|
Post by Sharon on Feb 14, 2009 11:12:33 GMT -5
You know all of the historical facts of WI founding the faith lines ministry just made me think it was so similar to Acts 2 where Peter took the bull by the horns. Now is it right that I give Peter the "founding" of the church that came about that day in Acts 2 & 3?
As Gamelial said we weren't to oppress or persecute something that was adverse to our way of thinking because "if it be of God, then we would be fighting God!"
OKAY, the historical facts which as we've read all along or the opposing components of faith...says that WI was founder of the faith lines ministry! And what he founded stops there!
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 14, 2009 11:46:19 GMT -5
Truth offends siwells.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 14, 2009 11:51:03 GMT -5
Yes, and apparently from both sides of the equation!
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 14, 2009 11:53:09 GMT -5
There is no equation. But with you around there is plenty of equivocating.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 14, 2009 12:13:47 GMT -5
JO: Why is history important,when it lasts only for a life time. I believe God is on the throne,and I don't believe we have to worry about future generations. I know this Irvine thing could be an issue to some,but I am sure there are thousands that it doesn't mean a thing to. The problem, lin, is that in the absence of actual information some people will make up stuff that isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 14, 2009 12:15:41 GMT -5
I agree JO, but in reality what difference does it make who starts it? I have no problem with the history,and have no agreement with people that say from the shores of Galilee .I don't have anything against a website that tells this history. I do find it offensive the personal injection of Cherie's opinions being mixed in with the authenticity in an attempt to make her opinions seem credible. What means most to me is that I serve a God that does not lie,and I know of a peace and satisfaction that could only come from heaven. This to me what truth means. No, truth to you means perpetuating a lie. What an odd situation. At least Cherie has the integrity to tell you which are facts and which are her opinions. What makes it so sickening to you that she would happen to hold opinions? You're so braindead to reality and facts that you will desperately do anything, say anything, to harm the reputation of anyone who presents you with truth/facts/reality. Go on with your delusions. Just keep them to yourself. They're dangerous to those who aren't interested in your fairy tales. Very helpful as always, ilylo. ![:(](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/sad.png)
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 14, 2009 12:38:38 GMT -5
Et tu, windy?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 14, 2009 13:16:54 GMT -5
![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) I'd like to see you being windy for a change. Hey, who's coming down the streets of the city? Everyone knows it's ....
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 14, 2009 15:09:48 GMT -5
JO: Why is history important,when it lasts only for a life time. I believe God is on the throne,and I don't believe we have to worry about future generations. I know this Irvine thing could be an issue to some,but I am sure there are thousands that it doesn't mean a thing to. The problem, lin, is that in the absence of actual information some people will make up stuff that isn't true. ...such as "this way started on the shores of Galilee."
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 14, 2009 15:30:18 GMT -5
William Irvine did NOT start the New Testament church. William Irvine did NOT start faith. William Irvine did NOT start "the way of God". William Irvine did NOT start "the truth of God". William Irvine DID START the mission that Wilson McClung, George Walker, the Carrolls, Edward Cooney etc worked in. That mission went on to appoint elders and Sunday AM meetings, developed a convention/special meetings system, appointed overseers, divided the world into fields with workers' lists, and registered with governments around the world (usually as "Christian Conventions" or similar). That mission needs to stop lying about its history. You know all of the historical facts of WI founding the faith lines ministry just made me think it was so similar to Acts 2 where Peter took the bull by the horns. Now is it right that I give Peter the "founding" of the church that came about that day in Acts 2 & 3? As Gamelial said we weren't to oppress or persecute something that was adverse to our way of thinking because "if it be of God, then we would be fighting God!" OKAY, the historical facts which as we've read all along or the opposing components of faith...says that WI was founder of the faith lines ministry! And what he founded stops there!
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 14, 2009 18:50:07 GMT -5
William Irvine did NOT start the New Testament church. William Irvine did NOT start faith. William Irvine did NOT start "the way of God". William Irvine did NOT start "the truth of God". William Irvine DID START the mission that Wilson McClung, George Walker, the Carrolls, Edward Cooney etc worked in. That mission went on to appoint elders and Sunday AM meetings, developed a convention/special meetings system, appointed overseers, divided the world into fields with workers' lists, and registered with governments around the world (usually as "Christian Conventions" or similar). That mission needs to stop lying about its history. You know all of the historical facts of WI founding the faith lines ministry just made me think it was so similar to Acts 2 where Peter took the bull by the horns. Now is it right that I give Peter the "founding" of the church that came about that day in Acts 2 & 3? As Gamelial said we weren't to oppress or persecute something that was adverse to our way of thinking because "if it be of God, then we would be fighting God!" OKAY, the historical facts which as we've read all along or the opposing components of faith...says that WI was founder of the faith lines ministry! And what he founded stops there! JO! The "mission" that began in 1897 is not the same mission that was started up a few years later. The components changed. Now when we say WI founded the "mission" that some of the earliest workers were in is also not to say that WI was the founder of the mission that became several years later...anymore then we can say that WI's founding belonged to the FM because he was an employee of FM...do you not see the highlights of that. Yes, apparently it was his "idea" with some seemingly input from J. Long that began the faith lines ministry...though to read about FM, are they not also a faith lines ministry? There is NO lies in accrediting to FM some of the fact that they have some responsibility or credit, however, you look at it for the "idea of a faith lines ministry"....it's my understanding that they continue such a ministry, they do NOT have a central membership, now do they. The major difference for the men UNDER WI's founding, overseership or whatever whomever wants to call it, between them and the FM IS the formation of a central membership which later spread all over the world. That is the sum of the "truth's fellowship" we know today! Yes, WI's idea of the faith lines ministry accumulated into the truth's fellowship, though this idea of acquiring the fellowship was NOT his idea!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2009 19:23:07 GMT -5
The real sad thing about all this debate is that if lies had not been told, or at least deceipt not propagated in order to erradicate Irvine from memory, the F&W's sect would have a very noble foundation which they could rightly be very proud of. They still can, if they do things properly. There is nothing more noble than trying to follow Jesus, but we have to make sure it is done correctly.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 14, 2009 19:58:51 GMT -5
The real sad thing about all this debate is that if lies had not been told, or at least deceipt not propagated in order to erradicate Irvine from memory, the F&W's sect would have a very noble foundation which they could rightly be very proud of. They still can, if they do things properly. There is nothing more noble than trying to follow Jesus, but we have to make sure it is done correctly. Ram! Are you so sure they can do this if admitting to WI? As someone so exquisitely said when we get to shifting through the facts and get down to the sands then the house is built on something insubstantial....I think the "toll" that such has already taken, is cause to consider! Course on the other hand, if this be of man, it'll fold anyway! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 14, 2009 20:57:47 GMT -5
William Irvine did NOT start the New Testament church. William Irvine did NOT start faith. William Irvine did NOT start "the way of God". William Irvine did NOT start "the truth of God". William Irvine DID START the mission that Wilson McClung, George Walker, the Carrolls, Edward Cooney etc worked in. That mission went on to appoint elders and Sunday AM meetings, developed a convention/special meetings system, appointed overseers, divided the world into fields with workers' lists, and registered with governments around the world (usually as "Christian Conventions" or similar). That mission needs to stop lying about its history. JO! The "mission" that began in 1897 is not the same mission that was started up a few years later. The components changed. Now when we say WI founded the "mission" that some of the earliest workers were in is also not to say that WI was the founder of the mission that became several years later...anymore then we can say that WI's founding belonged to the FM because he was an employee of FM...do you not see the highlights of that. Yes, apparently it was his "idea" with some seemingly input from J. Long that began the faith lines ministry...though to read about FM, are they not also a faith lines ministry? There is NO lies in accrediting to FM some of the fact that they have some responsibility or credit, however, you look at it for the "idea of a faith lines ministry"....it's my understanding that they continue such a ministry, they do NOT have a central membership, now do they. The major difference for the men UNDER WI's founding, overseership or whatever whomever wants to call it, between them and the FM IS the formation of a central membership which later spread all over the world. That is the sum of the "truth's fellowship" we know today! Yes, WI's idea of the faith lines ministry accumulated into the truth's fellowship, though this idea of acquiring the fellowship was NOT his idea! I agree that the mission William Irvine started has changed considerably, but how can that alter the fact that he started it? The Salvation Army has changed since General Booth started it, but so what? General Booth still started it. I think it would be fair to say the Faith Mission was the incubator for William Irvine’s mission. I think you could even say that William Irvine’s mission broke away from the Faith Mission. However the Faith Mission didn’t start William Irvine’s mission – William himself started it. What you call “central membership” is a consequence of the mission William Irvine started but it’s nothing to do with who started the mission. After the mission William Irvine started had been going for a few years the mission formed fellowship meetings, a convention/special meetings system, overseers and fields etc. William Irvine started the mission and the mission started fellowship meetings. The mission today has a lot of potential but it won’t prosper until it stops telling lies about its history.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 14, 2009 21:07:40 GMT -5
The real sad thing about all this debate is that if lies had not been told, or at least deceipt not propagated in order to erradicate Irvine from memory, the F&W's sect would have a very noble foundation which they could rightly be very proud of. They still can, if they do things properly. There is nothing more noble than trying to follow Jesus, but we have to make sure it is done correctly. I agree. The reality that today's ministry is the continuation of the mission William Irvine started is nothing to be afraid of. Surely the truth is less to be feared than telling lies? The foundation of sincere and zealous young people leaving behind earthly prospects to preach the gospel is nothing to be ashamed of. Let's repent from the lies and go forward.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 14, 2009 22:22:12 GMT -5
The problem, lin, is that in the absence of actual information some people will make up stuff that isn't true. ...such as "this way started on the shores of Galilee."I have thought about this because this is a fairly accurate quote of how the question of origins was answered 20-30 years ago. Strictly speaking the words are not untrue. God's way does come from 'the shores of Galilee'. I think that the deception comes from what is not told and the impression left in the mind of the listener. First, the impression is left of some kind of succession from worker to worker or from worker to convert, all the way back to Christ's time. Second, many aspects of the fellowship do not go back to the time of Christ, and this might be obvious, but often people suspend their critical faculties. I'm thinking of things like the hymn books, the order of the meeting, convention stew, and many other superficial things. You might say these are natural and not spiritual things, and of no consequence, and this would be true. But still the impression is left that these things have been 'the way they are' for a very long time, and there is a 'rightness' about them, which is actually quite artificial. Third, regarding aspects of doctrine in which there are disagreements between denominations and have been interpreted in different ways by them, and are preached and taught in a specific way; one is left with the impression that these controversies are without contention and have been preached the way that the workers preach them since the time of Christ. This also is a misleading impression because there has been an active and ongoing process in deciding what the Bible means and how it should be preached among the workers, especially in the early days. And some controversies remain. Fourth, regarding those things that are fairly certain and in which there is little doubt, like adult baptism, the bread and wine, and so on. The impression is created that these observances have been administered in a specific order and manner since the time of Christ, but actually there has been a process of rediscovery of these observances of no more than 100 years. We argue about the truth of the statement "this goes back to Christ", but the deception is not so much in the statement but in the huge empty area of what has not been said. I believe that no harm was really intended in this. But harm there is, and it is that one begins to think that certain things are of God, that do not matter to God. All that is necessary to remedy the situation is a brief history of the movement telling of things like the first conventions, the origin of the hymns and the hymnbook, the meeting home, the lives of the early workers, and perhaps influences such as Faith Mission, Waldenses, William Chalmers Burns, Edward Irving, and others. I think the 'William Irvine is the founder' issue is almost a red herring. The description does not need to solve every question people could come up with, or contain idle speculation. If all is simply told that can be told, then the hearer has truthful, factual information and can decide what they wish to decide.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 14, 2009 23:03:58 GMT -5
I largely agree WHAT, but if the fellowship's history is not pinned down to a specific beginning the lies will continue.
To establish a definite beginning for the fellowship the role of William Irvine is critical.
I can hardly believe how desperate some folks on this board are to prove the "shores of Galillee" lie.
It disgusts me, and makes me more determined to have no part in the deceipt.
The shores of Galilee falacy probably started out innocently enough, but the reality is that it got way out of hand.
The lies must stop now.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 14, 2009 23:22:27 GMT -5
Do you mean, in terms of claims made or negative impact on individuals, or both? Can you provide specific insight because this is an area that I struggle with? That is, I can see a certain amount of harm in an abstract sense, as I described above, but my "field information" is limited.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 14, 2009 23:22:32 GMT -5
"what" You are a joke. "This way" is not "God's way."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 14, 2009 23:27:26 GMT -5
"what" You are a joke. "This way" is not "God's way." Down boy, down. I do not equate the two terms in my description. You did that in your mind. Read my entire post, which is about the difference between the two concepts.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 14, 2009 23:29:23 GMT -5
I read it quite clearly. You obviously didn't read mine, not that it matters. You obviously don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 14, 2009 23:36:28 GMT -5
I read it quite clearly. You obviously didn't read mine, not that it matters. You obviously don't get it. Let me break it down for you. My original statement - "Strictly speaking the words are not untrue. God's way does come from 'the shores of Galilee'." Meaning, if the words "this way" are taken to mean "God's way" then it does come from the shores of Galilee. But the hearer infers far more from the words "this way" than "God's way" and therein lies the deception by the speaker. (In the remainder of the post above, I elaborate a number of ways in which the words "this way" are taken by the listener and the error that each leads to). An accurate portrayal of the history would avoid those errors. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 14, 2009 23:39:32 GMT -5
Why break it down when it already was?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 14, 2009 23:42:45 GMT -5
Why break it down when it already was? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png)
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 14, 2009 23:48:32 GMT -5
Your logic was already broken down... like an abandoned car.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 14, 2009 23:49:16 GMT -5
I largely agree WHAT, but if the fellowship's history is not pinned down to a specific beginning the lies will continue. To establish a definite beginning for the fellowship the role of William Irvine is critical. I can hardly believe how desperate some folks on this board are to prove the "shores of Galillee" lie. It disgusts me, and makes me more determined to have no part in the deceipt. The shores of Galilee falacy probably started out innocently enough, but the reality is that it got way out of hand. The lies must stop now. jo! I'm not sure any of us who have taken part in this topic are trying to perpetuate the shores of Galilee falacy on this board....I think what we're trying to do is to make sure the "facts" that are presently known are really all there is to know about the issue and there's enough controversy between some of the "facts" as to make us believe that not all is known as of yet...yes, we're glad we've gotten the facts that are know thus far...but since there has been such a concentrated effort to squelch the beginnings of the human element(s) it is very hard to get all the "facts" out.....I think Cherie has stated even herself or has asked at different times to have others share what facts they have with her on her historical website....I think to keep our minds open and not come to a conclusive conclusion is vital or we get to doing worse then those we've accused of lying about it already! Can you not understand that?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 14, 2009 23:50:44 GMT -5
What facts merit using the word "facts" in quotation marks, as if to imply that they are not truly factual?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 15, 2009 0:04:10 GMT -5
Don't get so angry when others don't believe YOUR facts as the truth.... You have learned this well, nathan. Afterall, this applies more to you than anyone else around.
|
|