|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 12, 2015 8:00:39 GMT -5
From another thread: Edward Cooney was a great F&W preacher, and brought many individuals to Christ whose families continue today in faith, either in your branch of the church fellowship started by Wm Irvine, Maryhig, or in the other (2x2) one. Like fixit says, nobody here is going to have any bone to pick with Eddie Cooney. So, having him in our backgrounds is a badge we can wear with gratitude. In fact, Wm Irvine would get far worse press on TMB. And anyway, we're not supporters of Cooney or Irvine or any other man or woman, but of the Lord Jesus Christ. And as you said, that is what unites us - all one in Christ Jesus. admin I think Edward Cooney was more influential on the growth of the early F&W movement than William Irvine. William kicked it off, and was much respected by the early workers for having done so. Eddie drove the movement forward. Just my opinion, from what I've read. |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jun 12, 2015 9:56:08 GMT -5
From another thread: I think Edward Cooney was more influential on the growth of the early F&W movement than William Irvine. William kicked it off, and was much respected by the early workers for having done so. Eddie drove the movement forward. Just my opinion, from what I've read. I don't recall the 2x2 workers ever preaching about that rock Peter. Probably because the RCC claim that as a focus? Matthew 16:18 also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. |
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jun 12, 2015 10:49:43 GMT -5
From another thread: I think Edward Cooney was more influential on the growth of the early F&W movement than William Irvine. William kicked it off, and was much respected by the early workers for having done so. Eddie drove the movement forward. Just my opinion, from what I've read. Well I don't know much, only that he was a good man of God, I have heard a couple of things about him. My aunt went to one of the meetings in Ireland when she was young, she went with her mother, and she said Edward had piercing blue eyes and was a strong speaker. I heard of his kindness and compassion toward people in the meetings but I don't know much about him. I've got a book with letters in it from men in the way early on. Some of Edwards are in there, I'll have to have a read. I really only read the bible. But regardless of who the man or women is, your only as strong as Gods spirit is within you, and they always say in our meeting. It's not the man that's important, it's Gods holy spirit within the hearts. We're just the vessel used by God to reach others. And as long as he's with us, his everlasting spring of living waters will be keeping us clean! As long as we love him, have faith and deny the flesh and follow Jesus, he will remain with us! |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 12, 2015 16:41:32 GMT -5
Well I don't know much, only that he was a good man of God, I have heard a couple of things about him. My aunt went to one of the meetings in Ireland when she was young, she went with her mother, and she said Edward had piercing blue eyes and was a strong speaker. I heard of his kindness and compassion toward people in the meetings but I don't know much about him. I've got a book with letters in it from men in the way early on. Some of Edwards are in there, I'll have to have a read. I really only read the bible. But regardless of who the man or women is, your only as strong as Gods spirit is within you, and they always say in our meeting. It's not the man that's important, it's Gods holy spirit within the hearts. We're just the vessel used by God to reach others. And as long as he's with us, his everlasting spring of living waters will be keeping us clean! As long as we love him, have faith and deny the flesh and follow Jesus, he will remain with us! I love this post.  I think any worker would agree with your statements above. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 12, 2015 17:29:11 GMT -5
It wasn't about William Irvine or Eddie Cooney! It was inspired and moved forward by the Holy Spirit working in the dozens and hundreds of lives in many countries in the early decades of the 20th century. Many didn't have the 'public profile' of Willie Gill, George Walker, the Carroll brothers, Wilson Reid, Wilson and Annie McClung to name just a few that first come to mind. These hundreds are perhaps mostly forgotten and relatively unknown now in our present generation 100 years later but they are not forgotten in heaven! Thankfully our fellowship is not about Gill, Walker, Carrolls, Irvine, Reid, Hughes, Cooney, McClungs...or the now unknown and mostly forgotten co workers of those I name here. It was and still is the work of the Holy Spirit as it moves and works in lives yielded to its leading and control! And the name 'review005' will live on, for a very, very long time... in the annals of the TMB! (That's a joke review, glad you're on here. And glad for the reminder of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, moving through the lives of all true believers yielded to Him. What many of us want most, revival in our church, can only come through the Holy Spirit. Let's pray more urgently for that breath of revival amongst us) admin |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 13, 2015 0:30:10 GMT -5
Admin you wrote: "What many of us want most, revival in our church, can only come through the Holy Spirit. Let's pray more urgently for that breath of revival amongst us"Would appreciate you explaining your experience and the background to the sentiments you have expressed! Are you referring to a personal revival in the individual lives. Needed because a 'deadness' has come in their experience? Or are you referring to what you feel as a 'deadness'/lack of life and spirituality in the church where you live? Or are you making a global statement? Thanks! It's a very good question, thanks review. I think I mean globally. But to avoid anyone jumping on my statement, there may be parts of the F&W world where this does not apply such as your own field. However, from personal experience and what friends have been saying for a long time now from many different areas, this is more of a widespread need. You really spelt out what is needed in this line of your earlier post "It was inspired and moved forward by the Holy Spirit working in the dozens and hundreds of lives in many countries in the early decades of the 20th century." This is not happening today, globally in our fellowship. Back then when you say the Holy Spirit was working mightily, our fellowship was relevant for those hundreds of churchgoers who sensed a deadness in their denominational churches. Today in various places where many of us live, almost nobody from other churches comes and continues with missions. Why? Well, perhaps there is no strong sense of the Holy Spirit at work? I'm not sure, I'm not one of them. But for whatever reason, they either don't come or don't keep coming. But I can tell you that what is preached is often not "Jesus only, Jesus ever". Too often the message in gospel meeting is about believing in the church in the home and a homeless 2x2 ministry 'like Jesus commanded'. That is all very well, but it is not a gospel message for salvation. Not according to my bible, anyway. And anyone coming to those gospel meetings from another church is likely to know their bibles rather well. The emphasis is to cause the audience to learn the importance of believing in our form of worship (home) and Ministry (2x2), rather than (or sometimes, as well as) Jesus, Lamb of God for sinners slain. It's possible most Workers aren't even aware, rather it is more an ingrained habit from a tradition that has formed. I have responded openly and honestly to your question, review. Before anyone criticizes my response, this may not be true of all gospel meetings. But it is true in my region, and in many other places where I have friends who say the same. Your own gospel meetings review in your land may be very different. But probably your experience of being in other Worker's gospel missions is somewhat limited. That hymn starts "Jesus is our only message, Jesus all our theme shall be". Good to get back to that as the theme for all gospel meetings. Back to basics. Perhaps then we might see great revival, like back when you wrote about. Incidentally, I wonder why the title of that hymn (by Charles C Converse) was changed to "Jesus Now and Jesus Ever"? What was wrong with "Jesus only"? admin |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2015 14:25:54 GMT -5
While here, want to address this also.
In 1966, as a young completely ignorant, naive, idealistic, fully indoctriated worker, believing overseers would never tell me something untrue, I felt compelled to answer questions regarding a "cooneyite" pamphlet, recognizing I knew literally nothing about what it was about. So, I went to my overseer, then Ralph Sines, now deceased. I remember the exact time and place of that conversation.
He told me it had no reference to us nor what we believed, rather to those who followed Edward Cooney "out" when he went "bad."
I believed that as true until discovering what was really true about that which I had been taught and indoctrinated to believe as "the Truth," after being excommunicated in 1986, many years later. It came as an utter shock to me when I read Jack Carroll's letter expressing after Edward Cooney's "departure" that "now we can be free of the cooneyite name that has plagued us for years!
Needless to say, I devoured everything I could find about Edward Cooney, and came to the conclusion he had been disappointed also in that which he once had taught and believed true.
Reminds me now of what Harold Stuart, now deceased, anguished to his family members before he died, and confirmed to me by two of them, "why weren't we told of these things?"
Yes, "why weren't we?"
Why was Charlie Krub, one of the finest men and companions I ever knew, put out of fellowship and died "outside" after over 40 years in "the work?"
He was one of my very best friends, yet nobody even cared enough to let me know of his excommunication and death until long afterward. Sad sigh. Oh the price so many of us have paid through the years, possibly for naught.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 13, 2015 18:33:26 GMT -5
I know! I know!*
The elimination of "Jesus only..." was done to align the F&W with Arminianism as opposed to Calvinism and Lutheranism. Grace alone is not enough. Ask Bert.
*Source: Absolutely, completely and utterly unsubstantiated. Certainly it was changed for doctrinal reasons; precisely what that doctrinal reason was is up for debate. It could have been as outlined above. On the other hand, it could have been an effort to distance the F&W from the oneness Pentecostal "Jesus Only" movement.
|
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 13, 2015 20:13:07 GMT -5
I know! I know! The elimination of "Jesus only..." was done to align the F&W with Arminianism as opposed to Calvinism and Lutheranism. Grace alone is not enough. Ask Bert. The hymn still says, "Jesus is our only message..." Wouldn't "Jesus only is our message" leave out the Father and Holy Spirit? |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 13, 2015 20:18:41 GMT -5
I know! I know! The elimination of "Jesus only..." was done to align the F&W with Arminianism as opposed to Calvinism and Lutheranism. Grace alone is not enough. Ask Bert. The hymn still says, "Jesus is our only message..." Wouldn't "Jesus only is our message" leave out the Father and Holy Spirit? Well, no, not if you believe that the Father and the Holy Spirit are fully represented in the Son: www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/april1/22.60.html 'Jesus Only' Isn't Enough Where exactly do Oneness Pentecostals stand in relation to orthodoxy? Are they in or out? J. Stephen Lang/ April 1, 2002 Where exactly do "Oneness" Pentecostals stand in relation to orthodoxy? Are they in or out?—Fred Askins, Commerce City, Colorado The decisive word in the origins of "Jesus only" (or Oneness) Pentecostals is probably apostolic. Beginning about 1913, certain Pentecostal ministers began to ask, "What is the correct apostolic formula for baptizing believers?" Several ministers concluded that the correct formula, the one used by the apostles themselves, was found in Acts 2:38, where Peter proclaims, "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." Attentive Bible readers will immediately ask, "But didn't Jesus command the disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?" Indeed, that formula is found in Matthew 28:19. But Oneness Pentecostals have chosen to focus on the Acts 2:38 formula because, they say, that is the actual formula used by the apostles. In fact, they are correct in observing that the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 is never again mentioned, while several references are made to baptism in the name of Jesus (see Acts 10:48, 19:5). The earliest Oneness Pentecostals felt so strongly about the baptismal formula that many of them chose to be rebaptized in the name of Jesus only, which led to splits in congregations and denominations. The greatest divide among Pentecostals today is between orthodox Pentecostals and Oneness Pentecostals. This difference in the matter of words used during baptisms represents something far more important: a different view of the nature of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—what orthodox Christians refer to as the Trinity. If asked if they believe in God the Father, Son, and Spirit, all Oneness Pentecostals would answer yes. Like all Pentecostals, Oneness Pentecostals place great emphasis on the role of the Spirit in the Christian life. But to them, the traditional Christian view of the Trinity is dangerously close to tritheism—belief in three distinct gods. Their view is, as one of their authors has put it, "Christian monotheism." But orthodox Christian theologians believe Oneness theology is guilty of the heresy of modalism. While orthodox Christian theologians often refer to the three "Persons" in the Trinity, Oneness authors speak of the three "manifestations" (or "offices") of the one God. They tend to connect the term person with the modern conception of the word—that is, a person is a distinct individual—which is why they see the orthodox view as being close to tritheism. Believing strongly in one undivided God, Oneness authors teach that the whole essential Godhead is present in Jesus (an idea supported by Colossians 2:9 and other passages). God, the one divine Being, is the Father in the Son, and is Spirit through the Son. Fairly early in Christian History this belief was condemned as heresy. Mainstream Christian theology continues to reject modalism because it does not do justice to the Bible's view of God as three distinct Persons. This view of the Trinity is connected with Oneness Pentecostals' Christology. They place much emphasis on the name of God. They believe that the name of the Lord Jesus is, under the new covenant, God's means of self-revelation and salvation. They cite Colossians 2:9, with Paul's declaration that "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." In their view, traditional Trinitarianism minimizes the full revelation of God in Christ. Their aim is to elevate the Son to his proper place in the Godhead. Consequently, Jesus is elevated to the point that one might as well say, "God is Jesus." |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 13, 2015 20:27:00 GMT -5
If one wants to include Father, Son and Spirit, the word would more properly be God, not Jesus!  Any Oneness people here? IL Gal was... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2015 21:39:48 GMT -5
Dennis your post is spot on. We like you were taught that Cooney was an ememy of the "Truth". Of course our leader was Bill Carroll. It is only now that we understand why this line was promoted by the early Workers that review mentions. The original concept that Irvine and Cooney wanted was nameless ministry, itinerent preachers, living by faith alone. Everybody would be a Worker and preach the Gospel. A single level ministry.
However they became out on their own with this concept. The smarter ones who had better business heads, wanted the two tier system to ensure provision of their natural needs. This meant having clergy and laity, similar to other established Churches. Hence the big split with Irvine and Cooney, and saying they were enemy. Bill and Jack Carroll were very intelligent men,and had a lot of influence on setting up a two tier system. So perhaps it is wrong to say Irvine was the founder, as he was thrown out along with Cooney, and the development was taken over by the Carrolls and others. It became a very different organisation to the one Irvine and Cooney intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 13, 2015 23:41:14 GMT -5
I have been to meetings on five continents and I've lost count of how many countries but it would be over twenty. Sometimes I've heard my colleagues preach about a homeless ministry. I could not say it has been my experience that emphasis has been on the form of worship. Time and time again I heard my colleagues preaching Jesus only.... with no denominational flavour. This is just my experience and perception and I accept that others have one different to mine. Thanks review. You left me wondering, do you sense any need for revival of any sort in our fellowship today? My experience (again, possibly different from yours) is that it's not just 'other sheep' who our fellowship is not serving well today, but many of our young people. But I'm interested if you are satisfied with the outcomes in these areas? admin |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 13, 2015 23:58:00 GMT -5
I have no idea why the title of that hymn ( not by Charles C Converse but by Albert Simpson) was changed to "Jesus Now and Jesus Ever"? But I sure don't see anything 'sinister'! The title used is that from the first line of the chorus and that is very often done when the first line of each verse of the hymn is not the same. Thanks for your response and explanation on the hymn change. It was hymn number 2 in the old hymn book (copyright 1951) and had the name Charles C. Converse at the top, right hand side. No other name. You say "The title used is that from the first line of the chorus". In the old book, the start of the chorus was "Jesus only, Jesus ever, Jesus all in all we sing". In other words, the chorus was changed along with the title, so they both now read "Jesus now and Jesus ever". From what Gene tells us, it was a change for doctrinal reasons. Wonder what your source was for that info, Gene? thanks, admin |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2015 1:03:54 GMT -5
Review, great job to sanitize what I wrote. Typical Worker spin. Change history, don't face facts.
Irvine,Cooney was a one tier system. Workers only, no laity. It was people like the Carrolls who changed it to two tier,Workers and laity. Bit like the Catholic Church, Priests and laity. Workers and Priests were on a higher level, and the congregation provided for them.So stick to the facts, and acknowledge the reason why Irvine and Cooney were thrown out.
Cooney was not an evil man as told to us by Bill Carroll, he was not in favour of a change to the original system that WI intended. Sadly we were told a lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emerald off-line on Jun 14, 2015 2:15:44 GMT -5
Dennis your post is spot on. We like you were taught that Cooney was an ememy of the "Truth". Of course our leader was Bill Carroll. It is only now that we understand why this line was promoted by the early Workers that review mentions. The original concept that Irvine and Cooney wanted was nameless ministry, itinerent preachers, living by faith alone. Everybody would be a Worker and preach the Gospel. A single level ministry. However they became out on their own with this concept. The smarter ones who had better business heads, wanted the two tier system to ensure provision of their natural needs. This meant having clergy and laity, similar to other established Churches. Hence the big split with Irvine and Cooney, and saying they were enemy. Bill and Jack Carroll were very intelligent men,and had a lot of influence on setting up a two tier system. So perhaps it is wrong to say Irvine was the founder, as he was thrown out along with Cooney, and the development was taken over by the Carrolls and others. It became a very different organisation to the one Irvine and Cooney intended. Redback it is interesting to have your perspective; thank you. I understand there was a two tier system in the days of William Irvine. He alone was the second tier! He was 'first amongst equals'. He was older than the others. He has charisma, he had drive and it evolved to him alone being the world Overseer; the single second tier! He called the shots! He travelled around the world! When it became obvious that he had lost the anointing he once had...and likely mental balance also then regional and or national Overseers was instituted.....which was a life saver and a great thing! It was another 14 years that Cooney remained in the fellowship. I understand Cooney advocated that each worker should go where the Spirit moved him to go. That is a nice theory. So take for example Australia where they is maybe 150 or 160 workers. You feel each of those 150 or 160 workers should individually go where the Spirit moves them to go? Wonder what the result would be? Go across to the United States; how many there? more than 1000? should each one go where the Spirit moves them to go? Wonder what the result would be? Go up to Canada; hundreds more workers there Should each one go where the Spirit moves them to go? Wonder what the result would be? Why did a single tier ministry nurtured by Cooney not develop and grow? I think one worker left with him but after a while Cooney's ministry was a single man single tier ministry. I don't uphold Overseers as perfect men who don't make mistakes; they are human. But I personally have assurance that 'each worker going where the Spirit moves them' would result in one awful disorganised mess. Believe me I'm a worker; I know myself and I know my co workers a little! In the Book of Acts we read of order and elders in the ministry, so too such is necessary today and has God's blessing upon it. Time and time again I have had proof and confirmation as I've seen that the hand of God has directed Overseers in arrangements. The other thing is that my experience is that I haven't yet met an Overseer who has considered himself 'second tier' and acted above other workers. The ones I have rubbed shoulders with have been humble ordinary men and workers. Thinking of their staff, caring for them and serving them. I understand what you're saying but it concerns me greatly that you as a worker, do not have the confidence that the Holy Spirit cannot prevent confusion and chaos. Where does faith begin? I'm pretty sure all the wonderful things we read of in Acts weren't done with the aid of a map and carving up regions. Cooney had absolute faith that the Holy Spirit would guide him and before he was kicked out, he went where he felt called. People flocked to hear him while in the next village there'd be a pair of workers looking at a near empty hall. Of course you might say it was Cooney's charisma that drew the crowds, but it can't be denied that he moved and inspired people, people who continued and finished in faith of both subsequent churches. He never got to pursue his conviction of trusting in the Holy Spirit to any significant degree, who's to know what wonderful things may have happened had workers generally trusted implicitly? We'll never know of course, but to me it's a shame as our church is now no different from parishes up and down the country where workers are now no more than caretakers to the flock. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2015 2:39:06 GMT -5
Emerald has got it right. Cooney and people like Billy Graham were great envangelists. They should be given credit for the good work they did, not labelled as evil. There is room in the Christian religion for people like that, let us applaud them.
|
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jun 14, 2015 3:53:26 GMT -5
Redback it is interesting to have your perspective; thank you. I understand there was a two tier system in the days of William Irvine. He alone was the second tier! He was 'first amongst equals'. He was older than the others. He has charisma, he had drive and it evolved to him alone being the world Overseer; the single second tier! He called the shots! He travelled around the world! When it became obvious that he had lost the anointing he once had...and likely mental balance also then regional and or national Overseers was instituted.....which was a life saver and a great thing! It was another 14 years that Cooney remained in the fellowship. I understand Cooney advocated that each worker should go where the Spirit moved him to go. That is a nice theory. So take for example Australia where they is maybe 150 or 160 workers. You feel each of those 150 or 160 workers should individually go where the Spirit moves them to go? Wonder what the result would be? Go across to the United States; how many there? more than 1000? should each one go where the Spirit moves them to go? Wonder what the result would be? Go up to Canada; hundreds more workers there Should each one go where the Spirit moves them to go? Wonder what the result would be? Why did a single tier ministry nurtured by Cooney not develop and grow? I think one worker left with him but after a while Cooney's ministry was a single man single tier ministry. I don't uphold Overseers as perfect men who don't make mistakes; they are human. But I personally have assurance that 'each worker going where the Spirit moves them' would result in one awful disorganised mess. Believe me I'm a worker; I know myself and I know my co workers a little! In the Book of Acts we read of order and elders in the ministry, so too such is necessary today and has God's blessing upon it. Time and time again I have had proof and confirmation as I've seen that the hand of God has directed Overseers in arrangements. The other thing is that my experience is that I haven't yet met an Overseer who has considered himself 'second tier' and acted above other workers. The ones I have rubbed shoulders with have been humble ordinary men and workers. Thinking of their staff, caring for them and serving them. I understand what you're saying but it concerns me greatly that you as a worker, do not have the confidence that the Holy Spirit cannot prevent confusion and chaos. Where does faith begin? I'm pretty sure all the wonderful things we read of in Acts weren't done with the aid of a map and carving up regions. Cooney had absolute faith that the Holy Spirit would guide him and before he was kicked out, he went where he felt called. People flocked to hear him while in the next village there'd be a pair of workers looking at a near empty hall. Of course you might say it was Cooney's charisma that drew the crowds, but it can't be denied that he moved and inspired people, people who continued and finished in faith of both subsequent churches. He never got to pursue his conviction of trusting in the Holy Spirit to any significant degree, who's to know what wonderful things may have happened had workers generally trusted implicitly? We'll never know of course, but to me it's a shame as our church is now no different from parishes up and down the country where workers are now no more than caretakers to the flock. I agree about the holy spirit, I believe having faith in God is having faith in his spirit guiding you from within. I feel God leads us to where he wants us to be. If we follow Jesus, Gods spirit will be guiding our hearts. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 14, 2015 6:06:33 GMT -5
I have no idea why the title of that hymn ( not by Charles C Converse but by Albert Simpson) was changed to "Jesus Now and Jesus Ever"? But I sure don't see anything 'sinister'! The title used is that from the first line of the chorus and that is very often done when the first line of each verse of the hymn is not the same. Thanks for your response and explanation on the hymn change. It was hymn number 2 in the old hymn book (copyright 1951) and had the name Charles C. Converse at the top, right hand side. No other name. You say "The title used is that from the first line of the chorus". In the old book, the start of the chorus was "Jesus only, Jesus ever, Jesus all in all we sing". In other words, the chorus was changed along with the title, so they both now read "Jesus now and Jesus ever". From what Gene tells us, it was a change for doctrinal reasons. Wonder what your source was for that info, Gene? thanks, admin Admin, I was in the work when this was changed, and "voted" along with other workers on the hymns to be included in the new hymn book. I recall conversations, too, about some of the changes and why they were made. That being said, I cannot say with authority why this change was made... but I think I'm right! I've edited my post to add this: *Source: Absolutely, completely and utterly unsubstantiated. Certainly it was changed for doctrinal reasons; precisely what that doctrinal reason was is up for debate. It could have been as outlined above. On the other hand, it could have been an effort to distance the F&W from the oneness Pentecostal "Jesus Only" movement.
|
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jun 14, 2015 8:29:03 GMT -5
Thank you Redback and Emerald offline for your responses. Please know I have nothing against or for Eddie Cooney. He lived before my time and is just a historical character to me. Redback: please state how and why my statement about a 'two tier' system with Irvine until 1914 is factually incorrect. Kindly set out how I have sanitized things. Please plainly state the factual errors I have stated. I have sincerely stated how I understand things were as I have heard it from people; who knew those men and times. Emerald offline: I don't understand. You say Cooney had halls full of people, the workers empty halls in the next village. But why did Cooney remain a one man ministry? thanks to both of you! Jesus said And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. Edward had the spirit of God with him, he wasn't alone. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 14, 2015 10:59:24 GMT -5
I know! I know! The elimination of "Jesus only..." was done to align the F&W with Arminianism as opposed to Calvinism and Lutheranism. Grace alone is not enough. Ask Bert. The hymn still says, "Jesus is our only message..." Wouldn't "Jesus only is our message" leave out the Father and Holy Spirit? Do they mean the same? Only Jesus = Jesus only? Of course "Jesus only" or "only Jesus" would entail what he supposedly said and did and what was supposedly involved in his life, his being. Where does one stop with that? |
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 14, 2015 11:06:47 GMT -5
Just some thoughts that came to me:
Heard or read that some/many of the first workers indicated "We kicked the pope out the front door and let him in the back door."
Now instead of one worker (supposedly Irvine) in charge, there are a few in charge in their assigned areas.
At a gathering of workers for rerouting and joining together for the night during special meetings, a visiting sister worker from Montana entered the home and asked "Where's the pope?" The overseer had yet to arrive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2015 11:17:23 GMT -5
Expressing only from my point of view, is there no one besides a very few of us expressing here who are bothered by being told outright falsehoods about others even by trusted overseers?
Also denial of outright excommunications by those in power? Perhaps "worker" review is correct though re: Wm. Irvine being a tier unto himself, totally in contrast to my Lord's teaching about who should be "greatest" among us. No matter, what is past is past.
Who DARES say I am not part of review's group by edict, falsehoods, and power usurping men and women who have not been faithful in preaching and living the true Gospel? Who? Nor have I been the only one throughout the decades so treated. It is true witness of that group's testimony which is far from my Lord's intention in His founding messages of who He was and the church within them of which He taught.
"Worker" spin on everything, justifying seemingly every possible behavior until it is so unrighteous it becomes totally impossible as with CSA. There simply is no focus upon the group's focus upon "place" in everything, every "level." This is what simply must be changed, to claim any comparison to what my Lord intended. However, I am a libeled, slandered excommunicate to be ignored, discredited and cast out. Shame on those teaching and believing that is "Christianity."
So, time is soon here for those hard liners to rejoice over my voice being silenced forever. Such is the way of life, we all pass on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Jun 14, 2015 12:13:12 GMT -5
It's a very good question, thanks review. I think I mean globally. But to avoid anyone jumping on my statement, there may be parts of the F&W world where this does not apply such as your own field. However, from personal experience and what friends have been saying for a long time now from many different areas, this is more of a widespread need. You really spelt out what is needed in this line of your earlier post "It was inspired and moved forward by the Holy Spirit working in the dozens and hundreds of lives in many countries in the early decades of the 20th century." This is not happening today, globally in our fellowship. Back then when you say the Holy Spirit was working mightily, our fellowship was relevant for those hundreds of churchgoers who sensed a deadness in their denominational churches. Today in various places where many of us live, almost nobody from other churches comes and continues with missions. Why? Well, perhaps there is no strong sense of the Holy Spirit at work? I'm not sure, I'm not one of them. But for whatever reason, they either don't come or don't keep coming. But I can tell you that what is preached is often not "Jesus only, Jesus ever". Too often the message in gospel meeting is about believing in the church in the home and a homeless 2x2 ministry 'like Jesus commanded'. That is all very well, but it is not a gospel message for salvation. Not according to my bible, anyway. And anyone coming to those gospel meetings from another church is likely to know their bibles rather well. The emphasis is to cause the audience to learn the importance of believing in our form of worship (home) and Ministry (2x2), rather than (or sometimes, as well as) Jesus, Lamb of God for sinners slain. It's possible most Workers aren't even aware, rather it is more an ingrained habit from a tradition that has formed. I have responded openly and honestly to your question, review. Before anyone criticizes my response, this may not be true of all gospel meetings. But it is true in my region, and in many other places where I have friends who say the same. Your own gospel meetings review in your land may be very different. But probably your experience of being in other Worker's gospel missions is somewhat limited. That hymn starts "Jesus is our only message, Jesus all our theme shall be". Good to get back to that as the theme for all gospel meetings. Back to basics. Perhaps then we might see great revival, like back when you wrote about. Incidentally, I wonder why the title of that hymn (by Charles C Converse) was changed to "Jesus Now and Jesus Ever"? What was wrong with "Jesus only"? admin My personal experience is different to that of Admin. I mention the form of the ministry very occasionally in Gospel meetings. When I do mention it is to help our friends understand the scriptural basis to why our ministry is as it is and why it is different to every other ministry that I am aware of. I can't remember the last time I have mentioned about our gathering in homes in a gospel meeting (or fellowship or convention meeting for that matter). Lots of groups gather in homes these days anyway. The reason I don't mention these two things is because I am not prompted or moved by the Spirit to do so. I preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and sometimes people get the Spirit working in them in the period of time they are listening. They get conviction, they repent and get saved. But I have deep personal convictions about the New Testament ministry! I believe in the ministry that started as a short term mission to the lost sheep of Israel in Matthew 10 and then further commissioned in Matthew 28 to include the Gentiles is the ministry that God will use and bless unto the end of the age in time. I don't see any other model in the New Testament for an evangelical ministry. I also deeply believe that the ministry and the church/the friends work should work in a close partnership and the main thing in life for all of us is living right with God ourselves and then trying to help others in that also. For me it is a meaningless and self contradicting statement to say "believing in Jesus plus a homeless ministry and church is the home"! For me to believe in Jesus it to believe in all he lived and taught. The ministry Jesus established is a part on his teaching! He didn't give that 'for fun' and we can take it or leave it! He lived, taught and established an apostolic ministry that he said he would be with until the end of the age. So if I dismiss or explain that away then I am taking away from the Word of God! That is just my personal conviction and experience. I don't force that down anyone else's throat. But there are millions of preachers living in thousands of different ways teaching thousands of different doctrine which leads to thousands of different ways. That is too big for me, I can't sort that out. I leave that to God. Amongst them are some fine people with integrity who live for God and live for others. I respect and appreciate such. There are others who aren't fine people and they don't have integrity and they live selfishly! I don't judge them unsaved and I also don't judge them saved. I leave that in the hands of the one who is looking after that. I live and teach others in the way that God has revealed to me and which I have deep personal convictions about. It has brought salvation, joy and satisfaction and the hope of eternal life to me. I have no idea why the title of that hymn ( not by Charles C Converse but by Albert Simpson) was changed to "Jesus Now and Jesus Ever"? But I sure don't see anything 'sinister'! The title used is that from the first line of the chorus and that is very often done when the first line of each verse of the hymn is not the same. I have been to meetings on five continents and I've lost count of how many countries but it would be over twenty. Sometimes I've heard my colleagues preach about a homeless ministry. I could not say it has been my experience that emphasis has been on the form of worship. Time and time again I heard my colleagues preaching Jesus only.... with no denominational flavour. This is just my experience and perception and I accept that others have one different to mine. May I just say, Review, that I appreciate the tone of of your reply here. Unlike some of your previous posts which have left me doubting that you are, in fact, a servant of God, I find this post to be a helpful contribution to TMB. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 14, 2015 12:20:56 GMT -5
If one wants to include Father, Son and Spirit, the word would more properly be God, not Jesus! Any Oneness people here? IL Gal was... Oneness as in 'we are all connected"? Man is not an island? What we do can have repercussions way beyond what we know? Or the New Age meaning of oneness? That we are all one like a cell in the body of a higher power? Some thought is that everything is connected and cannot be separate based on what is believed in quantum science. So many different definition of oneness depending on your beliefs. The triune god is just one more example of that. So what definition of 'Oneness' are you meaning Emy? |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 14, 2015 12:25:02 GMT -5
Dennis your post is spot on. We like you were taught that Cooney was an ememy of the "Truth". Of course our leader was Bill Carroll. It is only now that we understand why this line was promoted by the early Workers that review mentions. The original concept that Irvine and Cooney wanted was nameless ministry, itinerent preachers, living by faith alone. Everybody would be a Worker and preach the Gospel. A single level ministry. However they became out on their own with this concept. The smarter ones who had better business heads, wanted the two tier system to ensure provision of their natural needs. This meant having clergy and laity, similar to other established Churches. Hence the big split with Irvine and Cooney, and saying they were enemy. Bill and Jack Carroll were very intelligent men,and had a lot of influence on setting up a two tier system. So perhaps it is wrong to say Irvine was the founder, as he was thrown out along with Cooney, and the development was taken over by the Carrolls and others. It became a very different organisation to the one Irvine and Cooney intended. Redback it is interesting to have your perspective; thank you. I understand there was a two tier system in the days of William Irvine. He alone was the second tier! He was 'first amongst equals'. He was older than the others. He has charisma, he had drive and it evolved to him alone being the world Overseer; the single second tier! He called the shots! He travelled around the world! When it became obvious that he had lost the anointing he once had...and likely mental balance also then regional and or national Overseers was instituted.....which was a life saver and a great thing! It was another 14 years that Cooney remained in the fellowship. I understand Cooney advocated that each worker should go where the Spirit moved him to go. That is a nice theory. So take for example Australia where they is maybe 150 or 160 workers. You feel each of those 150 or 160 workers should individually go where the Spirit moves them to go? Wonder what the result would be? Go across to the United States; how many there? more than 1000? should each one go where the Spirit moves them to go? Wonder what the result would be? Go up to Canada; hundreds more workers there Should each one go where the Spirit moves them to go? Wonder what the result would be? Why did a single tier ministry nurtured by Cooney not develop and grow? I think one worker left with him but after a while Cooney's ministry was a single man single tier ministry. I don't uphold Overseers as perfect men who don't make mistakes; they are human. But I personally have assurance that 'each worker going where the Spirit moves them' would result in one awful disorganised mess. Believe me I'm a worker; I know myself and I know my co workers a little! In the Book of Acts we read of order and elders in the ministry, so too such is necessary today and has God's blessing upon it. Time and time again I have had proof and confirmation as I've seen that the hand of God has directed Overseers in arrangements. The other thing is that my experience is that I haven't yet met an Overseer who has considered himself 'second tier' and acted above other workers. The ones I have rubbed shoulders with have been humble ordinary men and workers. Thinking of their staff, caring for them and serving them. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Holy Spirit that is supposed to be guiding the workers God himself? In that case why would there be a problem. Surely God has a big enough picture of where each individual worker is needed, right? If it's God placing them, there should be absolutely no overlap and it should be just perfect. It seems to me if you really believe you are being guided by the Holy Spirit, which is God, then you would trust that he knows exactly where all those workers should be placed for the optimum value? |
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Jun 14, 2015 12:40:16 GMT -5
Dennis your post is spot on. We like you were taught that Cooney was an ememy of the "Truth". Of course our leader was Bill Carroll. It is only now that we understand why this line was promoted by the early Workers that review mentions. The original concept that Irvine and Cooney wanted was nameless ministry, itinerent preachers, living by faith alone. Everybody would be a Worker and preach the Gospel. A single level ministry. However they became out on their own with this concept. The smarter ones who had better business heads, wanted the two tier system to ensure provision of their natural needs. This meant having clergy and laity, similar to other established Churches. Hence the big split with Irvine and Cooney, and saying they were enemy. Bill and Jack Carroll were very intelligent men,and had a lot of influence on setting up a two tier system. So perhaps it is wrong to say Irvine was the founder, as he was thrown out along with Cooney, and the development was taken over by the Carrolls and others. It became a very different organisation to the one Irvine and Cooney intended. Redback it is interesting to have your perspective; thank you. I understand there was a two tier system in the days of William Irvine. He alone was the second tier! He was 'first amongst equals'. He was older than the others. He has charisma, he had drive and it evolved to him alone being the world Overseer; the single second tier! He called the shots! He travelled around the world! When it became obvious that he had lost the anointing he once had...and likely mental balance also then regional and or national Overseers was instituted.....which was a life saver and a great thing! It was another 14 years that Cooney remained in the fellowship. I understand Cooney advocated that each worker should go where the Spirit moved him to go. That is a nice theory. So take for example Australia where they is maybe 150 or 160 workers. You feel each of those 150 or 160 workers should individually go where the Spirit moves them to go? Wonder what the result would be? Go across to the United States; how many there? more than 1000? should each one go where the Spirit moves them to go? Wonder what the result would be? Go up to Canada; hundreds more workers there Should each one go where the Spirit moves them to go? Wonder what the result would be? Why did a single tier ministry nurtured by Cooney not develop and grow? I think one worker left with him but after a while Cooney's ministry was a single man single tier ministry. I don't uphold Overseers as perfect men who don't make mistakes; they are human. But I personally have assurance that 'each worker going where the Spirit moves them' would result in one awful disorganised mess. Believe me I'm a worker; I know myself and I know my co workers a little! In the Book of Acts we read of order and elders in the ministry, so too such is necessary today and has God's blessing upon it. Time and time again I have had proof and confirmation as I've seen that the hand of God has directed Overseers in arrangements. The other thing is that my experience is that I haven't yet met an Overseer who has considered himself 'second tier' and acted above other workers. The ones I have rubbed shoulders with have been humble ordinary men and workers. Thinking of their staff, caring for them and serving them. It’s interesting to have your perspective on this matter, Review. My personal conviction would be that the answer to your question "Should each one go where the Spirit moves them to go?” would be a resounding “Yes!" I have no doubt that, in man's eyes, it could be seen as an awful disorganised mess, and at times there would be differences between co-workers (just as there was in Paul's day) but I trust that the Spirit would lead right in the "big picture". Even in our day, there have been some workers who have followed this pattern - Roy Price is one who comes to mind. Although not a worker, myself, I would encourage all workers to rely on the leading of the Spirit regarding gospel fields, missions, and companions. |
|
|
|
Post by Emerald offline on Jun 14, 2015 12:45:02 GMT -5
Thank you Redback and Emerald offline for your responses. Please know I have nothing against or for Eddie Cooney. He lived before my time and is just a historical character to me. Redback: please state how and why my statement about a 'two tier' system with Irvine until 1914 is factually incorrect. Kindly set out how I have sanitized things. Please plainly state the factual errors I have stated. I have sincerely stated how I understand things were as I have heard it from people; who knew those men and times. Emerald offline: I don't understand. You say Cooney had halls full of people, the workers empty halls in the next village. But why did Cooney remain a one man ministry? thanks to both of you! Cooney wasn't always a one man ministry, even after the split. When paired with others, he had a way of bringing the Gospel message to others that his companions were unable to do. Because of this, references to his preaching often overlook the input of a companion. In later years, we all know the workers and people that went with him started to dwindle so companions weren't always available. I don't think this is necessarily a problem. I see the Bible is an adequate witness for any worker preaching. The point is though, Cooney trusted in the Holy Spirit to guide him to where the need was. I've met a few of the people that went with him over the years and they seem to have the same spirit as Maryhig shows here. An absolute conviction in the saving power of Jesus and complete confidence in her service to Him. It's truly humbling. Our conventions have just started and we're hearing about lurching from one year to the next, barely holding on and how thankful we are for conventions to help us cling on. Maryhig and her people have no conventions and yet their faith is something to behold. We may have rejected Cooney but he managed to teach the people something of the true nature of our God, our Gospel, our faith that seems out of our grasp today. (I'm offline because I've forgotten my password and I'm not at my computer!) |
|
Edward Cooney was a great F&W preacher, and brought many individuals to Christ whose families continue today in faith, either in your branch of the church fellowship started by Wm Irvine, Maryhig, or in the other (2x2) one.
I think any worker would agree with your statements above.
