|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Nov 15, 2011 13:20:15 GMT -5
ckirkham, that is a textbook perfect example of the way a type III apostate works. It is an example of exactly what Wilson et al are talking about.
Thanks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2011 14:07:18 GMT -5
ckirkham, that is a textbook perfect example of the way a type III apostate works. It is an example of exactly what Wilson et al are talking about. Thanks. textbook silliness. Especially the part about how these imaginary radio spots were the source of friction between Jack Carroll and George Walker. At least Gray is gifted with a good imagination. So what was the source of friction between JC and GW? I'm not sure I have heard a plausible explanation for that. I read an old letter where the writer indicated the JC pulled something on GW but it didn't explain what that was.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Nov 15, 2011 14:10:33 GMT -5
textbook silliness. Especially the part about how these imaginary radio spots were the source of friction between Jack Carroll and George Walker. At least Gray is gifted with a good imagination. So what was the source of friction between JC and GW? I'm not sure I have heard a plausible explanation for that. I read an old letter where the writer indicated the JC pulled something on GW but it didn't explain what that was. I know that early on GW felt that both JC and BC misused their position and the money given to them by "blood bought people" in a disgraceful way. Later, GW wanted Bill to be removed as an overseer. As would be expected JC took his brother's side in that conflict.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2011 18:33:54 GMT -5
textbook silliness. Especially the part about how these imaginary radio spots were the source of friction between Jack Carroll and George Walker. At least Gray is gifted with a good imagination. So what was the source of friction between JC and GW? I'm not sure I have heard a plausible explanation for that. I read an old letter where the writer indicated the JC pulled something on GW but it didn't explain what that was. Imagination is a mighty nation. I'm still laughing over the whole thing. I'd love to know how the real debate went, however. I'm going to ask around and see if anyone remembers the event--folks my Mom's age should have some memory of it if it made it out of the "San Diego loop."
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 15, 2011 19:23:36 GMT -5
So what was the source of friction between JC and GW? I'm not sure I have heard a plausible explanation for that. I read an old letter where the writer indicated the JC pulled something on GW but it didn't explain what that was. Imagination is a mighty nation. I'm still laughing over the whole thing. I'd love to know how the real debate went, however. I'm going to ask around and see if anyone remembers the event--folks my Mom's age should have some memory of it if it made it out of the "San Diego loop." It seems to be that there were some sticky points of doctrine that the two disagreed on. And the telling of the history or the not telling the truth of the history of the fellowship was one. GW spoke freely of the begining days. Whereas, I've read sermons of JC that spoke of the way being a continuation of the Acts of the Apostles. Also GW was a bit more relaxed in dealing with D&R in the fellowship members. JC was pretty stringent about it. There were just quite a few differences and strong differences at that.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Nov 15, 2011 19:30:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 15, 2011 19:41:37 GMT -5
Thanks Cherie...Doris told a bit of that one time she was with GW where Olive Sloan was....I always meant to get her to give me a copy of that for she took it all down in handwriting.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Nov 15, 2011 20:32:16 GMT -5
The following statement by George Walker gives some insight into the beginning worker's motives for avoiding the question of a founder.
I wonder if George would have spoken any differently if he knew the extent of the confusion it would lead to?
Clearly, George didn't want to be put on a pedestal for his part in the establishment of the work and that is to his credit IMO.
==============================================
"I got an awful disappointment a little while ago. It was from a woman who talked with a woman I knew. Some people do not talk wisely, saying things to only weaken faith. The one that wrote was a very true person, and the other had been telling her that myself and a few others started this. Well, that would be a poor start, wouldn't it?
It is a part of human nature to kind of make a person a hero. What we did was to encourage people to believe in this Gospel and that this Book could be lived. No one ever encouraged me to go out and live like the disciples. When I was in the false way I used to feel that all they had was not like the New Testament. I will value the person that helped me to believe that this Truth could be lived. We don't need to tell people that we have some special kind of revelation; that we dug it up out of the earth. We don't depend on things like that, but we have something that corresponds with the Bible. If it doesn't correspond with the Bible, it doesn't mean anything. In the New Testament, there is all that Jesus spoke and lived - isn't that your confidence? You are not just taken up with the human side.
Some we new failed afterwards themselves. After we have been out in the harvest field, we can understand what Paul said, "I keep under my body and bring it into subjection lest...I myself should be a castaway." I am glad I had the wholesome fear in my heart. One thing that would make him a castaway was that, "I didn't control my body. These appetites - the earthly nature asserting itself and I could not be used anymore." It might not mean that I go to a lost eternity, but I could not speak like this anymore.
The devil has not given up hope of getting you yet--he is an angel of light, the cunning one. Jesus knew him as a real person. "The prince of this world comes but he has nothing in me." He always tries to work in something that is wrong. I recognized that if I didn't get victory over the human I could be a castaway. Some people got exalted because God used them, and that was what Jesus was warning His disciples about. He said, "...you rejoice rather because your names are written in heaven..." .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2011 21:20:24 GMT -5
This is a reference to the split between GeoWalker and Jack Carroll, written in 1952 by a worker to George Walker:
"The arrangements you were responsible for for my home coming led me into a "trap" set by Jack and Bill Carroll's ungodly influence. I walked into this unknowingly and have been almost crushed to death in it, but God has undertaken for me. Because of Jack's unbelief in the doctrine of reconciliation and eagerness to cripple me spiritually including my ministry he has used others for this end. I believe you will understand this being once a victim of his."
There is no detail as to how George Walker had been "victimized" by Jack Carroll.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 15, 2011 22:33:12 GMT -5
Not even that, for atheists fail to lay out any theory of authority. I think what you are trying to say, and I am not speaking for you, is that atheists do not believe in a paranormal that will give them their marching orders. Don't exempt the possibility among the sons of man if you haven't experienced it yourself. This is false. I care about the members in my family. I care about those with whom I share this planet and try not to deliberately do anything to them that I would not like them to do to me. Like other organisms on earth, I care about self preservation. God bless you and your God. I am pretty fond of the dictionary and to the denotation as well as the connotation that the majority of people attach to the words they use to communicate. God bless you and your God. Is 'definition' in the OP what you are referring to: ‘By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’
‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’.
Or this one: 'A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone's interpretation of the Bible and is characteriized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ.'
Perhaps you could point out the one that we should be looking at. Any one of them except this one: Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. . . . the reason being that Christianity will be contra-cultural for as long as it is.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 15, 2011 22:43:01 GMT -5
Well, you said that nothing shrinks one worldview faster than placing oneself at the center of the universe. But thats exactly what Christians are seeking to do when they desire to perceive God's will. This is sort of silly. Cosmologically speaking we are all at the center of the universe! Explain yourself young man!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 16, 2011 10:53:51 GMT -5
Thanks again, Cherie... IF the readers on TMB want to see what IS known about the rift between JC and GW, scroll on down on the above website page....there are copies of the workers' meeting that discussed the apologies of GW and JC to each other and the workers all vowing that that was the end of the rift! NOthing mentioned other then grave differences in belief in doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 16, 2011 15:27:24 GMT -5
The following statement by George Walker gives some insight into the beginning worker's motives for avoiding the question of a founder. I wonder if George would have spoken any differently if he knew the extent of the confusion it would lead to? Clearly, George didn't want to be put on a pedestal for his part in the establishment of the work and that is to his credit IMO. ============================================== "I got an awful disappointment a little while ago. It was from a woman who talked with a woman I knew. Some people do not talk wisely, saying things to only weaken faith. The one that wrote was a very true person, and the other had been telling her that myself and a few others started this. Well, that would be a poor start, wouldn't it? It is a part of human nature to kind of make a person a hero. What we did was to encourage people to believe in this Gospel and that this Book could be lived. No one ever encouraged me to go out and live like the disciples. When I was in the false way I used to feel that all they had was not like the New Testament. I will value the person that helped me to believe that this Truth could be lived. We don't need to tell people that we have some special kind of revelation; that we dug it up out of the earth. We don't depend on things like that, but we have something that corresponds with the Bible. If it doesn't correspond with the Bible, it doesn't mean anything. In the New Testament, there is all that Jesus spoke and lived - isn't that your confidence? You are not just taken up with the human side. Some we new failed afterwards themselves. After we have been out in the harvest field, we can understand what Paul said, "I keep under my body and bring it into subjection lest...I myself should be a castaway." I am glad I had the wholesome fear in my heart. One thing that would make him a castaway was that, "I didn't control my body. These appetites - the earthly nature asserting itself and I could not be used anymore." It might not mean that I go to a lost eternity, but I could not speak like this anymore. The devil has not given up hope of getting you yet--he is an angel of light, the cunning one. Jesus knew him as a real person. "The prince of this world comes but he has nothing in me." He always tries to work in something that is wrong. I recognized that if I didn't get victory over the human I could be a castaway. Some people got exalted because God used them, and that was what Jesus was warning His disciples about. He said, "...you rejoice rather because your names are written in heaven..." . Thanks for sharing that. Can it be found on TTT or other sites?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 16, 2011 15:29:33 GMT -5
This is sort of silly. Cosmologically speaking we are all at the center of the universe! Explain yourself young man! How young can a man be who has grandchildren?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 16, 2011 15:31:08 GMT -5
I don't have knowledge of whatever specific incident this was referring to. I know the general problem GW had with the Carroll brothers was that he felt they both misused their position as overseer, they spent money from the friends in ways that GW didn't approve, and they both needed a female "partner" to be complete and happy. The Carroll brothers would have probably been considered guilty as charged by many f/w if their actions had of been more widely known. ... Can you share a source for the bolded statement?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2011 15:32:45 GMT -5
Explain yourself young man! How young can a man be who has grandchildren? Oh don't spoil Rational's day with a reality check!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 16, 2011 15:42:48 GMT -5
Explain yourself young man! How young can a man be who has grandchildren? 30?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus66 on Nov 16, 2011 15:51:28 GMT -5
Irvine, I am not sure if the 2x2 movement is a honkytonk or a hoedown, but on here it truly is a Whooptydoo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2011 6:38:02 GMT -5
Are there two issues here? The history of Christ's Church in scripture, and the history of our particular Fellowship.
Which is more relevant to our lives?
For a future website I have been documenting how the people, who say we lie about our foundations, seem to be avoiding (or openly lying) about Christian foundations. Its a Freudian thing.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 18, 2011 9:54:30 GMT -5
Irvine, I am not sure if the 2x2 movement is a honkytonk or a hoedown, but on here it truly is a Whooptydoo. Like this?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 19, 2011 6:40:04 GMT -5
While one can make distinctions in theology using Scripture as a basis, in the sense of this or that doctrine being sound or unsound, it is wholly impossible to use Scripture for the kind of judgement call you are suggesting. Only individuals or groups who claim to have a monopoly on the truth would think they are able to do so. While you might see a centrist claim to truth based on academic weight, or numbers, or sound 'exegesis', I see instead the ordinary workings of ideology, which has always served to maintain a status quo, to maintain the present position of those who have the levers of power, and to keep all forms of other-ness out. In other words, there is nothing of truth in a theology that is used to distinguished cult from sect from mainstream; it's about power and politics, nothing more or less. The picture of a video image of Bush in front of all those southern Baptists demonstrates that that kind of theology is about reciprocity between political and religious interests; nothing spiritual or true about it. Obviously you believe you are in possession of a theology superior to others. Can you articulate it in a concise, doctrinal expository fashion yet? Join my club of the expectant beggers or shoot straight, I tell you. I'm not sure what would lead you to think that. I see theology itself as a very circumscribed, limited form of understanding that nonetheless has invited and incited people all the way to bloodshed, slaughter and ruin. Theology is primarily of interest when one takes an exerior view either within the context of history and human behaviour, or within the context of ideology and language. In itself it serves little purpose. And it is within the context of ideology and language that I place Grey's definition of 'cult'. It is simply a part of the battle of ideologies; Grey's ideology versus that of the friends and workers.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 19, 2011 6:57:44 GMT -5
Not even that, for atheists fail to lay out any theory of authority. I think what you are trying to say, and I am not speaking for you, is that atheists do not believe in a paranormal that will give them their marching orders. This is false. I care about the members in my family. I care about those with whom I share this planet and try not to deliberately do anything to them that I would not like them to do to me. Like other organisms on earth, I care about self preservation. I am pretty fond of the dictionary and to the denotation as well as the connotation that the majority of people attach to the words they use to communicate. Is 'definition' in the OP what you are referring to: ‘By the term cult I mean nothing derogatory to any group so classified. A cult, as I define it. Is any religious group which differs significantly in some one or more respects as to belief or practice from those religious groups which are regarded as normative expressions of religion in our total culture. I may also add to this that a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s misinterpretation of the Bible.’
‘The term is more generally used by evangelicals of groups whose teachings are so heretical as to remain outside historic Christianity’.
Or this one: 'A cult, then, is a group of people polarized around someone's interpretation of the Bible and is characteriized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ.'
Perhaps you could point out the one that we should be looking at. Can you provide a reference? It is one of those words that says more about the people objecting to the word than the group being described. Glad I am not in that group. They do not hold the same beliefs as we do.[/quote] Good analysis, rational. I'd add to this that Grey's definition of 'cult' is the one used by a known centrist, prejudiced theologian. Some of those within his camp hold him up as one of their learned men, and those outside, particularly the Mormons and JWs, see him as an adversary. It's perverse to hold to such antiquated definitions that form the intellectual basis for bias and prejudice. No one who is up to date on language would use such a definition today. This kind of 'us versus them' parsing of religious boundaries has been well understood and dissected by the likes of Foucoult, Derrida and Said for some years. It's just a pity that so many religious leaders have their head so far up their arses that they'll never figure out what they are doing, sowing enmity and strife as they have for thousands of years. And so it continues with that small-minded Baptist preacher attacking Mitt Romney because according to the definition presented by Grey, Mitt Romney belongs to a cult. People who think like that need to catch up with the tenor of the times, at least insofar as that tenor exists in the discourse and political life of present day America. Unfortunately, such preachers limit and inhibit true Christianity, because the ordinary person identifies such in-fighting and bickering with the Christian religion in general hindering any hope of the spread of the true Gospel message.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 19, 2011 8:38:41 GMT -5
What have you really nothing new to add or do you just enjoy regurgitating the same words with maybe a mild alteration? I am almost certain that if I read back over the posts on this thread I would find many of your vain repititions!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 19, 2011 10:57:17 GMT -5
What have you really nothing new to add or do you just enjoy regurgitating the same words with maybe a mild alteration? I am almost certain that if I read back over the posts on this thread I would find many of your vain repititions! I just respond to the posts one at a time, Irvine. Sometimes new posters come late into the thread, or I haven't expressed myself clearly the first time and clarification is warranted. Stick around long enough and you too may feel like a hamster. I didn't get to 9200+ posts by coming up with something new and original every time.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Nov 19, 2011 11:15:19 GMT -5
What have you really nothing new to add or do you just enjoy regurgitating the same words with maybe a mild alteration? I am almost certain that if I read back over the posts on this thread I would find many of your vain repititions! I just respond to the posts one at a time, Irvine. Sometimes new posters come late into the thread, or I haven't expressed myself clearly the first time and clarification is warranted. Stick around long enough and you too may feel like a hamster. I didn't get to 9200+ posts by coming up with something new and original every time. Just look at "What we believe" thread and see the awful reading comprehension going on in that one. BTW, Irvine? What generally has always written with attempt at having found information from a reliable source. I don't always agree with what he writes, but I do credit him for sticky to what he is trying to get us to understand....same with Stanne and Clirkham...oh yes, mustn't leave out the Ram. Perhaps long years with Rational nipping at the backsides for data and facts has won out for a few on here, eh?
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Nov 19, 2011 15:34:50 GMT -5
Writing on the Characteristics of Cults in Handbook of Today's Religions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart states: 'One teaching that is totally absent from all cults is the gospel of the grace of God. No one is taught in the cults that he can be saved from eternal damnation by simply placing his faith in Jesus Christ. It is always belief in Jesus Christ and “do this” or “follow that.” All cults attach something to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. It might be baptism, obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, or something else but it is never taught that faith in Christ alone can save anyone.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2011 17:02:11 GMT -5
Writing on the Characteristics of Cults in Handbook of Today's Religions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart states: 'One teaching that is totally absent from all cults is the gospel of the grace of God. No one is taught in the cults that he can be saved from eternal damnation by simply placing his faith in Jesus Christ. It is always belief in Jesus Christ and “do this” or “follow that.” All cults attach something to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. It might be baptism, obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, or something else but it is never taught that faith in Christ alone can save anyone.' Totally agree we are saved by grace through faith - salvation totally undeserved and can't be earned. Titus 2 v11 and 12 "for the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that , denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly , righteously, and godly , in this present world " Very good teaching in those 2 verses taken together, I think.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Nov 19, 2011 17:33:53 GMT -5
Writing on the Characteristics of Cults in Handbook of Today's Religions, Josh McDowell and Don Stewart states: 'One teaching that is totally absent from all cults is the gospel of the grace of God. No one is taught in the cults that he can be saved from eternal damnation by simply placing his faith in Jesus Christ. It is always belief in Jesus Christ and “do this” or “follow that.” All cults attach something to the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. It might be baptism, obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, or something else but it is never taught that faith in Christ alone can save anyone.' Why am I not surprised? Here is the methodology of differentiating and marginalizing churches with which you disagree. You define cults to be those groups that depart from the main, and do not teach properly redemption through faith in Jesus Christ. Then you closely examine these "cults" and not surprisingly you find that they do not teach redemption through faith in Jesus Christ.
|
|