|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 26, 2020 7:31:20 GMT -5
Funny enough I don't think I have ever heard or read that being said, 40+ years in the fellowship. [ “if you do not profess through a worker like me before you die you will go to hell”] to me that's a load of old poppycock. No one ever admits to hearing that being said. Whether this is down to one’s naivety, one’s poor hearing, one being unable to grasp the subtlety of the preaching or one being in a state of denial, I know not. What I do know is that it is a fundamental part of 2x2 doctrine (and has been since the beginning) and that the official 2x2 approach is always to deny it. It’s all part of a policy whereby the 2x2 church seeks to portray itself publicly as something that it isn’t with a view to making the church appear less unattractive to the outsider, at least in the early stages of anyone showing an interest (Denying the true history was another element of the same policy.) The policy is to deliver this key message slowly and subtly in a series of gospel missions until the listener grasps it. That’s part of the reason why members are asked to bring outsiders to missions rather than proselytising themselves. And of course once they’ve grasped it and accepted it, the policy is then to lay it on strong with the familiar stories of people dying in road traffic accidents on the way home from missions and then singing morbid hymns with lines such as ‘life at best is very brief’ and ‘the chord of life may snap’ in the hope that they buckle and submit. I didn’t manage to clock up 40 years thankfully but I was sufficiently tuned in during my 25 to recognise the message and I am sure that if you send me half a dozen sermons I could still spot it in there even now. Matt10 Absolutely accurate, Matt! Anyone who denies this, no matter how any years they have been professing, either isn't really listening or is in denial of the truth.
I was born & raised I the "fellowship," -as it is called now, but was simply known in my day as "the truth" or "the way."
In fact if you had said something like that to a worker in my day: "that's a load of old poppycock that if you do not profess through a worker before you die you will go to hell,” -you would have been shown to the door and told never to return again!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 26, 2020 13:08:07 GMT -5
Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesse, Seventh Day Adventists, & the2x2 practice rebaptism. de-baptizism de-baptism, what a horrible ritual... LOL no crazier than being dunked in a cold river in the rain and a heck of a lot warmer! Of course we atheists like it warm and of course that's why we are going to the warm place.... All rituals are silly, but some are more damaging than others.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 26, 2020 13:19:50 GMT -5
Actions speak louder than words. You don't have to hear a worker explicitly say you can't be saved unless you profess or are baptized by us. You just have to submit to not being able to speak in meetings until you profess through a worker and you can't take part in the emblems until you have been baptized by a worker. These are things everyone knows and abides by in the group. So why would a worker need to say you can't go to heaven unless you profess and are baptized by a worker when we know what is required to be a part of the group?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2020 15:10:41 GMT -5
Actions speak louder than words. You don't have to hear a worker explicitly say you can't be saved unless you profess or are baptized by us. You just have to submit to not being able to speak in meetings until you profess through a worker and you can't take part in the emblems until you have been baptized by a worker. These are things everyone knows and abides by in the group. So why would a worker need to say you can't go to heaven unless you profess and are baptized by a worker when we know what is required to be a part of the group? I've been trying to recall how many times I heard in meetings the you had to approved by a worker to be saved. I can't recall that I have. I know I frequently heard about heaven and hell, and I certainly have heard that the "gate" is narrow, etc. But I most certainly understood long before I was old enough to profess that the workers held the key. It happens before one has any appreciation for the delicacy of euphemism -- you hear about the condition of those unwilling to profess through the workers, and you just know it's the pivotal stand on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 28, 2020 18:06:15 GMT -5
Actions speak louder than words. You don't have to hear a worker explicitly say you can't be saved unless you profess or are baptized by us. You just have to submit to not being able to speak in meetings until you profess through a worker and you can't take part in the emblems until you have been baptized by a worker. These are things everyone knows and abides by in the group. So why would a worker need to say you can't go to heaven unless you profess and are baptized by a worker when we know what is required to be a part of the group? I've been trying to recall how many times I heard in meetings the you had to approved by a worker to be saved. I can't recall that I have. I know I frequently heard about heaven and hell, and I certainly have heard that the "gate" is narrow, etc. But I most certainly understood long before I was old enough to profess that the workers held the key. It happens before one has any appreciation for the delicacy of euphemism -- you hear about the condition of those unwilling to profess through the workers, and you just know it's the pivotal stand on the matter. In my experience, that sentiment (can't be saved unless you profess/baptized through 2x2 workers) was expressed, not in those words, but by invoking Romans 10:13-15:
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Verses 13-14 would build the foundation of the argument. To be saved, you must call on the name of the Lord. But you cannot call on Him unless you believe in Him. And you'll never believe in Him until you hear about him... THROUGH A PREACHER....and not just any preacher, but ONE THAT WAS SENT ... and here some workers cheat and say SENT AS IT IS WRITTEN -- which then launches into Matt 10 and Luke 10 - sent "as it is written" means 2x2, homeless, poor, forsaking family, no collections, etc. And if a preacher is NOT SENT AS IT IS WRITTEN (in Matt 10 and Luke 10), then the dominoes fall in succession: Not sent as it is written; no valid preaching, no valid hearing, no valid believing, no valid "calling on Him", and no salvation.
I heard that line of reasoning MANY MANY times by workers.
Might have even preached it a time or ten myself
You see where it got me, too.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2020 18:12:05 GMT -5
I've been trying to recall how many times I heard in meetings the you had to approved by a worker to be saved. I can't recall that I have. I know I frequently heard about heaven and hell, and I certainly have heard that the "gate" is narrow, etc. But I most certainly understood long before I was old enough to profess that the workers held the key. It happens before one has any appreciation for the delicacy of euphemism -- you hear about the condition of those unwilling to profess through the workers, and you just know it's the pivotal stand on the matter. In my experience, that sentiment (can't be saved unless you profess/baptized through 2x2 workers) was expressed, not in those words, but by invoking Romans 10:13-15: 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Verses 13-14 would build the foundation of the argument. To be saved, you must call on the name of the Lord. But you cannot call on Him unless you believe in Him. And you'll never believe in Him until you hear about him... THROUGH A PREACHER....and not just any preacher, but ONE THAT WAS SENT ... and here some workers cheat and say SENT AS IT IS WRITTEN -- which then launches into Matt 10 and Luke 10 - sent "as it is written" means 2x2, homeless, poor, forsaking family, no collections, etc. And if a preacher is NOT SENT AS IT IS WRITTEN (in Matt 10 and Luke 10), then the dominoes fall in succession: Not sent as it is written; no valid preaching, no valid hearing, no valid believing, no valid "calling on Him", and no salvation. I heard that line of reasoning MANY MANY times by workers. Might have even preached it a time or ten myself You see where it got me, too.
I've heard that scripture preached a number of times.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 28, 2020 18:15:49 GMT -5
In my experience, that sentiment (can't be saved unless you profess/baptized through 2x2 workers) was expressed, not in those words, but by invoking Romans 10:13-15: 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! Verses 13-14 would build the foundation of the argument. To be saved, you must call on the name of the Lord. But you cannot call on Him unless you believe in Him. And you'll never believe in Him until you hear about him... THROUGH A PREACHER....and not just any preacher, but ONE THAT WAS SENT ... and here some workers cheat and say SENT AS IT IS WRITTEN -- which then launches into Matt 10 and Luke 10 - sent "as it is written" means 2x2, homeless, poor, forsaking family, no collections, etc. And if a preacher is NOT SENT AS IT IS WRITTEN (in Matt 10 and Luke 10), then the dominoes fall in succession: Not sent as it is written; no valid preaching, no valid hearing, no valid believing, no valid "calling on Him", and no salvation. I heard that line of reasoning MANY MANY times by workers. Might have even preached it a time or ten myself You see where it got me, too.
I've heard that scripture preached a number of times. Did it land with you as it did with me -- that one must profess through the workers to be saved?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 28, 2020 18:23:05 GMT -5
I've heard that scripture preached a number of times. Did it land with you as it did with me -- that one must profess through the workers to be saved? Of course. It was always part of a discourse on why not to listen to other preachers.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Apr 28, 2020 18:46:15 GMT -5
No one ever admits to hearing that being said. Whether this is down to one’s naivety, one’s poor hearing, one being unable to grasp the subtlety of the preaching or one being in a state of denial, I know not. What I do know is that it is a fundamental part of 2x2 doctrine (and has been since the beginning) and that the official 2x2 approach is always to deny it. It’s all part of a policy whereby the 2x2 church seeks to portray itself publicly as something that it isn’t with a view to making the church appear less unattractive to the outsider, at least in the early stages of anyone showing an interest. (Denying the true history was another element of the same policy.) The policy is to deliver this key message slowly and subtly in a series of gospel missions until the listener grasps it. That’s part of the reason why members are asked to bring outsiders to missions rather than proselytising themselves. And of course once they’ve grasped it and accepted it, the policy is then to lay it on strong with the familiar stories of people dying in road traffic accidents on the way home from missions and then singing morbid hymns with lines such as ‘life at best is very brief’ and ‘the chord of life may snap’ in the hope that they buckle and submit. I didn’t manage to clock up 40 years thankfully but I was sufficiently tuned in during my 25 to recognise the message and I am sure that if you send me half a dozen sermons I could still spot it in there even now. Matt10 What sort of pillock are you? I said I don't think I have ever heard or read that being said, 40+ years in the fellowship, and you come back with, No one ever admits to hearing that being said. How on earth would you know what I have heard or not heard? So why would I believe anything you say, to me it is all horse........... So you can go off and play with the fairies in you own mind. Reminds me of a quote from Jane Austen: It was every day implied, but never professedly declared. And yet we all know it was so. Matt10's words resonate powerfully with former members. To claim otherwise and declare "fairies in your own mind" is gaslighting, pure and simple.
|
|
|
Post by Get off of TMB on Apr 28, 2020 19:07:51 GMT -5
I would love to see notes from ex-workers who are now on TMB...
|
|
|
Post by fred on Apr 28, 2020 22:42:26 GMT -5
And that is the great weakness of much of the worker's preaching/teaching. So much is by implication, which prompts folk to arrive at a desired conclusion, a conclusion which may vary one to another.
Many times I have asked others what they thought about what ---------- said, and they declare that they didn't hear that! I remember being amazed when I first listened to a certain online Bible teacher and the discourse was thoughtful, direct and wholly centred on the chosen verses.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 29, 2020 0:16:43 GMT -5
And that is the great weakness of much of the worker's preaching/teaching. So much is by implication, which prompts folk to arrive at a desired conclusion, a conclusion which may vary one to another. Many times I have asked others what they thought about what ---------- said, and they declare that they didn't hear that! I remember being amazed when I first listened to a certain online Bible teacher and the discourse was thoughtful, direct and wholly centred on the chosen verses. When I was growing up I recall having a technique for dealing with a really boring sermon. I had a lot of daydreaming topics that I could indulge. It worked, and I got off with it because I could do it with my eyes wide open.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Apr 29, 2020 6:43:45 GMT -5
When I was growing up I recall having a technique for dealing with a really boring sermon. I had a lot of daydreaming topics that I could indulge. It worked, and I got off with it because I could do it with my eyes wide open. [/quote] I was good at that. The problem was that my dad would quiz me about the sermon on the way home from church. If I didn't have a clue, he could turn ugly. I would always think about how we had just left church and he could turn on a dime.
|
|
magpies39plus
Senior Member
WHY? Does quoting relevant scripture send the 2x2;s into sometimes a nasty response??
Posts: 572
|
Post by magpies39plus on May 2, 2020 21:57:01 GMT -5
How many Nursing Homes does the she visit each day or week?? Magpie
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on May 3, 2020 0:07:29 GMT -5
How many Nursing Homes does the she visit each day or week?? Magpie I understand it’s the one she is a resident of.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on May 3, 2020 3:17:44 GMT -5
I've heard that scripture preached a number of times. Did it land with you as it did with me -- that one must profess through the workers to be saved? In my experience a person had to profess through the 2x2 fellowship church to be saved. Of course you could not profess unless the workers were involved at some stage. They hold the keys of the kingdom. However they are far from the only religious body who hold fast to those ideas. In fact they are very small and insignificant when compared to some other religious organisations. Then there is the very remote caveat that there may be some here and there who are outside the fellowship who might be saved, but this is regarded as a rare possibility. However, on a more serious note and one which no one has so far raised; are the claims valid (by whoever?) 1) According to scripture the doctrine of the church or true assembly of God is as per how it was first delivered to the saints. 2) The true assembly of God must never depart from its founding doctrines. 3) We are told that few would adhere to the true doctrine. Many would depart from it and follow other ways or depart from it altogether. This is where our minds should be focussed. If we are critical of any organisation who enticingly dangle the supposed keys of the kingdom, we should first examine whether or not they are truly founded upon what scripture demands. Claims of being the true way can be proper and valid, but only so if they are founded upon the rock of scripture. It is not the claims we should be taken up with but the foundation of those making the claims.
|
|
|
Post by speak on May 3, 2020 4:49:36 GMT -5
How many Nursing Homes does the she visit each day or week?? Magpie None because we are in lock down
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2020 9:16:19 GMT -5
Did it land with you as it did with me -- that one must profess through the workers to be saved? This is where our minds should be focussed. If we are critical of any organisation who enticingly dangle the supposed keys of the kingdom, we should first examine whether or not they are truly founded upon what scripture demands. Claims of being the true way can be proper and valid, but only so if they are founded upon the rock of scripture. It is not the claims we should be taken up with but the foundation of those making the claims. The problem with this argument is that there are umpteen different interpretations of scripture and therefore when it comes to founding a “true” way upon the rock of scripture there are umpteen different rocks of scripture to chose from. The 2x2s believe that they are founded upon the rock of scripture. The Catholic Church does so too although it is clearly a different rock of scripture. I know a fair few different Protestant Christians who believe that their particular church is also founded upon the rock of scripture. The issue therefore becomes one of who gets to decide which interpretation of scripture is the true interpretation of scripture. Inevitably when I ask this question of individual Christians they inevitably imply that it is THEIR interpretation although they generally stop short of actually saying it ... probably because it is such an absurd claim to make without providing a sound basis for claiming it and possibly to avoid being asked to provide a sound basis for it. The most unfortunate thing about scripture is that is open to so many different interpretations. And, somewhat ironically, the most fortunate thing about scripture is that it is open to so many different interpretations allowing one to make it mean whatever one wants it to mean and use it to justify almost anything. Whether it’s drinking cart loads of wine at the one sitting, not owning a television or keeping a slave you can find an interpretation of scripture to suit you. Whatever your principles and prejudices are, you can use scripture to create a version of God who will agree with you. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by mountain on May 3, 2020 12:16:18 GMT -5
This is where our minds should be focussed. If we are critical of any organisation who enticingly dangle the supposed keys of the kingdom, we should first examine whether or not they are truly founded upon what scripture demands. Claims of being the true way can be proper and valid, but only so if they are founded upon the rock of scripture. It is not the claims we should be taken up with but the foundation of those making the claims. The problem with this argument is that there are umpteen different interpretations of scripture and therefore when it comes to founding a “true” way upon the rock of scripture there are umpteen different rocks of scripture to chose from. The 2x2s believe that they are founded upon the rock of scripture. The Catholic Church does so too although it is clearly a different rock of scripture. I know a fair few different Protestant Christians who believe that their particular church is also founded upon the rock of scripture. The issue therefore becomes one of who gets to decide which interpretation of scripture is the true interpretation of scripture. Inevitably when I ask this question of individual Christians they inevitably imply that it is THEIR interpretation although they generally stop short of actually saying it ... probably because it is such an absurd claim to make without providing a sound basis for claiming it and possibly to avoid being asked to provide a sound basis for it. The most unfortunate thing about scripture is that is open to so many different interpretations. And, somewhat ironically, the most fortunate thing about scripture is that it is open to so many different interpretations allowing one to make it mean whatever one wants it to mean and use it to justify almost anything. Whether it’s drinking cart loads of wine at the one sitting, not owning a television or keeping a slave you can find an interpretation of scripture to suit you. Whatever your principles and prejudices are, you can use scripture to create a version of God who will agree with you. Matt10 Well said Matt 10. It is not the claims themselves that are wrong (eg only true way etc), it is whether the proponents are indeed that one true way. Only true way claims can rightly be made by those who belong to the only true way. Scripture readily points to an only true way. The problem is...who are the only true way in this day and age?
|
|
|
Post by speak on May 3, 2020 23:13:40 GMT -5
The problem with this argument is that there are umpteen different interpretations of scripture and therefore when it comes to founding a “true” way upon the rock of scripture there are umpteen different rocks of scripture to chose from. The 2x2s believe that they are founded upon the rock of scripture. The Catholic Church does so too although it is clearly a different rock of scripture. I know a fair few different Protestant Christians who believe that their particular church is also founded upon the rock of scripture. The issue therefore becomes one of who gets to decide which interpretation of scripture is the true interpretation of scripture. Inevitably when I ask this question of individual Christians they inevitably imply that it is THEIR interpretation although they generally stop short of actually saying it ... probably because it is such an absurd claim to make without providing a sound basis for claiming it and possibly to avoid being asked to provide a sound basis for it. The most unfortunate thing about scripture is that is open to so many different interpretations. And, somewhat ironically, the most fortunate thing about scripture is that it is open to so many different interpretations allowing one to make it mean whatever one wants it to mean and use it to justify almost anything. Whether it’s drinking cart loads of wine at the one sitting, not owning a television or keeping a slave you can find an interpretation of scripture to suit you. Whatever your principles and prejudices are, you can use scripture to create a version of God who will agree with you. Matt10 Well said Matt 10. It is not the claims themselves that are wrong (eg only true way etc), it is whether the proponents are indeed that one true way. Only true way claims can rightly be made by those who belong to the only true way. Scripture readily points to an only true way. The problem is...who are the only true way in this day and age? God will give the answer to the question if one genuinely seeks it with no reservation. I know this works from personal experience.
|
|
|
Post by speak on May 3, 2020 23:15:42 GMT -5
This is where our minds should be focussed. If we are critical of any organisation who enticingly dangle the supposed keys of the kingdom, we should first examine whether or not they are truly founded upon what scripture demands. Claims of being the true way can be proper and valid, but only so if they are founded upon the rock of scripture. It is not the claims we should be taken up with but the foundation of those making the claims. The problem with this argument is that there are umpteen different interpretations of scripture and therefore when it comes to founding a “true” way upon the rock of scripture there are umpteen different rocks of scripture to chose from. The 2x2s believe that they are founded upon the rock of scripture. The Catholic Church does so too although it is clearly a different rock of scripture. I know a fair few different Protestant Christians who believe that their particular church is also founded upon the rock of scripture. The issue therefore becomes one of who gets to decide which interpretation of scripture is the true interpretation of scripture. Inevitably when I ask this question of individual Christians they inevitably imply that it is THEIR interpretation although they generally stop short of actually saying it ... probably because it is such an absurd claim to make without providing a sound basis for claiming it and possibly to avoid being asked to provide a sound basis for it. The most unfortunate thing about scripture is that is open to so many different interpretations. And, somewhat ironically, the most fortunate thing about scripture is that it is open to so many different interpretations allowing one to make it mean whatever one wants it to mean and use it to justify almost anything. Whether it’s drinking cart loads of wine at the one sitting, not owning a television or keeping a slave you can find an interpretation of scripture to suit you. Whatever your principles and prejudices are, you can use scripture to create a version of God who will agree with you. Matt10 God will give the right interpretation if one genuinely seeks it. There is only one genuine interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 4, 2020 2:01:31 GMT -5
The problem with this argument is that there are umpteen different interpretations of scripture and therefore when it comes to founding a “true” way upon the rock of scripture there are umpteen different rocks of scripture to chose from. The 2x2s believe that they are founded upon the rock of scripture. The Catholic Church does so too although it is clearly a different rock of scripture. I know a fair few different Protestant Christians who believe that their particular church is also founded upon the rock of scripture. The issue therefore becomes one of who gets to decide which interpretation of scripture is the true interpretation of scripture. Inevitably when I ask this question of individual Christians they inevitably imply that it is THEIR interpretation although they generally stop short of actually saying it ... probably because it is such an absurd claim to make without providing a sound basis for claiming it and possibly to avoid being asked to provide a sound basis for it. The most unfortunate thing about scripture is that is open to so many different interpretations. And, somewhat ironically, the most fortunate thing about scripture is that it is open to so many different interpretations allowing one to make it mean whatever one wants it to mean and use it to justify almost anything. Whether it’s drinking cart loads of wine at the one sitting, not owning a television or keeping a slave you can find an interpretation of scripture to suit you. Whatever your principles and prejudices are, you can use scripture to create a version of God who will agree with you. Matt10 God will give the right interpretation if one genuinely seeks it. There is only one genuine interpretation. Sorry, -speak.
But that is what everyone believes -that there is only one genuine interpretation and of course it is they who has that one genuine interpretation.
Also that their interpretation is genuine because that they have genuinely sought it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 2:34:25 GMT -5
The problem with this argument is that there are umpteen different interpretations of scripture and therefore when it comes to founding a “true” way upon the rock of scripture there are umpteen different rocks of scripture to chose from. The 2x2s believe that they are founded upon the rock of scripture. The Catholic Church does so too although it is clearly a different rock of scripture. I know a fair few different Protestant Christians who believe that their particular church is also founded upon the rock of scripture. The issue therefore becomes one of who gets to decide which interpretation of scripture is the true interpretation of scripture. Inevitably when I ask this question of individual Christians they inevitably imply that it is THEIR interpretation although they generally stop short of actually saying it ... probably because it is such an absurd claim to make without providing a sound basis for claiming it and possibly to avoid being asked to provide a sound basis for it. The most unfortunate thing about scripture is that is open to so many different interpretations. And, somewhat ironically, the most fortunate thing about scripture is that it is open to so many different interpretations allowing one to make it mean whatever one wants it to mean and use it to justify almost anything. Whether it’s drinking cart loads of wine at the one sitting, not owning a television or keeping a slave you can find an interpretation of scripture to suit you. Whatever your principles and prejudices are, you can use scripture to create a version of God who will agree with you. Matt10 Well said Matt 10. It is not the claims themselves that are wrong (eg only true way etc), it is whether the proponents are indeed that one true way. Only true way claims can rightly be made by those who belong to the only true way. Scripture readily points to an only true way. The problem is...who are the only true way in this day and age? This raises the question of what leads anyone to believe that there actually is a “true way” in this day and age (or indeed in any age). It also raises the question of what one means by the term “true way” and what this “true way“ actually is. There certainly appears to be a lot more questions than answers. Religion has a habit of creating its own language which people tend to use unthinkingly without ever stopping to reflect on what it is they actually mean. I suspect that “true way” might fall into this category. My understanding is that the term “true way” is a label used to attach to one’s own church after it has split with its mother church as a means of justifying the split. No one ever seems to claim that someone else’s church is the true way or that they’ve left the true way to embark on a false one. You’ll be aware that when that famous Scotsman Billy Irvie started up his own breakaway church he labelled it the “Jesus Way”. This was a similar attempt to identify his church as the “true way“ and consequently label other ways “false” on the basis that you’re either following Jesus’ way or you’re not. And it wasn’t long before the “Jesus Way” was dropped in favour of the “One True Church” and him and his fellow workers labelled “God’s true servants”. The “true” label certainly seems very important to Christians. It surely follows that there must be much about Christianity that is false. It seems to me that the “true way” quality standard is inevitably based on self assessment whereby those wishing to gain accreditation do their own assessment according to their own interpretation of “true way” and then award themselves the badge accordingly. You have to agree that it’s a pretty clever ploy. As for me ever since I disentangled myself from Billy Irvie’s “true way” I’ve tended to avoid anyone claiming that they know the “true way” or that they are the “true way” on the grounds that they’re spoofing. So far this approach has worked extremely well. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by speak on May 4, 2020 3:50:14 GMT -5
God will give the right interpretation if one genuinely seeks it. There is only one genuine interpretation. Sorry, -speak.
But that is what everyone believes -that there is only one genuine interpretation and of course it is they who has that one genuine interpretation.
Also that their interpretation is genuine because that they have genuinely sought it!Everybody is entitled to their beliefs as I am mine, I gave the answer to say that it is God who reveals what is right and true regardless of what we might believe genuine or not. There is only one true interpretation and that has to come from God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2020 5:24:57 GMT -5
The problem with this argument is that there are umpteen different interpretations of scripture and therefore when it comes to founding a “true” way upon the rock of scripture there are umpteen different rocks of scripture to chose from. The 2x2s believe that they are founded upon the rock of scripture. The Catholic Church does so too although it is clearly a different rock of scripture. I know a fair few different Protestant Christians who believe that their particular church is also founded upon the rock of scripture. The issue therefore becomes one of who gets to decide which interpretation of scripture is the true interpretation of scripture. Inevitably when I ask this question of individual Christians they inevitably imply that it is THEIR interpretation although they generally stop short of actually saying it ... probably because it is such an absurd claim to make without providing a sound basis for claiming it and possibly to avoid being asked to provide a sound basis for it. The most unfortunate thing about scripture is that is open to so many different interpretations. And, somewhat ironically, the most fortunate thing about scripture is that it is open to so many different interpretations allowing one to make it mean whatever one wants it to mean and use it to justify almost anything. Whether it’s drinking cart loads of wine at the one sitting, not owning a television or keeping a slave you can find an interpretation of scripture to suit you. Whatever your principles and prejudices are, you can use scripture to create a version of God who will agree with you. Matt10 God will give the right interpretation if one genuinely seeks it. There is only one genuine interpretation. I recognise that this is your belief but as we all know beliefs and truths are not necessarily the same thing. Beliefs can be false as well as true whereas truth by definition cannot be false. There are many different beliefs which is why there are so many religions and so many Christian denominations and of course they all can’t be true (although they may all be false). I have to say that I’m not really interested in learning of people’s beliefs, what I am interested in is the truth. There is absolutely nothing which suggests that God will give anyone the right interpretation of anything. In fact the only thing that is certain is that many men of many minds have many interpretations of many kinds. And people inevitably claim that their interpretation is the right one. I have to say that I’m not that interested in people’s interpretations either, what I’m interested in is WHY a person believes that their interpretation is the right one or the only genuine one. I have found that whereas people are often swift to tell what the right interpretation of scripture is (it’s inevitably their interpretation) they really do struggle to explain why their interpretation is the right one. The only conclusion I can come to is that it isn’t and that it is just something they have made up. I recall that when I was a 2x2 they preached that their way was the only “true way” on the basis that it “wasn’t started by a man” but rather went all the way back to the “shores of Galilee”. I later found out that this was made up and that it was actually started around 1897 by some Scottish bloke. I note that you haven’t shared with us any interpretation which you have obtained from God. This suggests that God hasn’t given you the right interpretation. We are therefore no further forward as to what the “true way” is. I don’t suppose we ever will be as those who claim that there is a “true way” don’t seem to know what it is. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by speak on May 4, 2020 22:09:24 GMT -5
God will give the right interpretation if one genuinely seeks it. There is only one genuine interpretation. I recognise that this is your belief but as we all know beliefs and truths are not necessarily the same thing. Beliefs can be false as well as true whereas truth by definition cannot be false. There are many different beliefs which is why there are so many religions and so many Christian denominations and of course they all can’t be true (although they may all be false). I have to say that I’m not really interested in learning of people’s beliefs, what I am interested in is the truth. There is absolutely nothing which suggests that God will give anyone the right interpretation of anything. In fact the only thing that is certain is that many men of many minds have many interpretations of many kinds. And people inevitably claim that their interpretation is the right one. I have to say that I’m not that interested in people’s interpretations either, what I’m interested in is WHY a person believes that their interpretation is the right one or the only genuine one. I have found that whereas people are often swift to tell what the right interpretation of scripture is (it’s inevitably their interpretation) they really do struggle to explain why their interpretation is the right one. The only conclusion I can come to is that it isn’t and that it is just something they have made up. I recall that when I was a 2x2 they preached that their way was the only “true way” on the basis that it “wasn’t started by a man” but rather went all the way back to the “shores of Galilee”. I later found out that this was made up and that it was actually started around 1897 by some Scottish bloke. I note that you haven’t shared with us any interpretation which you have obtained from God. This suggests that God hasn’t given you the right interpretation. We are therefore no further forward as to what the “true way” is. I don’t suppose we ever will be as those who claim that there is a “true way” don’t seem to know what it is. Matt10 You can write what you like and can disagree with me all you like but for me that changes nothing. If you don't believe there is a God then what you wrote above is all you can right, your interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by ForeverFree on May 5, 2020 0:40:52 GMT -5
You can write what you like and can disagree with me all you like but for me that changes nothing. If you don't believe there is a God then what you wrote above is all you can right, your interpretation. ....and vice versa. It's a two way street.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on May 5, 2020 5:34:19 GMT -5
Well said Matt 10. It is not the claims themselves that are wrong (eg only true way etc), it is whether the proponents are indeed that one true way. Only true way claims can rightly be made by those who belong to the only true way. Scripture readily points to an only true way. The problem is...who are the only true way in this day and age? Hi Mountain, I've read your last few posts on this thread regarding seeking the "true way", and you have mentioned a few scriptural qualifications, so assume you are looking seriously at the Bible for this answer. The only true answer is "Jesus". He is the Way. Not any group of men who claim to follow him, not any one church or denomination. All "ways" in terms of churches and denominations and persuasions are, in the end, made up just of faulty people, getting it wrong here and there. You will always be disappointed if you put your hope in a "way" of particular people. John 16:13 says "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come." I would say to you - don't seek the right church, seek Jesus alone. Seek that Spirit of truth. Call out to him. Read the Bible. Pray to him. If you find a church who claims they are "it", run far, far away. If you want to find a church, find one which says "come join us, we are sinners, but we trust in the cross alone for our salvation and righteousness." All true believers know that their hope is in Jesus, not in their church. Jesus is not a respecter of denominations, but is a respecter of true faith in him. There are many true believers in false churches and unbelievers in good churches. (There are many good churches out there, just not the ones who claim that they alone have the monopoly on God.) And you if you do find the perfect church, for goodness' sake don't join it - you'll just mess it up.
|
|