founder" should be a problem. They claimed there was no earthy founder. Now when the name of the earthly founder is available and known, and we want to substitute the founder's name -- there is all this balking (straining at gnats) And talk of where is appropriate and in apprpriate to discuss the founder's name and role in the church. Go figure.
Cleardays post re "vested interest" is so right on...and the possibiity of many workers walking out over this issue is possiby of more concern to the higher ups than losing the friends.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 11:03:27 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 11, 2009 11:03:27 GMT -5
I believe that Wm Irvine founded a "belief system."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 11:06:06 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 11:06:06 GMT -5
In my book a "yes" to all that Nathan. Paul , the Apostles and disciples etc, "founded" branches of the church of God whenever they went in new areas and there were those who accepted the gospel.
If these workers that you mention were responsible for setting up branches of the Friends and workers church in new areas then of course they were "founders." They founded localised, or even national branches of the Friends and Workers church which William Irvine founded as a separate branch of the church of God.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 11:14:15 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 11:14:15 GMT -5
I believe that Wm Irvine founded a "belief system." Seems you stepped over the line here from "fact" to "belief" Cherie, am I right?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 11:19:24 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 11, 2009 11:19:24 GMT -5
I believe that Wm Irvine founded a "belief system." Seems you stepped over the line here from "fact" to "belief" Cherie, am I right? No - you're not right. I believe that what WmI started/founded/created is a belief system. The term "belief system" covers the ministry, church, assemblies, his interpretations of Scripture, people, beliefs, rules, everything connected with his movement-the whole ball of wax. Some people accept and buy into and follow this belief system--others reject it.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 11:27:48 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 11:27:48 GMT -5
No - you're not right. I believe that what WmI started/founded/created is a belief system. The term "belief system" covers the ministry, church, assemblies, his interpretations of Scripture, people, beliefs, rules, everything connected with his movement-the whole ball of wax. Some people accept and buy into and follow this belief system--others reject it. What I meant was, you stepped over "what"s line from reporting facts (irvine left the faith mission on such-and-such a date) to reporting your beliefs (what he started was brand new, rather than following a revelation from God of something others around the world were doing or others throughout the years were doing).
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 11:46:15 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 11, 2009 11:46:15 GMT -5
Nope - still wrong. I havent changed anything. I'm just calling what WmI founded by one term that encompasses evrything he founded.l Thats what a "belief system" entails/means...I could be wrong, but that ha been my understanding of that term. I (and others) have called the 2x2 sect/church/ministry et al for many years now "a belief system." Sometimes shoteneed to "The System." No - you're not right. I believe that what WmI started/founded/created is a belief system. The term "belief system" covers the ministry, church, assemblies, his interpretations of Scripture, people, beliefs, rules, everything connected with his movement-the whole ball of wax. Some people accept and buy into and follow this belief system--others reject it. What I meant was, you stepped over "what"s line from reporting facts (irvine left the faith mission on such-and-such a date) to reporting your beliefs (what he started was brand new, rather than following a revelation from God of something others around the world were doing or others throughout the years were doing).
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 11:50:56 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 11, 2009 11:50:56 GMT -5
I think you're right on target, CD. The ultimate sacrifice for men is celibacy and for women, not ever giving birth to a child. It would be pretty hard to stomach that these costly sacrifices were unnecessary... I think the reason why runs quite deep, hence the resistance. The resistance is mainly amongst the workers and it is due to "vested interests." That is, most workers have invested their whole lives in this particular ministry because they believed that it is the only true ministry. So, if they were to change from that, then they would feel like they have wasted their whole lives. That's not such a big problem for young workers, but if you have a 65 year old worker who has been in the work over 40 years on the premise that their ministry is the only true ministry, you are guaranteed to get resistance. In a sense, those workers have not really given their lives though if they are not willing to give up a bad idea. "He who saves his live shall lose it...." Similarly, the friends have a vested interest in the status quo, although to a much lesser extent than the workers. Many friends have given in to the legalisms and lived their lives in a way different than they would have otherwise chosen even in the context of maintaining their Christian faith. If they begin to acknowledge others as Christians, they will look back on their lives at the sacrifices they made which they thought were important, but were not. How many of us have bought an unsound investment and watched it slowly sink to nothing because we couldn't bring ourselves to sell it and salvage what we could? We just couldn't bring ourselves to acknowledge that our judgment was wrong in the beginning. This resistance to change is very similar to that. It runs deep to our core and our pride.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 11:52:39 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 11, 2009 11:52:39 GMT -5
Cherie I don't think what you believe is an issue or adds any weight. Your beliefs are very manifest in all your writings. What you believe or what you don't believe has no bearing on quote" the possibiity of many workers walking out over this issue is possiby of more concern to the higher ups than losing the friends.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:03:11 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 11, 2009 12:03:11 GMT -5
It was an observation or opinion - just like your post below is an oberservation and your opinion. Cherie I don't think what you believe is an issue or adds any weight. Your beliefs are very manifest in all your writings. What you believe or what you don't believe has no bearing on quote" the possibiity of many workers walking out over this issue is possiby of more concern to the higher ups than losing the friends.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:30:38 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 12:30:38 GMT -5
Cherie, it appears to me that you are as obstinate as the people you attack, by claiming your beliefs are facts.
I grant that the odds of Irvine having been granted a divine vision are infinitismal - probably only millions of times more likely than a savior born of a virgin - but your rejection of the possibility reflects your BELIEFand diminishes (in the eyes of f&w "believers") the power of God.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:40:29 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 12:40:29 GMT -5
I believe Cherie believes the facts. lol. As do I.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:41:49 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 11, 2009 12:41:49 GMT -5
I havent a clue what on earth you're talking about--what belief are you talking about that I hold and claim is a fact? To my knowledge, I have not said nothing about whether WmI had or didn't have a "revelation." I'm not in a position to know that... You sure you dont have me mixed up with somebody else??? Cherie, it appears to me that you are as obstinate as the people you attack, by claiming your beliefs are facts. I grant that the odds of Irvine having been granted a divine vision are infinitismal - probably only millions of times more likely than a savior born of a virgin - but your rejection of the possibility reflects your BELIEFand diminishes (in the eyes of f&w "believers") the power of God.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:44:56 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 12:44:56 GMT -5
Cherie, when you call Irvine a "founder", do you not mean by that he started something new? And have we not been arguing about whether you are presenting that as a fact, more than a belief? Maybe I've misunderstood you from the beginning...if so, my apologies...
Do you then accept the possiblity that what Irvine taught was identical to what many others taught, in other places and times? Or do you have evidence enough to prove this is false, thus the "founder" label is a fact?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:45:20 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 12:45:20 GMT -5
What sensible, sound person would stake their reputation by not readily accepting the only possible conclusion, that William Irvine was the founder of the Friends and Workers ministry. Facts from which all fingers point to Irvine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:46:12 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 12:46:12 GMT -5
Hey, she's not one to go in circles like some of these other posters. Some of them go in circles and end up biting their own tale. LOL Ah, so it did begin with "tail-docking ?"
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:47:55 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 12:47:55 GMT -5
What sensible, sound person would stake their reputation by not readily accepting the only possible conclusion, that William Irvine was the founder of the Friends and Workers ministry. Facts from which all fingers point to Irvine. I dunno, ram. What sensible, sound person could possibly believe in a virgin birth? We are talking about religion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:50:54 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 12:50:54 GMT -5
What sensible, sound person would stake their reputation by not readily accepting the only possible conclusion, that William Irvine was the founder of the Friends and Workers ministry. Facts from which all fingers point to Irvine. I dunno, ram. What sensible, sound person could possibly believe in a virgin birth? We are talking about religion.Sorry DC, but virgin births are old hat now. Man has equaled God in that sense because thousands of cattle and other domesticated beasts arrive in this world through virgin births that man has created. They can even do it with humans. Artificial insemination I think they call it.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:51:43 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 11, 2009 12:51:43 GMT -5
~~~ Which belief SYSTEM do you think WI, George Walker, Edward Cooney, Jack Carroll FIND?
The men you mentioned, and others, didn't "find" or "found" a belief system--they bought into (accepted, submitted to, followed, etc. ) the belief system that Wm Irvine started/founded.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:51:46 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 11, 2009 12:51:46 GMT -5
What is fellowship something tangible?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:52:58 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 11, 2009 12:52:58 GMT -5
I believe Cherie believes the facts. What facts?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:53:29 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 12:53:29 GMT -5
Sorry DC, but virgin births are old hat now. Man has equaled God in that sense because thousands of cattle and other domesticated beasts arrive in this world through virgin births that man has created. They can even do it with humans. Artificial insemination I think they call it. Well, THAT puts a new light on things! Something in Mary's bathwater, perhaps?
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:56:22 GMT -5
Post by lin on Feb 11, 2009 12:56:22 GMT -5
Fellowship From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia J Fellowship may refer to: .
* An academic position: see fellow * A merit-based scholarship, or form of academic financial aid * Fellowship (medicine), a period of medical training after a residency * "Fellowship", referring to individual Christians who are in Communion (Christian) with each other o The Fellowship (Australia), a group within the Presbyterian Church of Australia o InterVarsity Christian Fellowship o The Family (Christian political organization), an American organization also known as "The Fellowship" * The Fellowship of the Ring, the first volume in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings o The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, the first of Peter Jackson's film trilogy. * Fellowship!, a musical stage play parody of The Fellowship of the Ring * Fellowship, Florida, a town in the United States * Fellowship Baptist College, an institution of higher learning in Kabankalan City, Philippines * Fellowship (film), a 2005 short comedy film
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 12:59:10 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 12:59:10 GMT -5
Jesus founded the Christian faith.
William Irvine founded the Chritian sect of the Christian Church, commonly referred to as the Friends and Workers sect, amongst other names. He was one of many people who founded new sects of the Christian Church.
Certain workers founded new churches within the sect of the Christian Church, known as the Friends and Workers Church.
Nathan Barker founded a website branch of the Friends and Workers Church.
Cherie Kropp founded a website about the history of the Friends and Workers Church.
Bert has founded lists about things which people say about the Friends and Workers Church.
Sound have even "FOUND" the truth out about the Friends and Workers Church.
|
|
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:01:41 GMT -5
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 11, 2009 13:01:41 GMT -5
William Irvine founded the Chritian sect of the Christian Church, commonly referred to as the Friends and Workers sect, amongst other names. He was one of many people who founded new sects of the Christian Church. ram, Cherie claims much more than this. She claims he founded a belief system. She thus claims, explicitly, that Irvine did not receive a vision from God of how God wanted to be worshipped, in a manner that many others were doing or have been doing for centuries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FOUNDER
Feb 11, 2009 13:07:22 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2009 13:07:22 GMT -5
Whether or not Irvine ever received a vision or revelation from God, I have "found" to my satisfaction that there are beliefs and practices within the Friends and Workers system that certainly did not come from God because they are based upon wrong interpretations and misunderstandings of scripture. These orginate from Irvine himself, with others coming from his spiritual progeny.
Therefore William Irvine founded a corruption of Christian teaching and his own, just like some others who have done likewise.
If you take a glass of pure water it is a glass of pure water. If you add a little orange to it, it becomes a glass of orange. This is a picture of Irvinism. This is what he founded. A glass of orange !
|
|