|
Post by quizzer on Jan 3, 2014 12:39:29 GMT -5
Quote - " At convention, an elderly professing lady mentioned that there was a 2x2 family that had left the meetings and was now attending a nearby church. The amazing part was that she added, "...and some of the friends and workers say that like it's a BAD thing!" This is a lady who dresses the 2x2 part and has a daughter in the work. She was also good friends with the family and has seen her meeting shrink. Still, it was interesting that she was upset with the whole concept of exclusivity, institutional or otherwise." Quizzer, do you believe all ways lead to God? If not, where do you draw the line? I draw the line of whether you are living in a healthy, positive lifestyle. Yes, I do believe that this intention, as seen in a lifestyle, is evidence that you are growing closer to God. Yes, I am highly inclusive.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jan 3, 2014 14:06:39 GMT -5
The review at sites.google.com/site/2x2history/the-shape-of-a-shapeless-movement has an introduction that notes: The Analysis below was prepared to review the extent to which Irvine Grey has followed accepted standards of academic rigour, such as neutrality and lack of bias, accuracy, fairness etc in writing his Queen's University Belfast MPhil degree thesis [1] (which formed the basis for this book) and whether the additional material in the book [2] meets the same standards.
Thus the review aimed to examine whether Grey's statements were accurate. If he had said " Many claim that salvation is only by hearing ‘the truth’ from one of their workers" then the review would not have commented on his statement. It is an example of the many generalisations in his book that are not universally true but were not qualified or limited by Grey. Statements like that don't require a bunch of qualifications and it is unfair to demand that any writer picks out and explain any instance where there may be nonconformists who might disagree. There isn't anything in any system that someone probably hasn't questioned or disagreed with at some time and that those silent or spoken dissents don't change what the system stands for and advocates and demands. We call that 'unwilling for' and it is a sign of weakness and not of significant dissent. I have still not heard a single unambiguous statement here or anywhere else from a worker that a person can have salvation in another way and not ever come into contact with or hear the workers or friends or even can refuse to hear the workers and still have salvation. That flies in the face of what has been taught and believed and what is still taught and believed. There have been some waffling around the edges to make it seem that there is room for salvation in some other manner - but that is usually because the question was not clearly asked and a bit of deception keeps the questioner from being offended or keeps the workers from having to argue their case or maybe would cause other listeners to turn away who might be interested in professing or reprofessing. The same deflect-and-deceive happens with the trinity questions with the history questions with the organization questions and just about anything else asked. Those are no basis on which to deny the stance of the F&W church. I suspect Irvine Grey knows perfectly well that there may be a few silent dissenters and even a fewer willing to voice it only in safe places like here. What is unfair is to nit-pick and make unreasonable criticisms of statements and especially to suggest that he misrepresented when the fact is completely unproven that a single worker has clearly and/or publicly stated that a person can be saved apart from hearing the gospel from the workers and need never to hear or profess through the workers. Most everybody here knows the word games that F&W's play that remind me of Bill Clinton's famous 'It depends on what is is' - technically accurate but misleading and Mr. Grey should instead be commended for not falling for such supposed and unverified 'non exclusive' statements that hardly seem to exist outside iffy forums such as this. I only just got a copy of the book but I'm more inclined to trust the university reviewers for 'academic rigour' than an anonymous online review and especially since I'm completely unconvinced of statements like have been latched onto above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 14:25:26 GMT -5
It's been mentioned on this thread that maybe some f and w's have said that there are people out there that are saved despite not having had an opportunity to meet "The Truth". The ones I have heard say this qualify this by saying that God will eventually lead them to the truth or lead the workers to them. It would be interesting to see such a meeting and see whether these quasi saved people accept the f and w way or reject it. Hang on, that's already happening every day as they go about there daily lives, and do we see a mass migration to the f and w's? Of course not. Salvation is not the prerogative of the workers, never has been, never will be. If you believe that you may as well invest with Bernie Madoff as well.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 3, 2014 14:48:48 GMT -5
even some ex-2x2's are 2x2 exclusive! Yes they are. Some have so completely bought into the F&W's being the closest to the bible that they have the same horror as dyed-in-the-wool hearty friends of talking to other believers or taking a look at the bible from any angle other than what they were taught or finding out what other people believe. If you ask em they tell you that it is the only way and won't hear a thing said against it and they have completely bought into the idea that they are the ones at fault for not being willing for the standards and submission. It is sad and they are really affected about their situation but they won't explore it. I was one of those once. When I quit professing at 12 because I didn't like the exclusivity and the God that dictated that exclusivity, I still thought it was possible that the 2x2's were the only right way. I was certain I was headed for hell by leaving the Truth. As I matured and I understood more, of course that changed. But there was a few years in my teen years that I definitely felt that way.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 3, 2014 14:52:57 GMT -5
Quote - " At convention, an elderly professing lady mentioned that there was a 2x2 family that had left the meetings and was now attending a nearby church. The amazing part was that she added, "...and some of the friends and workers say that like it's a BAD thing!" This is a lady who dresses the 2x2 part and has a daughter in the work. She was also good friends with the family and has seen her meeting shrink. Still, it was interesting that she was upset with the whole concept of exclusivity, institutional or otherwise." Quizzer, do you believe all ways lead to God? If not, where do you draw the line? Well you'd better hope all ways lead to God. After all religions say the other religions are wrong or that they worship the wrong God etc. So that would make it that no one is saved and gets to go home to God because the religions all rule each other out. So all ways lead to God or no ways lead to God. Take your pick.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 3, 2014 15:35:15 GMT -5
It's been mentioned on this thread that maybe some f and w's have said that there are people out there that are saved despite not having had an opportunity to meet "The Truth". The ones I have heard say this qualify this by saying that God will eventually lead them to the truth or lead the workers to them. It would be interesting to see such a meeting and see whether these quasi saved people accept the f and w way or reject it. Hang on, that's already happening every day as they go about there daily lives, and do we see a mass migration to the f and w's? Of course not. Salvation is not the prerogative of the workers, never has been, never will be.
If you believe that you may as well invest with Bernie Madoff as well. Never-the-less, we were definitely led to believe that salvation came by hearing and obeying the workers.
Sadly, some of us did "invest" a lot of our lives in that idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 17:25:58 GMT -5
Oh okay Ram, whatever you say. Do you think he had a partner or partners? I mean, you said something about the Jewish tradition of witness. And do you think Phillip abandoned his girls to go preaching? Or maybe he set up a rival ministry, you know - nice home, car, salary, superannuation and got a local fashion company to design him some lovely clerical garbs?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 17:38:37 GMT -5
Quote - "Never-the-less, we were definitely led to believe that salvation came by hearing and obeying the workers. Dmmichgood"
That's what a lot said about following Peter and Paul. Paul et al railed against those who left their little churches as if they had a monopoly on Christianity.
Quote - "Quizzer, do you believe all ways lead to God? If not, where do you draw the line?"
Quizzer, this is the NUMBER 1 UNANSWERED QUESTION OF ALL TIME. But to answer some who think the answer is "those who believe in Jesus" I will posit the following
Where do you draw the line? Roman Catholic Orthodox (who broke away) Protestant in general Charismatic style Salvation Army style Supermarket mega chuches Liberal Theology churches Moonies Temple of Jim Jones
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 18:29:34 GMT -5
Oh okay Ram, whatever you say. No Bert, it is what Jesus and the Bible reveals! Nothing to do with me!Do you think he had a partner or partners? If you mean partners in the Gospel, then the Bible is quite clear that Philip was alone.
I mean, you said something about the Jewish tradition of witness. Yes but please understand the laws of corroboration! Support for a testimony must come from another source, such as another similar testimony, or a source that is equivalent to another testimony, e.g. working of miracles (sign to the Jews). God's own testimony of his Son.Later the Holy Ghost also bears witness under the age of grace.And do you think Phillip abandoned his girls to go preaching? The Jews were scattered. Perhaps his family went separate from him to Caeserea? Philip was guided by the Holy Ghost. Just him and the Holy Ghost. Two witnesses if you like.
Or maybe he set up a rival ministry, you know - nice home, car, salary, superannuation and got a local fashion company to design him some lovely clerical garbs? Well I don't know about that. At one point Peter and John followed after him to unleash the Holy Spirit to those who had professed through him. Also Paul was happy to lodge with him at Caeserea? It's all in the Bible Bert. Do you really believe that William Irvine is one of the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation? Is that what you are holding on to? Keep your faith in the old Jewish law long enough and at the end of the Gentile age when the Holy Spirit is withdrawn and the Jews get another chance and you will then be right!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 18:36:08 GMT -5
Quote - " Do you really believe that William Irvine is one of the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation?"
No, Irvine is an Exe who believed he "founded" my church. My church bears no relationship to this man, his beliefs or his behavior.
Quote - "Is that what you are holding on to? Keep your faith in the old Jewish law long enough and at the end of the Gentile age when the Holy Spirit is withdrawn and the Jews get another chance and you will then be right!"
You know us well. You have to answer that yourself, Ram.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 3, 2014 18:47:32 GMT -5
Quote - "Never-the-less, we were definitely led to believe that salvation came by hearing and obeying the workers. Dmmichgood" That's what a lot said about following Peter and Paul. Paul et al railed against those who left their little churches as if they had a monopoly on Christianity.
where is your scripture for this, bert?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 19:00:44 GMT -5
Quote - " Do you really believe that William Irvine is one of the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation?" No, Irvine is an Exe who believed he "founded" my church. My church bears no relationship to this man, his beliefs or his behavior. Not true. Everyone else on this board will see that you share this man's "revelation" of Matt.10, in the necessity to obey the old Jewish law of two or more witnesses, but in addition, in a preaching method, especially one reserved for a few.
Quote - "Is that what you are holding on to? Keep your faith in the old Jewish law long enough and at the end of the Gentile age when the Holy Spirit is withdrawn and the Jews get another chance and you will then be right!" You know us well. You have to answer that yourself, Ram. I believe in the testimony of the Holy Ghost which acts in agency with one or more of God's witnesses in this age of grace and also it works on its own, in order to win souls for Christ. The Holy Ghost is such an important witness in this age that rejecting its testimony brings no forgiveness.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 3, 2014 19:02:44 GMT -5
Quote - " Do you really believe that William Irvine is one of the two witnesses mentioned in Revelation?" No, my church. My church bears no relationship to this man, his beliefs or his behavior. You are deceiving yourself, bert!
YOUR CHURCH started with Irvine!
I knew the basics of the beginnings of the **TRUTH** at least 70 years ago when I was just a child!
You can stick your head in the sand & try to think it isn't true if it makes you feel secure, but it just ain't so!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 19:07:46 GMT -5
If I read out a recipe from a cook book to my family, am I the author of that recipe?
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jan 3, 2014 21:40:29 GMT -5
If I read out a recipe from a cook book to my family, am I the author of that recipe? If you take a recipe for boiled potatoes with a bit of parsley and rework it according to what you like with some bacon and cheddar and sauteed onion and a few more things that weren't spelled out in the original recipe then YES you become the author of a new recipe. You don't get to claim authorship of the original recipe but you also don't get to claim that you are following the original recipe when people point out that its only similarity is that it contains a potato.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 21:48:36 GMT -5
mmm.... sounds lovely. I agree. Some see the bare bones Gospel of the apostles as nothing more than a boiled potato. Pretty soon you get white gowns, chalices, religious holidays and inquisitions.
So if you get your church to accept Papal Infallibility then you go back to the 19th Century. If you get your church to dress in white and sit up on the night of the Resurrection then you go back to the 2nd Century, and if you believe that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands then you go back to Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jan 4, 2014 1:31:24 GMT -5
So if you get your church to accept Papal Infallibility then you go back to the 19th Century. So, if one get their believers to accept that to lose respect for a worker is the same as losing respect for God, then one has created a foundation of a very abusive system of worship. If one can get their believers to buy into the whopper of a tale that the workers = apostles and that their ministry = the ministry that Jesus setup on the earth, well, you might even be able to convince them that any that do not follow the workers and their ministry, then they are going to hell, because all other denominations and faiths on the earth are false and of the devil and led by hirelings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 1:37:16 GMT -5
Well, you can believe that the Pope, or Archbishop, or Ayatollah, or the 15th Dalai Lama - that is your prerogative. The alternative is to believe that YOU yourself fill that role, and can adjudicate on any doctrinal matter. In our church, like Paul's, we accept those who preach the Gospel are the ones who rule over the church.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jan 4, 2014 3:30:01 GMT -5
mmm.... sounds lovely. I agree. Some see the bare bones Gospel of the apostles as nothing more than a boiled potato. Pretty soon you get white gowns, chalices, religious holidays and inquisitions. So if you get your church to accept Papal Infallibility then you go back to the 19th Century. If you get your church to dress in white and sit up on the night of the Resurrection then you go back to the 2nd Century, and if you believe that God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands then you go back to Jesus. I don't see much difference and the F&W's seem to have followed the same path to making up their own recipe. None of the things that make the F&W's different is Jesus. Jesus-plus is not the same as Jesus but it is what the apostle Paul called 'another Jesus' and the bare bones gospel thats claimed to be preached isn't either. You could have said instead that Pretty soon you get - buns and workers wearing $300 shoes
- convention facilities used for no other purpose while keeping up the fiction of having no buildings
- mandatory attendance at convention and gospel meetings and Sunday meetings and midweek meetings
- and excommunications of dissenters
If the organization of workers and meetings went back to Jesus you might have a point but it doesn't. It doesn't even come close and that other groups may also fail to come close doesn't excuse the workers system and its hypocrisy of criticizing others for doing things that they do in ways that differ in superficial ways that are so thin that only the blind can't see through.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jan 4, 2014 5:30:40 GMT -5
Quote - "Never-the-less, we were definitely led to believe that salvation came by hearing and obeying the workers. Dmmichgood"
That's what a lot said about following Peter and Paul. Paul et al railed against those who left their little churches as if they had a monopoly on Christianity. Quote - "Quizzer, do you believe all ways lead to God? If not, where do you draw the line?" Quizzer, this is the NUMBER 1 UNANSWERED QUESTION OF ALL TIME. But to answer some who think the answer is "those who believe in Jesus" I will posit the following Where do you draw the line? Roman Catholic Orthodox (who broke away) Protestant in general Charismatic style Salvation Army style Supermarket mega chuches Liberal Theology churches Moonies Temple of Jim Jones I would apply the same principle to institutions as I would to individuals. I would even go so far as to same some individual churches within an institution can be doing healthy, positive things while the institution cannot. If you want blind condemnation, don't look at me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 5:49:16 GMT -5
Quote - "buns and workers wearing $300 shoes" John 19:23-24 "Now the coat was without seam, woven whole from the top down. Therefore, they said among themselves, let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it will become." 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 - "... it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved..."
Quote - "mandatory attendance at convention and gospel meetings and Sunday meetings and midweek meetings Hebrews 10:25 - "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another..."
Quote - "and excommunications of dissenters" 2 Cor 13 "This will be the third time I am coming to you. By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established: If I come again I will not spare." Titus 3:10 - "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him..."
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 4, 2014 11:23:52 GMT -5
Well, you can believe that the Pope, or Archbishop, or Ayatollah, or the 15th Dalai Lama - that is your prerogative. The alternative is to believe that YOU yourself fill that role, and can adjudicate on any doctrinal matter. In our church, like Paul's, we accept those who preach the Gospel are the ones who rule over the church. Imo that's where all religions have got it wrong. No one should 'rule' over anyone else. We are all equal in spiritual matters. God doesn't play favorites. I know sacred books like to say otherwise, but I strongly disagree with that premise. Why would an all loving, all forgiving, all merciful, all powerful being ever have to play favorites? When you recognize another human as a 'ruler', then you are giving away your spiritual power to a human and not to the God you are supposed to have a personal relationship with. If you just talked to God you would have all the information you at present look to the workers and the pope for. They don't have anything 'better' than you have as far as connecting with the divine.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jan 4, 2014 15:01:56 GMT -5
Quote - "buns and workers wearing $300 shoes" John 19:23-24 "Now the coat was without seam, woven whole from the top down. Therefore, they said among themselves, let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it will become." 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 - "... it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved..." Quote - "mandatory attendance at convention and gospel meetings and Sunday meetings and midweek meetings Hebrews 10:25 - "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another..." Quote - "and excommunications of dissenters" 2 Cor 13 "This will be the third time I am coming to you. By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established: If I come again I will not spare." Titus 3:10 - "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him..." It is disheartening to see you using the bible to defend the workers for doing no differently than what you have been using to condemn others.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jan 5, 2014 8:28:46 GMT -5
Quote - "buns and workers wearing $300 shoes" John 19:23-24 "Now the coat was without seam, woven whole from the top down. Therefore, they said among themselves, let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it will become." 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 - "... it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved..." Quote - "mandatory attendance at convention and gospel meetings and Sunday meetings and midweek meetings Hebrews 10:25 - "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another..." Quote - "and excommunications of dissenters" 2 Cor 13 "This will be the third time I am coming to you. By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established: If I come again I will not spare." Titus 3:10 - "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him..." It is disheartening to see you using the bible to defend the workers for doing no differently than what you have been using to condemn others. If the workers play like this, it makes sense that we don't have workers on TMB. After all, two or three disagreeable posts, and they'd have to leave TMB. Of course, that doesn't slow down some of the wild brother workers we've had on TMB, but still...
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jan 5, 2014 10:43:21 GMT -5
Quote - "buns and workers wearing $300 shoes" John 19:23-24 "Now the coat was without seam, woven whole from the top down. Therefore, they said among themselves, let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it will become." 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 - "... it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved..." Quote - "mandatory attendance at convention and gospel meetings and Sunday meetings and midweek meetings Hebrews 10:25 - "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another..." Quote - "and excommunications of dissenters" 2 Cor 13 "This will be the third time I am coming to you. By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established: If I come again I will not spare." Titus 3:10 - "As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him..." It is interesting to me, Bert, that you completely miss the irony of your post in regards to the post that you responded to. You validated Blandie's post by your response.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 5, 2014 14:58:17 GMT -5
Well, you can believe that the Pope, or Archbishop, or Ayatollah, or the 15th Dalai Lama - that is your prerogative. The alternative is to believe that YOU yourself fill that role, and can adjudicate on any doctrinal matter. In our church, like Paul's, we accept those who preach the Gospel are the ones who rule over the church. Bert, this gets to be downright annoying!
YOUR church, the **TRUTH** is no more like Paul's "church" than actually Paul's "church" had any relationship to what Jesus taught!
You can deceive yourself but you can't deceive all the rest of us!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 18:39:28 GMT -5
Well, you can believe that the Pope, or Archbishop, or Ayatollah, or the 15th Dalai Lama - that is your prerogative. The alternative is to believe that YOU yourself fill that role, and can adjudicate on any doctrinal matter. In our church, like Paul's, we accept those who preach the Gospel are the ones who rule over the church. Bert, this gets to be downright annoying!
YOUR church, the **TRUTH** is no more like Paul's "church" than actually Paul's "church" had any relationship to what Jesus taught!
You can deceive yourself but you can't deceive all the rest of us!
dmg; Bert, Virgo, and some others, are living proof what many of us have stated about such people and their beliefs. When they post as they do, they validate the posts of those trying to help the thousands of others visiting here as "guests" by pointing out the deceit, deceptions and what many mean regarding "twisting of scriptures." Perhaps it is the best for everyone when these 2&2 worker apologists post about "our church" as they do?
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jan 6, 2014 9:30:55 GMT -5
Bert, this gets to be downright annoying!
YOUR church, the **TRUTH** is no more like Paul's "church" than actually Paul's "church" had any relationship to what Jesus taught!
You can deceive yourself but you can't deceive all the rest of us!
dmg; Bert, Virgo, and some others, are living proof what many of us have stated about such people and their beliefs. When they post as they do, they validate the posts of those trying to help the thousands of others visiting here as "guests" by pointing out the deceit, deceptions and what many mean regarding "twisting of scriptures." Perhaps it is the best for everyone when these 2&2 worker apologists post about "our church" as they do?Dennis. Shh. I don't want Bert going away. What you write is a truth about this board that I have long recognized. Bert, Virgo, Kiwi, noels, et. al., should be welcomed with open arms- their comments make this board what it is.
|
|