|
Post by What Hat on Oct 27, 2009 22:05:21 GMT -5
"We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.... [the] ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost" [2] (http://www.religionfacts.com/mormonism/beliefs/salvation.htm)
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 27, 2009 22:33:54 GMT -5
Hey What, it seems there are a lot of options, a religious theory to suit most anyone. Reminds me of a hymn we sometimes sing:
You must needs be born again. Do not build your hope on theory: Righteous acts will not avail. Christ in you, the hope of glory, Is the Rock which cannot fail.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 27, 2009 23:43:25 GMT -5
Hey What, it seems there are a lot of options, a religious theory to suit most anyone. Reminds me of a hymn we sometimes sing: You must needs be born again. Do not build your hope on theory: Righteous acts will not avail. Christ in you, the hope of glory, Is the Rock which cannot fail. Now where have I heard that before! You seem to like hymns with the word "theory" in them. I feel much more certain about Christ than anything else, especially when it comes to knowing exactly what will happen beyond the grave.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 28, 2009 0:01:02 GMT -5
Actually that's not a hymn that I particularly like, but the concept around "it's life I got not theory" is critical and I believe that is what distinguished the early workers more than anything else.
Perhaps it was inevitable that the movement would itself fall into the theory trap. One-true-way theory and "church-in-the-home, preacher-without-a-home" theory has become as great a snare as any other religious theory.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 28, 2009 7:06:49 GMT -5
Actually that's not a hymn that I particularly like, but the concept around "it's life I got not theory" is critical and I believe that is what distinguished the early workers more than anything else. Perhaps it was inevitable that the movement would itself fall into the theory trap. One-true-way theory and "church-in-the-home, preacher-without-a-home" theory has become as great a snare as any other religious theory. This is what I'm finding as well....the very "attitude" that the beginning workers were trying to avoid because of the prevailing attitude in the established churches of that particular time and now they've come full circle to be as guilty as the ones they first scorned! Just another men's commandments made doctrine, eh?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 28, 2009 10:01:45 GMT -5
Actually that's not a hymn that I particularly like, but the concept around "it's life I got not theory" is critical and I believe that is what distinguished the early workers more than anything else. Perhaps it was inevitable that the movement would itself fall into the theory trap. One-true-way theory and "church-in-the-home, preacher-without-a-home" theory has become as great a snare as any other religious theory. This is what I'm finding as well....the very "attitude" that the beginning workers were trying to avoid because of the prevailing attitude in the established churches of that particular time and now they've come full circle to be as guilty as the ones they first scorned! Just another men's commandments made doctrine, eh? Have you ever read George Orwell's Animal Farm. Same idea. (I haven't read the book but I did take it in high school.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 28, 2009 15:39:00 GMT -5
This is what I'm finding as well....the very "attitude" that the beginning workers were trying to avoid because of the prevailing attitude in the established churches of that particular time and now they've come full circle to be as guilty as the ones they first scorned! Just another men's commandments made doctrine, eh? Have you ever read George Orwell's Animal Farm. Same idea. (I haven't read the book but I did take it in high school. I read a some years ago and don't particularly remember it!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 29, 2009 14:09:28 GMT -5
Have you ever read George Orwell's Animal Farm. Same idea. (I haven't read the book but I did take it in high school. I read a some years ago and don't particularly remember it! Basically, the idea is that you have a revolution to overthrow a government because of the corruption and problems. After a while, the people find that the same old problems creep into the new government. It's not so easy to get rid of the problems because they often have to do with the fundamentals of human nature. For example, one problem we never seem to get away from is this: power corrupts. Given all that, Christian Anarchy seems appealing to me.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 30, 2009 13:42:38 GMT -5
Is this the kind of "Christian anarchy" we had 110 years ago when William Irvine's preaching inspired other workers to go out to preach with no human leadership?
|
|
|
Post by dudeler on Oct 30, 2009 14:30:44 GMT -5
What, You mentioned much earlier on this thread that you much preferred emphasis on principles rather than doctrines. I'm wondering if you would be willing to articulate what you find to be the principles generally held by the F&W.
I also prefer principles to doctrine statements, because I find I am much more able to act according to principles and the evidence for specific beliefs is generally very unconvincing to me.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 30, 2009 16:02:06 GMT -5
What, You mentioned much earlier on this thread that you much preferred emphasis on principles rather than doctrines. I'm wondering if you would be willing to articulate what you find to be the principles generally held by the F&W. I also prefer principles to doctrine statements, because I find I am much more able to act according to principles and the evidence for specific beliefs generally very unconvincing to me. The problem I would encounter is my principles versus the principles of the movement. It's not that those principles are at odds, but the degree of emphasis placed on each. As far as principles are concerned, one could easily do worse than Marcus Borg's Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. Borg indicates that most preaching emphasizes two aspects of the Christian life 1) sanctification or separation and 2) compassion. In ordinary words, 1) involves becoming more pure, holy and spiritual, and 2) involves living out the compassion Christ displayed in a practical way. Borg sees these principles as somewhat conflicted. He thinks that Christians should emphasize compassion more than sanctification. I would tend to agree. But I wouldn't represent that as the teaching of the fellowship. I would also add that I've always enjoyed reading the work of men who have forged their own spiritual path and stand apart from the crowd, men like Tolstoy, Arnold, Newman and Milton. But in that respect I am also somewhat of an anomaly.
|
|
|
Post by dudeler on Oct 30, 2009 16:33:13 GMT -5
It seems we are a board full of anomalies.
I guess my question is: Is it possible to give a suggested statement of principles for F&W rather a statement of beliefs?
For example, rather than stating facts like "God is the all powerful creator of the universe", it would state action oriented things like "We should seek to learn about God's will for our lives" or "we should commune with God in prayer and fellowship"
It seems like a list like this would be more comfortable for most F&W, although as many have pointed out, it's very unlikely they would want to have an official and public list of any kind.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 30, 2009 17:27:39 GMT -5
It seems we are a board full of anomalies. I guess my question is: Is it possible to give a suggested statement of principles for F&W rather a statement of beliefs? For example, rather than stating facts like "God is the all powerful creator of the universe", it would state action oriented things like "We should seek to learn about God's will for our lives" or "we should commune with God in prayer and fellowship" It seems like a list like this would be more comfortable for most F&W, although as many have pointed out, it's very unlikely they would want to have an official and public list of any kind. I was thinking about this a bit more on the way home tonight. Most doctrines of other churches are statements of principle. If you're looking for a synopsis of worker teaching GIC's list some number of posts back is pretty good. But doctrine, as we've seen pointed out, varies with the aptitude and maturity of Christ's follower, and also has to be reworked according to socio-historical context. That doesn't mean that doctrine is relative, it just means that it's abstract and universal and needs to be applied to each situation. When we first professed one admonition we received was to read Matthew 5,6 and 7, and to read these chapters often. I couldn't think of a better expression of basic principles than that. Here is an interesting quote: Our second reason concerns the meaning of the text. When confronted with a difficult text, I was trained to go first to the 19th and 20th century commentaries: What do the big German scholars say? I later discovered that it is also possible, and indeed very productive, to start (like every Jewish schoolboy) by asking What does Rashi say? And going on to see how the Reformers explained it, how Milton used it, what role it plays in hymns and sermons. Often, indeed usually, I found in those alternative sources, subtle insights into the dynamic of the text, its associations and overtones, entirely missed in the majority of standard commentaries and reference works. The reasons for this are obvious. They were to do with the impact of modernity on how we approach ancient texts, and the two assumptions on which modern approaches to the Bible were based: (a) that the object of the exercise is to find one single correct or true meaning, and (b) that, with all our modern discoveries and techniques, we in the modern world are more likely to achieve that than anyone else in the past. But we have now moved beyond that stage, into a postmodern era where life is more complicated, where the objectivity of modern scholarship is questioned, where texts have to be approached as having more than one meaning, and where the differences between one meaning and another cannot be adequately explained without reference to the reader or interpreter. So these are our two reasons why we want to shift the focus of the commentary genre away from ancient originals to the reception-history of the text: (1) to put the Bible back into the hands of the people and (2) to raise awareness of what these texts mean and can mean. (http://www.bbibcomm.net/news/sawyer.html)
|
|
|
Post by dudeler on Oct 30, 2009 17:53:15 GMT -5
I like that quote. How do you interpret the phrase "reception-history of the text" and what do you suppose it means to "put the Bible back into the hands of the people"?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 30, 2009 20:37:45 GMT -5
I like that quote. How do you interpret the phrase "reception-history of the text" and what do you suppose it means to "put the Bible back into the hands of the people"? I have a degree in English Lit, so I sometimes see parallels between our experience of literature and that of the Bible. Of course, the Bible is inextricably woven into the development of literature, and also music and the Arts over the years. "Reader reception" in terms of literature means that a text will mean something different to each reader, and also that a text has no meaning until it is processed or digested by a reader. Some take this to mean that there is no objective truth in a text. Literary critics are fond of saying things like "the text conditions the meaning derived by the reader", or "the text resists closing on any specific meaning". I don't quite take it that far, but I enjoy the idea that any text is open-ended and each reader will make something different of it based on their experience and their cultural background. If all that's true of literature, I believe it is much more true of the Bible. It's a book of endless fascination, and "reception history" looks at how the Bible has been interpreted through the Ages. I find more in something like Milton's Paradise Lost or in Thomas Mann's Joseph and His Brothers or in the writings of Tolstoy, than I do in Matthew Henry or John MacArthur, people who think they can provide a lot of answers. However, I'm certainly not saying that hermeneutics in the classic sense is of no value. My own preference lies in other areas. I also have learned, from literary theory, that no interpretation is entirely without merit, and to pay attention or empathize with each person's reception of the Bible. Cultivating that kind of attitude effectively "puts the Bible back into the hands of the people." The entire link provided above is quite interesting. It's about the Blackwell Bible Commentary, based on looking at how each book of the Bible has been received throughout history. I have to be honest and say that I've never heard of the Blackwell Bible Commentary before today, but I have had these ideas in my mind for some time. I just put the two terms, "reader reception" and "Bible", together and voila, as usual, the heavy lifting on this idea has already been done. Isn't the Internet amazing? All the time I've spent in meetings has had a nice fringe benefit in opening up something like Spenser's Faerie Queene. I would recommend that particular work to anyone who is interested in the application of Bible teaching to living a virtuous life.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 30, 2009 21:06:39 GMT -5
A personal relationship with God is fundamental to salvation, and yet it seems so profound when its brought to our attention.
EDWARD COONEY: Undoubtedly God called us and separated us to be His people in the beginning; and most prominent and most used in this calling out a people for God's name was William Irvine who, at the time of his being sent forth to be a prophet, saw more clearly than any of us that the revelation of the Father to each individual child of His is the Rock alone on which Jesus Christ would build his church, and that the gates of Hades should not prevail against it. (Letter by Edward Cooney to My dear Sister dated May, 1930 Reprinted from: Selected Letters, Hymns, and Poems of Edward Cooney 1867- 1960 by Patricia Roberts)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 30, 2009 21:51:21 GMT -5
A personal relationship with God is fundamental to salvation, and yet it seems so profound when its brought to our attention. EDWARD COONEY: Undoubtedly God called us and separated us to be His people in the beginning; and most prominent and most used in this calling out a people for God's name was William Irvine who, at the time of his being sent forth to be a prophet, saw more clearly than any of us that the revelation of the Father to each individual child of His is the Rock alone on which Jesus Christ would build his church, and that the gates of Hades should not prevail against it. (Letter by Edward Cooney to My dear Sister dated May, 1930 Reprinted from: Selected Letters, Hymns, and Poems of Edward Cooney 1867- 1960 by Patricia Roberts) I think you like Edward Cooney, jo. I ordered a couple of books from Patricia Roberts quite some time ago, but they seem to have gone astray. If anyone on here has personal contact with her, please PM me so I can provide my address to her in writing. Her hearing is not good, so I had a great deal of difficulty in providing my address.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 30, 2009 21:55:01 GMT -5
Most of the book author addresses are on TTT
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 30, 2009 22:14:24 GMT -5
A personal relationship with God is fundamental to salvation, and yet it seems so profound when its brought to our attention. EDWARD COONEY: Undoubtedly God called us and separated us to be His people in the beginning; and most prominent and most used in this calling out a people for God's name was William Irvine who, at the time of his being sent forth to be a prophet, saw more clearly than any of us that the revelation of the Father to each individual child of His is the Rock alone on which Jesus Christ would build his church, and that the gates of Hades should not prevail against it. (Letter by Edward Cooney to My dear Sister dated May, 1930 Reprinted from: Selected Letters, Hymns, and Poems of Edward Cooney 1867- 1960 by Patricia Roberts) I think you like Edward Cooney, jo. I ordered a couple of books from Patricia Roberts quite some time ago, but they seem to have gone astray. If anyone on here has personal contact with her, please PM me so I can provide my address to her in writing. Her hearing is not good, so I had a great deal of difficulty in providing my address. I suppose Edward Cooney was not without his faults, but I do have a soft spot for him. I believe his colleagues made a mistake in rejecting him. I also like the William Irvine of the closing years of the nineteenth century. From what I've read he changed radically from a humble preacher of the gospel to a dictatorial leader within a few years.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 30, 2009 22:44:42 GMT -5
Is this the kind of "Christian anarchy" we had 110 years ago when William Irvine's preaching inspired other workers to go out to preach with no human leadership? One begins to suspect so.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 30, 2009 22:51:10 GMT -5
I think you like Edward Cooney, jo. I ordered a couple of books from Patricia Roberts quite some time ago, but they seem to have gone astray. If anyone on here has personal contact with her, please PM me so I can provide my address to her in writing. Her hearing is not good, so I had a great deal of difficulty in providing my address. I suppose Edward Cooney was not without his faults, but I do have a soft spot for him. I believe his colleagues made a mistake in rejecting him. I also like the William Irvine of the closing years of the nineteenth century. From what I've read he changed radically from a humble preacher of the gospel to a dictatorial leader within a few years. I think WI's position and money powers took a grave toll on him...as it does a lot of people
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 30, 2009 23:44:14 GMT -5
If you take the best of 2x2ism you get something pretty good.
If you take the worst of 2x2ism, you get quite the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 31, 2009 0:01:20 GMT -5
If you take the best of 2x2ism you get something pretty good. If you take the worst of 2x2ism, you get quite the opposite. This is for sure the pendulum swings radically both directions. I was just thinking the other day though that my raising though perhaps a bit stiff and stern didn't really hurt me any. I learned through that what it would take for me to be at peace with my own nature and how to appeal to God through the individual relationship with God. Though I have to wonder how much of that was because of the fellowship or was because my Gram had been raised by a hard-shell Baptist preacher
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Oct 31, 2009 12:04:20 GMT -5
If you take the best of 2x2ism you get something pretty good. If you take the worst of 2x2ism, you get quite the opposite. It was foretold that Jesus would know how to "refuse the evil and choose the good". I stop and consider that passage often when confronted with information regarding misdoings and even evils within the fellowship. I also consider Jesus actions themselves in this regard, e.g. the woman caught in the act of adultery, the thief on the cross, the two disciples competing for who would be the greatest, etc. For me, spending some time on this forum where it is "all in your face" in many post has increased my faith in Jesus nature to know how to refuse the evil. Though he hated it, he still loved the individual and forgave. Might I learn better the truth of that!
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 31, 2009 18:59:02 GMT -5
If you take the best of 2x2ism you get something pretty good. If you take the worst of 2x2ism, you get quite the opposite. It was foretold that Jesus would know how to "refuse the evil and choose the good". I stop and consider that passage often when confronted with information regarding misdoings and even evils within the fellowship. I also consider Jesus actions themselves in this regard, e.g. the woman caught in the act of adultery, the thief on the cross, the two disciples competing for who would be the greatest, etc. For me, spending some time on this forum where it is "all in your face" in many post has increased my faith in Jesus nature to know how to refuse the evil. Though he hated it, he still loved the individual and forgave. Might I learn better the truth of that! It seems to me you have a very good viewpoint, ronhall! As I was out of the fellowship for a number of years and pretty well let my husband call all the shots of what and where and when...I got a big eye-opening in regards to other denominations and that they are NOT without similar problems of human error! Some of it happened long before our denomination's did, but then the most of them are much older.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 1, 2009 12:18:52 GMT -5
No. 8 Believers - Christians
What is the F&W's belief about the Believer's Responsibilities – The Christian Walk – The Christian’s Service?
Which of the following statements best describe the beliefs of the F&W? Your beliefs? ________________________________________
Believers Responsibilities – The Christian Walk – The Christian’s Service
A. We believe that all believers are called to be in the world but separate from it. We believe that Christians are called to witness for Christ, to preach the gospel to all nations, and to study the Bible personally through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit until each one is matured into the preordained purpose of God for him.
B. We believe that in holy Christian living that we must have concern for the hurts and needs of our fellowmen. We must dedicate ourselves anew to the service of our Lord and to His authority over our lives, and to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.
C. We believe Jesus Christ commanded all believers to proclaim the Gospel throughout the world and to disciple men of every nation. The fulfillment of that Great Commission requires that all worldly and personal ambitions be subordinated to a total commitment to "Him who loved us and gave Himself for us."
D. We believe that the Christian is called with a holy calling to live and identify with and serve through a local church to fulfill The Great Commission to go, teach, baptize and do the Lord's work until He returns.
F. We believe that until the return of Christ, it is the Christian’s duty and privilege to seek the fulfillment of The Great Commission and to minister in His name to a needy world. Believers are to be instruments of Jesus Christ as the Holy Spirit ministers redemption and reconciliation in the world.
G. We believe that, until the return of Christ, it is the Christian's privilege and duty and the supreme task of the Church to evangelize the world (Mat 28:18-10; Acts 1:8).
H. We believe that all aspects of our lives are to be lived to the glory of God under the Lordship of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit.
J. We believe that divine enabling gifts for service are bestowed by the Spirit upon all who are saved. While there is a diversity of gifts, each believer is energized by the same Spirit, and each is called to his own divinely appointed service as the Spirit may will. In the apostolic church there were certain gifted men--apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers--who were appointed by God for the perfecting of the saints unto their work of the ministry. We believe also that today some men are especially called of God to be evangelists, pastors and teachers, and that it is to the fulfilling of His will and to His eternal glory that these shall be sustained and encouraged in their service for God. (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:4-11; Eph 4:11.)
K. We believe that, wholly apart from salvation benefits which are bestowed equally upon all who believe, rewards are promised according to the faithfulness of each believer in his service for his Lord, and that these rewards will be bestowed at the judgment seat of Christ after He comes to receive His own to Himself. (1 Cor 3:9-15; 9:18-27; 2 Cor 5:10.)
L. We believe that it is the explicit message of our Lord Jesus Christ to those whom He has saved that they are sent forth by Him into the world even as He was sent forth of His father into the world. We believe that after they are saved they are divinely reckoned to be related to this world as strangers and pilgrims, ambassadors and witnesses, and that their primary purpose in life should be to make Christ known to the world.
M. We teach that regeneration is a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit by which the divine nature and divine life are given (John 3:3 7; Titus 3:5). It is instantaneous and is accomplished solely by the power of the Holy Spirit through the instrumentality of the Word of God (John 5:24), when the repentant sinner, as enabled by the Holy Spirit, responds in faith to the divine provision of salvation. Genuine regeneration is manifested by fruits worthy of repentance as demonstrated in righteous attitudes and conduct. Good works will be its proper evidence and fruit (1 Cor 6:19-20; Eph 2:10), and will be experienced to the extent that the believer submits to the control of the Holy Spirit in his life through faithful obedience to the Word of God (Eph 5:17-21; Phil 2:12; Col 3:16; 2 Pet 1:4-10). This obedience causes the believer to be increasingly conformed to the image of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor 3:18). Such a conformity is climaxed in the believer's glorification at Christ's coming (Rom 8:17; 2 Pet 1:4; 1 John 3:2-3).
N. We teach that there is by the work of the Holy Spirit a progressive sanctification by which the state of the believer is brought closer to the standing the believer positionally enjoys through justification. Through obedience to the Word of God and the empowering of the Holy Spirit, the believer is able to live a life of increasing holiness in conformity to the will of God, becoming more and more like our Lord Jesus Christ.
O. We teach that out of deep gratitude for the undeserved grace of God granted to us and because our glorious God is so worthy of our total consecration, all the saved should live in such a manner as to demonstrate our adoring love to God and so as not to bring reproach upon our Lord and Savior. We also teach that separation from all religious apostasy and worldly and sinful practices is commanded of us by God.
Subjects covered in Statement of Belief: 1. God (only ONE god, God the Father, creator, attributes, etc.) Pg 5, Post #125 2. Standard of Authority: Bible (inspired, inerrant, Word of God, etc) Pg 1, Post #3 3. Jesus (virgin birth, atonement, substitute, life, death, resurrection; relationship to God, etc) Pg 8, Post #196 4. Holy Spirit (personality and work; indwelling, illumination, relationship to God) Pg 10, Posts #267-268 5. Man & Sin (fall of man, depravity, sin, free will/agency) Pg 11, Post 295 6. Angels (Elect & Evil; Holy & Fallen) Pg 24, Post #662 7. Salvation (repentance, regeneration/born again, adoption, saving faith, belief, grace, justification, etc) Pg 26, Post #716 8. Believers Responsibility (good works, sanctification, security, conduct, evangelism; great commission)Pg 27, Post #746
The doctrines below will follow soon... 9. The Church/Assembly, Ministers, Evangelism 10. Ordinances ( baptism & communion, Lord’s Day) 11. The Eternal State (Heaven & Hell) 12. Last Things/The Future (end of world, judgment, rewards, 2nd coming of Jesus, resurrection of the dead, etc)
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Nov 1, 2009 20:10:42 GMT -5
Frankly, Cherie, I didn't find one of them come that close to the F&W's or at least what I've been taught all my life.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 1, 2009 20:13:37 GMT -5
Frankly, Cherie, I didn't find one of them come that close to the F&W's or at least what I've been taught all my life. Is there one that comes close to what you believe, Sharon?
|
|