|
Post by sacerdotal on Jan 1, 2014 11:20:42 GMT -5
I was reading through a critique at sites.google.com/site/2x2history/the-shape-of-a-shapeless-movement/pages-1-to-32 of Irvine Grey's book, "Two by Two" The Shape of a Shapeless Movement, and came across this statement: Workers in our part of the world recognise that people come to their own revelation from God, and accept that there can be true believers outside our own fellowship."The "in our part of the world" seems to indicate New Zealand/Australia. Virgo has made a similar statement in another thread, and he too, is from that part of the world. I have asked Virgo to provide me the name of the workers who preach that there can be true believers outside of our fellowship. He has yet to respond. I have YET to have any to EVER GIVE THE NAME of workers who believe that there are true believers outside of our fellowship that are in an area with workers but that meet with other faiths such a Baptist, Methodist, or whatever. Not one. And as I pointed out to Virgo, Lyle Schober, the overseer of Texas in the United States excommunicated someone who believed that. I was once a worker. I know how to play the game and recognize it when others are playing it too. "True believers outside of our own fellowship" means those that are in areas that there are no workers or circumstances where they cannot get to meetings but that have honest hearts and if their circumstances were different and they could get to meeting, then they would." The "true believers outside of our own fellowship" almost universally does not mean someone that chooses to reject the worker's message and that remains within a different religious affiliation. So, Virgo, (and to the others professing in New Zealand and Australia)- what are the names of the workers who PREACH publicly that there are true believers in other fellowships?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 1, 2014 12:31:05 GMT -5
Good luck with getting an answer. All they ever do when asked questions like this is try to make you ashamed and guilty that you would even ask the question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 12:37:14 GMT -5
Good luck with getting an answer. All they ever do when asked questions like this is try to make you ashamed and guilty that you would even ask the question. [/quote Here is the list that Sacerdotal is looking for. And I am not even from the Antipodes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 12:45:52 GMT -5
I can't answer for the critic, but he/she didn't state that workers say there are true believers in other fellowships. He/she simply stated that "there can be true believers outside our fellowship." as you point out. The truth is, I think that most workers today do believe that, mostly limited to the people you suggest who are unable to meet the workers or go to meetings. It's not much for non-exclusivity but it does bear noting as it is commonplace among workers from what I understand. I think most also believe that there are people in other church groups who are true believers but simply haven't gotten out yet. I doubt that the critic or the workers are stating that their idea of true belief is common among those in other churches. I would expect that most workers figure all who have left the meetings are definitely unsaved.
While it doesn't sound like much, this is a major move from 40 years ago where there would never have been any exceptions to the exclusive rule. Also 40 years ago, there was a palpable hatred toward anything to do with other churches. Not so today. Although there isn't any love for other churches, the hatred is largely gone and is replaced with a neutrality or even a bit of respect in some cases. Again, it's not much but it is worth noting in any proper academic study of 2x2ism which seeks to describe 2x2ism today.
What does all that mean, if anything? I see a trend and predict that within a few years, there will be a rapid disappearance of what I call "individual exclusivity" and it will be replaced by what I call "institutional exclusivity". That is, there will be a genuine and widespread stance of non-judgmentalism toward individuals outside of meetings while hanging on to the idea that the meeting system is the only right church system. So, under that scenario, you could be a true believer in any fellowship system and you would simply be in the wrong fellowship system. This is how the Mormons have trended and where they are at right now on exclusivity. The 2x2's don't have any choice but to go in that direction. Not only will societies not tolerate a group that condemns individuals, it's not a sound Christian position to begin with.
My last paragraph wouldn't have to form part of an academic study of 2x2ism but a good study would examine trends and extrapolate them into the future.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 1, 2014 13:00:48 GMT -5
Unless I am missing something, Irvine lives on the other side of the world. He lives in Ireland and could not be further from New Zealand and Australia. Even the USA is closer. Guess you are from America, Sac, where a CCN reporter wrote today Auckland, Australia and also that Auckland was the capital of NZ. Both are wrong. NZ is not part of Australia and Auckland is not the captial of NZ. Americans' learn your geography. NZ is as backwards in the 2x2 domain as any other part of the world. It is not until you are outside the group do you realise what outsiders were saying with regard to issues raised on the boards. I must give NZ credit for some attempt at sexual abuse accountability though, even if it is a poor attempt. www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11180341
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 1, 2014 13:27:57 GMT -5
Unless I am missing something, Irvine lives on the other side of the world. He lives in Ireland and could not be further from New Zealand and Australia. Even the USA is closer. Guess you are from America, Sac, where a CCN reporter wrote today Auckland, Australia and also that Auckland was the capital of NZ. Both are wrong. NZ is not part of Australia and Auckland is not the captial of NZ. Americans' learn your geography. NZ is as backwards in the 2x2 domain as any other part of the world. It is not until you are outside the group do you realise what outsiders were saying with regard to issues raised on the boards. I must give NZ credit for some attempt at sexual abuse accountability though, even if it is a poor attempt. www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11180341Ha Mary, that's one thing Americans aren't too good at and that's geography! I've been told by Americans I have met that California is bigger than Canada. No one, not even another American could get him to believe otherwise. Also have seen ski doos at the border in the middle of the summer. Some seem to think Canada is just igloos and sled dogs lol. So don't feel bad, they don't really know much about one of their closest neighbors either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 14:21:14 GMT -5
Ummmm, Ladies, aren't you the ones who have previously objected to "stereotyping?" Not all Americans are quite so geographically ignorant as you portray. In fact, are not Canadians also Americans as well as our friends south of the boarder? Oh, I know what is intended, yet, from geographical perspective... Guess it is just my own perspective of the world, though I freely admit there are parts of the world where I am not so well versed geographically, just as I am sure there are for you as well, no?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 1, 2014 14:27:51 GMT -5
Ummmm, Ladies, aren't you the ones who have previously objected to "stereotyping?" Not all Americans are quite so geographically ignorant as you portray. In fact, are not Canadians also Americans as well as our friends south of the boarder? Oh, I know what is intended, yet, from geographical perspective... Guess it is just my own perspective of the world, though I freely admit there are parts of the world where I am not so well versed geographically, just as I am sure there are for you as well, no? You're right, I should have said some Americans. I wander around the States a lot in the winter usually so I have had the unique experience of meeting many US Americans. It has been my experience that many I have spoke to don't know much about Canada. Also, Mexico and Canada may be part of North America and therefore could be said to be Americans. But with the rest of the world connecting the word American with the States, I think we prefer to be called Canadians and Mexicans over Americans. It's interesting traveling abroad when they ask you if you are an American or a Canadian. You get a totally different level of acceptance if you are Canadian.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 14:33:23 GMT -5
Grin, I wouldn't have objected had you even used, "many" Americans. AND I was just pointing out the geographical location of both Canada and Mexico... Personally, I don't want to be identified as a Canadian nor Mexican, for I am neither....
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 1, 2014 14:39:43 GMT -5
Grin, I wouldn't have objected had you even used, "many" Americans. AND I was just pointing out the geographical location of both Canada and Mexico... Personally, I don't want to be identified as a Canadian nor Mexican, for I am neither.... Yes, many would have been a better term. I don't blame you. I like being Canadian and since you are American I am glad you like being American. I have been in your country too much to feel the same way as some parts of the world about Americans. I have met very few I didn't like. There was one guy that felt it would make sense for the American army to just invade Canada and take it over and as you can well understand I didn't warm up to him like most. However, in many ways I wish there were no borders. I love my country but I also love yours.
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Jan 1, 2014 16:54:16 GMT -5
If the workers started preaching non-exclusivity, then what incentive is there for them to remain workers of an only-way group, and live the lifestyle they live.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 1, 2014 17:33:06 GMT -5
If the workers started preaching non-exclusivity, then what incentive is there for them to remain workers of an only-way group, and live the lifestyle they live. Are they called by God? If so, wouldn't that be an incentive?
|
|
|
Post by sunshine on Jan 1, 2014 17:45:22 GMT -5
If the workers started preaching non-exclusivity, then what incentive is there for them to remain workers of an only-way group, and live the lifestyle they live. Are they called by God? If so, wouldn't that be an incentive? Yes. you are right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2014 18:14:46 GMT -5
Are they called by God? If so, wouldn't that be an incentive? Yes. you are right. Exactly. If you are called to go out in an itinerant, non-married state to spread the gospel, then that should be all that is necessary. To add to it that you get to be the sole franchisee of God for the world seems to me to be an unnecessary burden, not a reward. I wouldn't want the salvation of the whole world dependent on me and a few others.....that's a heavy load!
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jan 1, 2014 19:48:26 GMT -5
Unless I am missing something, Irvine lives on the other side of the world. He lives in Ireland and could not be further from New Zealand and Australia. Even the USA is closer. Guess you are from America, Sac, where a CCN reporter wrote today Auckland, Australia and also that Auckland was the capital of NZ. Both are wrong. NZ is not part of Australia and Auckland is not the captial of NZ. Americans' learn your geography. NZ is as backwards in the 2x2 domain as any other part of the world. It is not until you are outside the group do you realise what outsiders were saying with regard to issues raised on the boards. I must give NZ credit for some attempt at sexual abuse accountability though, even if it is a poor attempt. www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11180341What? Where did I write that Ireland was near New Zealand or Australia? I was quoting the critic of Irvine, who (the critic) lived in Australia or New Zealand, and I was quoting Virgo who also lives in that area- and both authors stated that the workers in their area of the world, ie, Australia/New Zealand believe in folks that are saved outside of our fellowship. It is a dishonest game that they are playing.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 1, 2014 19:54:59 GMT -5
Ok, you are forgiven but I am not so sure the guy from CCN will be though. I should have read your post more carefully. Does it say the critic on Irvine's book is from NZ or Austraila? He could be from anywhere in the world unless you are privy to infomation we are not. I also have the feeling he is from NZ given that his style is similar to another one who posts here with nz after his name.
Sac wrote: The "in our part of the world" seems to indicate New Zealand/Australia. Virgo has made a similar statement in another thread, and he too, is from that part of the world.
I agree it is a dishonest game that those in Australia/New Zealand believe folks are saved outside of 'our' fellowship. The workers have always said this when under pressure but when it comes down to the truth they believe they are the only way. You can only be saved through a worker.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 1, 2014 20:36:44 GMT -5
I can't answer for the critic, but he/she didn't state that workers say there are true believers in other fellowships. He/she simply stated that "there can be true believers outside our fellowship." as you point out. The truth is, I think that most workers today do believe that, mostly limited to the people you suggest who are unable to meet the workers or go to meetings. It's not much for non-exclusivity but it does bear noting as it is commonplace among workers from what I understand. I think most also believe that there are people in other church groups who are true believers but simply haven't gotten out yet. I doubt that the critic or the workers are stating that their idea of true belief is common among those in other churches. I would expect that most workers figure all who have left the meetings are definitely unsaved. While it doesn't sound like much, this is a major move from 40 years ago where there would never have been any exceptions to the exclusive rule. Also 40 years ago, there was a palpable hatred toward anything to do with other churches. Not so today. Although there isn't any love for other churches, the hatred is largely gone and is replaced with a neutrality or even a bit of respect in some cases. Again, it's not much but it is worth noting in any proper academic study of 2x2ism which seeks to describe 2x2ism today. What does all that mean, if anything? I see a trend and predict that within a few years, there will be a rapid disappearance of what I call "individual exclusivity" and it will be replaced by what I call "institutional exclusivity". That is, there will be a genuine and widespread stance of non-judgmentalism toward individuals outside of meetings while hanging on to the idea that the meeting system is the only right church system. So, under that scenario, you could be a true believer in any fellowship system and you would simply be in the wrong fellowship system. This is how the Mormons have trended and where they are at right now on exclusivity. The 2x2's don't have any choice but to go in that direction. Not only will societies not tolerate a group that condemns individuals, it's not a sound Christian position to begin with. My last paragraph wouldn't have to form part of an academic study of 2x2ism but a good study would examine trends and extrapolate them into the future. I seem to get it from some of the workers and they are adamant about this that "IF" there was a person who came to believe in Jesus and had not had opportunity to hear the workers that with their hearts turned to God that God will bring them to the workers in some sort of way....that though they can say they "believed" before knowing the workers that they'll have to admit that the necessary revelations for continued faithfulness was gained AFTER they were brought to the workers! OTHERWORDS, it still IS an exclusive church but there are people who like to put it in different "terms" so that new believers or anyone out there that knows about the workers but are not in the 2x2 church, can see that there has NOT been any great change in how the workers believe about salvation for people....and so as it is a "salvation by works" church, it will continue to have it that people interested in believing in eternal salvation WILL eventually be brought in touch with the 2x2's! That's as recent as of about a year ago thyat I heard this put down in a forceful way! It still is what it's always been...the workers' church! And only workers can bring people to God and eternal salvation!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 1, 2014 21:16:36 GMT -5
I can't answer for the critic, but he/she didn't state that workers say there are true believers in other fellowships. He/she simply stated that "there can be true believers outside our fellowship." as you point out. The truth is, I think that most workers today do believe that, mostly limited to the people you suggest who are unable to meet the workers or go to meetings. It's not much for non-exclusivity but it does bear noting as it is commonplace among workers from what I understand. I think most also believe that there are people in other church groups who are true believers but simply haven't gotten out yet. I doubt that the critic or the workers are stating that their idea of true belief is common among those in other churches. I would expect that most workers figure all who have left the meetings are definitely unsaved. While it doesn't sound like much, this is a major move from 40 years ago where there would never have been any exceptions to the exclusive rule. Also 40 years ago, there was a palpable hatred toward anything to do with other churches. Not so today. Although there isn't any love for other churches, the hatred is largely gone and is replaced with a neutrality or even a bit of respect in some cases. Again, it's not much but it is worth noting in any proper academic study of 2x2ism which seeks to describe 2x2ism today. What does all that mean, if anything? I see a trend and predict that within a few years, there will be a rapid disappearance of what I call "individual exclusivity" and it will be replaced by what I call "institutional exclusivity". That is, there will be a genuine and widespread stance of non-judgmentalism toward individuals outside of meetings while hanging on to the idea that the meeting system is the only right church system. So, under that scenario, you could be a true believer in any fellowship system and you would simply be in the wrong fellowship system. This is how the Mormons have trended and where they are at right now on exclusivity. The 2x2's don't have any choice but to go in that direction. Not only will societies not tolerate a group that condemns individuals, it's not a sound Christian position to begin with. My last paragraph wouldn't have to form part of an academic study of 2x2ism but a good study would examine trends and extrapolate them into the future. I seem to get it from some of the workers and they are adamant about this that "IF" there was a person who came to believe in Jesus and had not had opportunity to hear the workers that with their hearts turned to God that God will bring them to the workers in some sort of way....that though they can say they "believed" before knowing the workers that they'll have to admit that the necessary revelations for continued faithfulness was gained AFTER they were brought to the workers! OTHERWORDS, it still IS an exclusive church but there are people who like to put it in different "terms" so that new believers or anyone out there that knows about the workers but are not in the 2x2 church, can see that there has NOT been any great change in how the workers believe about salvation for people....and so as it is a "salvation by works" church, it will continue to have it that people interested in believing in eternal salvation WILL eventually be brought in touch with the 2x2's! That's as recent as of about a year ago thyat I heard this put down in a forceful way! It still is what it's always been...the workers' church! And only workers can bring people to God and eternal salvation! Reminds me of the words of a song. "What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive".
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jan 1, 2014 21:31:46 GMT -5
I can't answer for the critic, but he/she didn't state that workers say there are true believers in other fellowships. He/she simply stated that "there can be true believers outside our fellowship." as you point out. The truth is, I think that most workers today do believe that, mostly limited to the people you suggest who are unable to meet the workers or go to meetings. It's not much for non-exclusivity but it does bear noting as it is commonplace among workers from what I understand. I think most also believe that there are people in other church groups who are true believers but simply haven't gotten out yet. I doubt that the critic or the workers are stating that their idea of true belief is common among those in other churches. I would expect that most workers figure all who have left the meetings are definitely unsaved. While it doesn't sound like much, this is a major move from 40 years ago where there would never have been any exceptions to the exclusive rule. Also 40 years ago, there was a palpable hatred toward anything to do with other churches. Not so today. Although there isn't any love for other churches, the hatred is largely gone and is replaced with a neutrality or even a bit of respect in some cases. Again, it's not much but it is worth noting in any proper academic study of 2x2ism which seeks to describe 2x2ism today. What does all that mean, if anything? I see a trend and predict that within a few years, there will be a rapid disappearance of what I call "individual exclusivity" and it will be replaced by what I call "institutional exclusivity". That is, there will be a genuine and widespread stance of non-judgmentalism toward individuals outside of meetings while hanging on to the idea that the meeting system is the only right church system. So, under that scenario, you could be a true believer in any fellowship system and you would simply be in the wrong fellowship system. This is how the Mormons have trended and where they are at right now on exclusivity. The 2x2's don't have any choice but to go in that direction. Not only will societies not tolerate a group that condemns individuals, it's not a sound Christian position to begin with. My last paragraph wouldn't have to form part of an academic study of 2x2ism but a good study would examine trends and extrapolate them into the future. That statement made by the critic, as well as by Virgo, is dishonest in spirit, if not in truth. It seeks to obfuscate the issue and mitigate the shame felt around the truth that the workers and friends are not free to publicly state that they believe that there are those outside our fellowship who are our brothers in sisters in Christ, even if they choose to belong to another denomination. The answer that is given by the critic means nothing and adds nothing to the conversation. It is simply a means of "damage control". Which brings to mind a bigger question- why the shame and fear from the friends and workers about speaking openly and positively about the CORE CENTRAL DOCTRINE? Isn't it a big RED FLAG when the central doctrine cannot even be honestly addressed by those like the critic of Mr. Grey's book or Virgo?
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jan 1, 2014 22:22:14 GMT -5
I don't know if theres any significant change from 40 years ago as I wasn't paying attention but I know first hand that what Virgo and the critic have said isn't any different than the semantic trickery being used 25-30 years back when I first noticed it. Even back then there were essential qualifications that were left unsaid in those sorts of statements given to outsiders and people who hadn't yet got the revelation. The friends knew - and I believe still know - 'the rest of the story' but the hearers seldom caught on that they were being fed a line that let them hear what they wanted to hear. The biggest unspoken qualification was - and I believe still is - that God would be sure to put those honest seeking souls who could be saved into contact with the workers so that they could hear the true gospel message and profess.
I don't know if I view it as damage control because it was being used even back when there was still a lot of growth happening. Another thing that kept being whispered back then over 30 years ago was that changes were on the horizon and if we'd just hold on and wait for the older workers to pass on that we'd see all the problems be resolved. It never happened and I have no more hope for that tale when all that ever happens is cosmetic rearranging of the store shelves and no real change in the goods.
|
|
|
Post by gecko45 on Jan 2, 2014 0:39:15 GMT -5
I was reading through a critique at sites.google.com/site/2x2history/the-shape-of-a-shapeless-movement/pages-1-to-32 of Irvine Grey's book, "Two by Two" The Shape of a Shapeless Movement, and came across this statement: Workers in our part of the world recognise that people come to their own revelation from God, and accept that there can be true believers outside our own fellowship."The "in our part of the world" seems to indicate New Zealand/Australia. Virgo has made a similar statement in another thread, and he too, is from that part of the world. I have asked Virgo to provide me the name of the workers who preach that there can be true believers outside of our fellowship. He has yet to respond. I have YET to have any to EVER GIVE THE NAME of workers who believe that there are true believers outside of our fellowship that are in an area with workers but that meet with other faiths such a Baptist, Methodist, or whatever. Not one. And as I pointed out to Virgo, Lyle Schober, the overseer of Texas in the United States excommunicated someone who believed that. I was once a worker. I know how to play the game and recognize it when others are playing it too. "True believers outside of our own fellowship" means those that are in areas that there are no workers or circumstances where they cannot get to meetings but that have honest hearts and if their circumstances were different and they could get to meeting, then they would." The "true believers outside of our own fellowship" almost universally does not mean someone that chooses to reject the worker's message and that remains within a different religious affiliation.
So, Virgo, (and to the others professing in New Zealand and Australia)- what are the names of the workers who PREACH publicly that there are true believers in other fellowships? I have never met a worker, (or one of the friends) who was not of the mindset, (at least in public) that Christian salvation is only available to those that attend meetings. At the most some will give, grudgingly, an exception to those who could/can not get access to the workers and their message. The fate of any person who has opportunity to attend meetings (and be a fully participating member of the 2x2 fellowship) and chooses not to, is not very pleasant. Exclusivity is not only alive but a cornerstone of the doctrine as I have heard it preached.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 2, 2014 1:26:15 GMT -5
I don't know if theres any significant change from 40 years ago as I wasn't paying attention but I know first hand that what Virgo and the critic have said isn't any different than the semantic trickery being used 25-30 years back when I first noticed it. Even back then there were essential qualifications that were left unsaid in those sorts of statements given to outsiders and people who hadn't yet got the revelation. The friends knew - and I believe still know - 'the rest of the story' but the hearers seldom caught on that they were being fed a line that let them hear what they wanted to hear. The biggest unspoken qualification was - and I believe still is - that God would be sure to put those honest seeking souls who could be saved into contact with the workers so that they could hear the true gospel message and profess. I don't know if I view it as damage control because it was being used even back when there was still a lot of growth happening. Another thing that kept being whispered back then over 30 years ago was that changes were on the horizon and if we'd just hold on and wait for the older workers to pass on that we'd see all the problems be resolved. It never happened and I have no more hope for that tale when all that ever happens is cosmetic rearranging of the store shelves and no real change in the goods. You said it so very well, blandie!
What a great analogy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 3:48:15 GMT -5
Shock discovery - "Workers in our part of the world recognise that people come to their own revelation from God, and accept that there can be true believers outside our own fellowship."
Happened throughout the bible. But if you come into our church you must come through the Workers and be baptised. Recall those of the unnamed church of John the Baptist. They had to be baptised into the Apostolic Church. Our belief is that none but God can judge who ultimately belongs to God. What we are allowed to judge is what is Right, and what is Wrong.
Like the Secret Sect and TTT etc this demonstrates not just the error of misrepresentation, but clearly, the intention to misrepresent. Yes, I reckon I could sell a bridge.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jan 2, 2014 4:13:21 GMT -5
Shock discovery - " Workers in our part of the world recognise that people come to their own revelation from God, and accept that there can be true believers outside our own fellowship." Happened throughout the bible. But if you come into our church you must come through the Workers and be baptised. Recall those of the unnamed church of John the Baptist. They had to be baptised into the Apostolic Church. Our belief is that none but God can judge who ultimately belongs to God. What we are allowed to judge is what is Right, and what is Wrong. Like the Secret Sect and TTT etc this demonstrates not just the error of misrepresentation, but clearly, the intention to misrepresent. Yes, I reckon I could sell a bridge. Philip wasn't an apostle. Yet, he witnessed to a man- the eunuch, a servant of Candace, the Queen of Ethiopia, and who had charge of all her treasure. He answered the man's bible questions, and he baptized him. The workers wouldn't recognize that man's conversion or baptism. And Philip would be excommunicated based on Lyle's actions that we have to believe in the "preacher without a home and the church in the home" for someone to be counted as a believer. (Acts 8, by the way).
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 2, 2014 4:23:02 GMT -5
Our belief is that none but God can judge who ultimately belongs to God. What we are allowed to judge is what is Right, and what is Wrong. So you judge everything outside of our church as wrong, therefore those who are not inside are wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 4:24:31 GMT -5
Well, this man Phillip fled the persecution in Jerusalem. He was of the church. If that church, or any such church since, allowed any member to baptize or create doctrine we might end up like many of the churches - utter chaos, doctrinal dispute and splitting.
and ps. wanna buy a bridge? Here was the eunuch reading scripture and declaring he couldn't understand unless he was "guided." There is the "living witness."
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jan 2, 2014 4:36:46 GMT -5
Well, this man Phillip fled the persecution in Jerusalem. He was of the church. If that church, or any such church since, allowed any member to baptize or create doctrine we might end up like many of the churches - utter chaos, doctrinal dispute and splitting. and ps. wanna buy a bridge? Here was the eunuch reading scripture and declaring he couldn't understand unless he was "guided." There is the "living witness." I see. So, the Spirit made a mistake by directing Philip to the man? And, the Spirit can't direct in the lives of people now, except if the person has the title of worker? And the Spirit can't keep unity among those who profess to follow Christ, unless they are led by a worker? Odd, because after Philip baptized the man, "And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip , that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing." Acts 8:39 What you are describing, Bert, is how the workers interpret John 10. That is that the workers are the door to the Shepherd. (Even though Jesus said that He was the door.) This is patently not scriptural, but the workers preach it that way anyway. Because, it would just be chaos (your words) if the Lord could speak directly to His people. Like Paul. Or, William Irvine. And in answer to your P.S. - the Spirit directed a man, a deacon, to the eunuch. Not an apostle (or worker), but a deacon. And of course he was a living witness- it would be difficult for a dead person to speak- and also, does that mean you believe in the living witness doctrine?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 4:47:30 GMT -5
Phillip baptized the eunuch who was probably never to be seen in Israel again. Do you know of any other that Phillip baptized? I understand that those of Samaria who heard Phillip preach were later baptized by the Apostles? And Phillip retired to have a family.
It interesting that this church DID NOT RECOGNIZE EVEN THE BAPTISM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.
|
|