|
Post by september on Sept 25, 2009 4:56:28 GMT -5
What, in a nutshell, are you saying Nathan?
The evidence is there: WI was in Scotland in Nov 1897, they agreed to go out in faith in June 1898. Even as late as May 1898 WI was still apparently associated with the FM despite EC visiting him two months previously. Surely had WI been "inspired" by his sister in Scotland, it would not have taken over six months for the realisation to dawn on him? It looks more like his visit with EC inspired him.
Btw, Strangford is the other side of the province from Crocknacrieve so the baptism was in no way associated with the convention.
As for the story about Princess Victoria, it is highly unlikely she ever made a profession. None of the old English friends ever subscribed to the notion, and any old Irish friends that would have had close connections with "the mainland" considered it factual.
I just read somewhere recently a claim that the members of U2 (an Irish rock group of some repute) were raised in professing homes. That is nonsense of course, but it just serves to highlight how urban myths can spread and with the passage of time gain credibility.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Sept 25, 2009 9:28:55 GMT -5
NB: You state above:
Where's your proof GW wrote this account? I dont think Sharon ever gave the source she got it from, other than an older bro. worker.
Its quite obvious to me that GW didn't write this account...since much of it is lifted almost verbatim from Dr. J's book...which book wasn't even written when GW was alive.
So who is the author of this account - and how reliable are they concerning items it mentions which no other source of 2x2 history has stated?
|
|
|
Post by september on Sept 26, 2009 4:32:34 GMT -5
Accepting the chronology is reasonably accurate, you must admit it unlikely that WI's visit to Scotland in the autumn of 1897 was the catalyst for going out in faith. It is more likely it was EC's visit in the spring of '98.
I've said before: there are descendants of the Gill family still professing who know nothing of the alleged connection with European home-based churches and the notion of someone seeing chairs set out for Sunday morning meeting is questionable at best and absolute nonsense at worst. Doesn't it occur to you that if there had been a connection with any other faith, that much would have been made of, particularly when EC was standing in a courtroom before a judge? They'd distanced themselves from the FM and considered no connection but a faith already established in Ireland, claiming a heritage in Europe? It would be all they would need to "substantiate" the myth of stretching back to the shores of Galilee.
I would respectfully suggest that you attempt not to complicate an origin in your desperation to claim an association with the Vaudois et al. I can't see the difficulty in accepting that God had the power to move upon these men and women to start a simple ministry which eventually evolved into the home-based church it is today. I find that explanation more easily believable than some fabricated story cobbled together by a deluded old man, but then I must confess I find it easy to believe God can do anything he so pleases.
|
|
|
Post by september on Sept 27, 2009 13:25:39 GMT -5
Nathan, I know you are skilled at cut'n'paste, but really, all this is the same old, same old being rehashed. One worker related this account to one other worker. What about all the other workers who were there at the time, the friends that were there at the time that have not embraced this nonsense? I've repeatedly told you that in Ireland, such notions of a connection with a European home-based church are dismissed as having no basis in fact. The Gill family connection are mystified by the story and frankly, I'd put more store in what the families in Ireland understand about the origins than what an elderly old man with an active imagination has passed on to another old man with probably an equally active imagination.
You don't seem to understand that the fellowship would have had much to gain by even a tenuous connection to a European church movement but most early workers were too principled to hang on to the coat tails of such a fantasy.
Your cut'n'paste above also claims that the family that supposedly had this meeting in their home left Switzerland due to religious persecution. There is not one family professing in Ireland with a European name that arrived later than with the Hugenots and they professed later than 1897. The family is based in Cork and Tipperary with a more recent move to Meath, the area where you claim Ms. Irvine was based. The "facts" do not stack up so as I mentioned previously, perhaps you'd be best to accept the "simple truth" and stop trying to claim kinship or association with European home-based churches through the most questionable and convoluted means.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Sept 27, 2009 16:11:37 GMT -5
There are references to the Irvine - a relative - home meeting story in some of the very early published accounts, might even be in an Impartial Reporter article. I could find the reference if you haven't seen it.
|
|
|
Post by open mind on Sept 27, 2009 23:05:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Oct 21, 2009 7:27:45 GMT -5
Whew! Nathan.
I'm getting awful sleepy!
Good luck.
Ron
|
|
|
Post by september on Oct 21, 2009 11:44:50 GMT -5
It seems Ida West was quite happy to refer to the early friends and workers as "pioneers", "groping their way in the darkness". She spoke of "restoring the scriptural methods of preaching and worshipping" and the convention being modelled on Keswick Convention.
This suggests to me that Miss West accepted (as she should have, given she grew up in the middle of much of the "groping their way in the darkness") what Cherie and others have been saying ad nauseum: it is a restoration movement, not a continuation of some fellowship practiced in the mountains in Italy. Miss West knew the Gills and others in the Rathmoylon area very well so I'd imagine if there was some truth to the tosh that is claimed about meeting rooms set up for Sunday morning, she'd have mentioned it. Miss West was nothing if not an absolute stickler for honesty and did not fudge or obfuscate on any level regarding the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by september on Oct 27, 2009 15:18:19 GMT -5
I don't understand Nathan. Is this a response to my comment about Ida West? None of it pertains to 1897, even if it is a record of the early days. Anyhow, the common theme is similar to the statement of Ida West: there was no fellowship of this kind in evidence anywhere before therefore it was a pioneering movement.
|
|
|
Post by september on Oct 27, 2009 18:40:03 GMT -5
As you will know, Ida West was a daughter of John and Sara West. It is well documented that John West was particularly active in the early days of establishing the fellowship. I wouldn't dismiss her testimony at all and what's more, as I said earlier, the common theme through all the early testimonies was that of a pioneering movement. It may have been present elsewhere in Europe/America/Asia/Africa wherever, but an itinerant ministry was not present in any shape or form in Ireland and there are no references made (apart from the remarkable "memories" of one George Gittens) to any such thing by the early workers or friends.
In your efforts to "establish" a link with European itinerant ministries, I believe you are belittling the amazing work of God in the lives of the early friends and workers. It is such a shame that you couldn't have spoken to some of the people personally that remembered the early days or at least had accounts told to them by their parents - you may then appreciate better the incredible thing that happened in Ireland in 1897 onwards and perhaps realise that an association with European movements was not necessary for God to work. The closest you'll get I imagine, to someone in such a position to tell you of the early days is Patrica Roberts and like Ida West (her cousin) she tells it as it is: no fudging or obfuscation. Perhaps you should plan a visit to Ireland and do some independent research.
Another thing: at no point have I ever claimed that WI created the fellowship. I have always acknowledged that there were others involved as family history has always informed me. WI was a dominant, charismatic man whatever about he turned out and it's not unusual for a group to turn to a natural leader and coalesce around him.
As a matter of interest, why are you posting lengthy cut'n'paste missives when all this can be found on your website and TTT? Every time you post, your electronic signature contains links to your website so I don't imagine anyone wanting to read these things would have any difficulty finding them. I thought this thread was a discussion but instead, once again, I find it bunged up with cut'n'paste and no meaningful discussion.
|
|
|
Post by september on Oct 28, 2009 4:12:33 GMT -5
In some countries the fellowship may be considered a cult. The Church of Scientology is considered a cult in some European countries for example and other countries (one being the US) considered the church a benign institution. It depends on the criteria selected whereby the definition is made.
You miss the point in your post above: the fellowship was started by man but the question is which or whom. God may have been moving on hearts but the physical groundwork, the framework, the organisation was started by man. You challenge the notion of WI founding/starting/pioneering the movement which is understandable as there were a number involved; I'd say no more than half a dozen and very probably only two: WI and EC. It is difficult to return to a movement that had no presence in the country where the "return" took place. I still say "started" as my God can do anything and it is clear from many accounts that there was no fellowship/itinerant ministry in Ireland (or anywhere else for that matter) in 1897 that WI or EC were aware of, so it is a stretch to claim they returned to something they knew nothing of and of which there was no tangible presence.
If you had not met the workers when you did, would you have had the faith to approach another godly man and suggest an itinerant ministry? Why was your conviction not strong enough to go forth there and then and why did you have to wait 8 years before you went out? Many of the early workers waited barely 8 days. Do you think it a convenient coincidence that an established fellowship chanced across your path that allowed you to observe for 8 years before serving 8 years then shaking off that particular bondage and return to a more pedestrian lifestyle such as some of the early disciples evidently had? This is not a personal examination of you as such, it's a genuine question wondering is there a lack of faith preventing individuals moving as they did in the early days? What makes someone think that God will not provide? The early workers were convinced God would and did and didn't hang around waiting to see if some other established ministry came along that facilitated an angst-free "itinerant" ministry.
Others can answer the questions if they can. I'm genuinely curious.
|
|
|
Post by september on Oct 29, 2009 18:32:56 GMT -5
I'd be very interested to see evidence of an itinerant ministry in Ireland prior to 1897. The closest I can find is the Presbyterian church who had meetings in homes. Perhaps that is where WI's sister got her inspiration? After all, it would appear the Irvines had some links with the Presbyterian church in Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by september on Oct 30, 2009 5:44:31 GMT -5
I don't have the book but I'm sure you must have good chunks of it on cut'n'paste? Like I said, I'd be interested to see evidence of an itinerant ministry such as the fellowship is today, in Ireland. In my limited research, there appears to be nothing of the kind, unless you consider St. Patrick who allegedly brought a local youth with him on his travels.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 30, 2009 6:31:15 GMT -5
I'd be very interested to see evidence of an itinerant ministry in Ireland prior to 1897. The closest I can find is the Presbyterian church who had meetings in homes. Perhaps that is where WI's sister got her inspiration? After all, it would appear the Irvines had some links with the Presbyterian church in Scotland. Good point, Sept!
|
|
|
Post by september on Oct 30, 2009 15:43:14 GMT -5
The Presbyterian Church was persecuted in Ireland for several centuries (as was the catholic church but there is no evidence to suggest that the Irvines had any association with the catholic church) and ministers and congregations worshipped in homes and ministers often moved from house to house, living with the laiety. Interestingly there is evidence that the Methodist Church also did pioneering work as early as 1799, similarly worshipping in homes throughout the south and western parts of Ireland until congregations were established.
It is not much of a stretch to presume that this knowledge was available to WI, EC et al who subsequently attempted to form a fellowship on the basis of Matt10.
You suggest that Cherie and I do some research into the itinerant ministries prior to WI, EC et al; perhaps you would equally benefit from travelling to Ireland and speaking with the remaining few that are just one generation removed from the beginnings of this fellowship? I can point you to descendants of many of the key players: Gills, Boles', Wests etc. As mentioned many times before, the descendants of the Gill family do not subscribe to the notion of chairs set out for a meeting as observed by Miss Irvine. Prior to their involvement with the fellowship they were members of the Church of Ireland and to my knowledge, the CoI do not have home meetings, at least not on a Sunday morning. Dr. Jaenen has not spoken to any of these people but has expressed (so I'm told) and interest in meeting some of them. Their evidence is not to be dismissed as you so lightly dismissed Miss West's testimony. Miss West lived through some turbulent times for the fellowship and if there were any truth in a tenuous link to some mysterious European itinerant fellowship, she'd have known about it and told of it. As I'm sure, would the many others that left accounts of the early days with the sole, curious exception of the tale spun to a Mr. George Gittens who generously shared the story on his deathbed. The story has no currency in Ireland (amongst those that are interested and informed) and I'd suggest you dismiss it (like you did Miss West's testimony) as a fable designed to appeal to the ears of the Americans who, let's face it, seldom look to Ireland for anything these days, least of all their salvation, and are therefore unlikely to encounter swift and incredulous rebuttals of such fantastic claims.
I don't doubt there was an itinerant ministry in Europe prior to the establishment of this fellowship but I do doubt the tenuous link you seek to create. If there was a link, why was it not spoken of?
As for Cherie's not posting chunks of Dr. J's book on her website, I presume her reasons are similar to your own for not doing the same on your website?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 30, 2009 21:45:12 GMT -5
Yes, I have Dr.J's book. If I wanted to read about NT history, I sure wouldnt select his book to study it from tho. I dont consider him an expert, nor Broadbent who you also recommend at times.
Your assumption is wrong Nate. I have not read most of the info in Dr. J's book. I have only read the part of Dr. J's book that is about the 2x2s and Faith Mission, and I didn't find anything there worth sharing.
I have found some errors, and a couple matters that I requested, but he has not, cannot or does not want to provide his source/s for. I received a letter from him this past month that was a non-answer to my question about some statements he made in his book concerning R. R. Todd. He doesnt even have a copy of the Alfred Trotter account he makes assumptions from.
CK
|
|
|
Post by september on Oct 31, 2009 11:06:32 GMT -5
Let me make it simple. (And apologies for the early announcement of Mr. Gitten's death.)
1. Nobody is arguing that there was an itinerant ministry prior to 1897.
2. There is no family in Ireland professing today or then that came from Europe any time after the Huguenots (approx 1685). The one family that can claim a Huguenot ancestry has to my knowledge only two members in the work and they were not amongst the first "wave" of workers and I can't be certain but I think they worked in Africa, not N. America. This family was not based in Meath or anywhere near it. Some have moved to Meath within the past 40 years though which hardly coincides with Miss Irvine's sojourn in the area.
3. "George also told us that some years ago when he and Calvin Casselman (now deceased) were together in BC, Cornelius Jaenen, the author of "The Apostles' Doctrine and Fellowship", had come to visit them (Cornelius had professed through Calvin). George used the occasion to tell Cornelius what Robert Darling had told him about the early days. Cornelius' response was that he was not surprised because Robert's story was consistent with things he had heard over the years and come across in his research." From Nathan's cut'n'paste reply no. 5
Dr. Jaenen has not interviewed or contacted any of the old established professing families in Ireland so it is curious how he would be considered an authority on the matter when testimonies of those present are so easily dismissed. His research is somewhat lacking as there are still a number of people in Ireland who are just one generation removed from some of the key players that he failed to interview.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2009 12:56:07 GMT -5
Nathan
I have been following this thread with disinterest for some time and can’t help but wonder:
1. What exactly is it that you are trying to prove?
2. To whom are you trying to prove it?
3. What do you hope to achieve in the unlikely the event that you ever succeed in proving it?
4. Is it as obvious to you as it is to me that September has a much better grasp on the history of the 2x2 group than you have (despite your not inconsideable research into the subject)?
5. Have you ever considered (even for a moment) reconsidering your position in view of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Regards
Matt10
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Oct 31, 2009 14:51:30 GMT -5
Nate: Why dont you tell me what pages the things are on that you want me to read/know? I really dont care to read up on all that Christian history a la Dr. Janean's style.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Nov 11, 2009 10:08:33 GMT -5
Just a hint here, Nathan...when you insert "red lettered" wording, we are apt to think this is "your" assertions and has nothing to do with the historical facts you are attempting to relate.
A suggestion, adopt other colors or better when it is a beginning truther's words, embold them or Italisize them....the different coloring makes it hard to really know who is what.
You've established "your" identity on TMB with "red letters" and keep it thus in this format. For all of this runs together otherwise.
Just a suggestion. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by open mind on Nov 12, 2009 17:35:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by karlgraff on Nov 14, 2009 15:57:57 GMT -5
Yes they do, and rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 14, 2009 17:07:55 GMT -5
Yes they do, and rightly so. On what grounds?
|
|
|
Post by karlgraff on Nov 15, 2009 0:17:52 GMT -5
Ask Nathan to explain how a person is saved,in reference to the itinerant ministry, and you'll know.
|
|
|
Post by karlgraff on Nov 15, 2009 9:57:24 GMT -5
Everything Nathan. Your long held belief that the intinerant ministry goes hand in hand with salvation, and the groups historic- though not universal- understanding that the Truth is THE way make it so. It is Jesus relationship to a person,and vice versa that either saves or condemns them- not the correct religious practices. To go down that road makes one equal to the Pharisees...
|
|
|
Post by karlgraff on Nov 15, 2009 22:00:07 GMT -5
Exactly. You believe that Jesus + something = salvation.
|
|
|
Post by karlgraff on Nov 15, 2009 23:32:30 GMT -5
That is not what you have stated in the past. Have you changed your mind in the past year or so? In the past you insisted that the itinerant ministry and faith in Jesus were part and parcel of salvation.
|
|
|
Post by karlgraff on Nov 16, 2009 16:29:27 GMT -5
so the 2x2itinerant ministry is not necessaty then?
|
|