|
You are reading the VOT Archive Home Page · VOT Topics · Table of Contents |
When I was professing it never occurred to me that the workers did not agree on their own doctrine. And, frankly, I didn't know what their doctrine was! Perhaps not so strange now that I think about it as it seems they hardly know what they believe themselves. (Take this as sarcasm if you wish but, really, I don't think they DO know what they believe!!! And since questions were a no-no I rarely asked!)
If they are united, for example, "the same the world over", I think they jolly well SHOULD agree on what they believe! Perhaps they should write down their beliefs?!! You know, like a regular church, and let all their people KNOW what they believe! How can they be shepherds without letting their people "in" on what they believe!?
One of the most confusing things for kids growing up is when one parent says "this" and the other parent (on the same subject) says "that."
Could it be that the workers are their own worst enemies because they do not believe the same things? Think of those poor little "children of God" not knowing whether to believe "this" or "that".
You mentioned about doctrine being neglected! That's a nice way to put it! The worker's doctrine is twisted and often just dead wrong! The scary part is that they are right often enough that they have even fooled Christians!
Irvine and his doctrinal error is another of our/their problems today. Irvine did not have enough doctrinal grounding in the Faith Mission (the group he was with before he formed the "Truth") and as a result he led all of "his" people into doctrinal error. The Faith Mission WAS and still IS teaching Christian doctrine but when Irvine placed so much emphasis on Matthew 10 he got off the Christian tract. He began to discredit all other churches, did not preach salvation by Grace, etc.
Various experiences throughout my life made me realize that 'The Truth' does not uphold Christ as our Savior enough.
A big factor in my being utterly at peace and never once having a doubt about my decision to leave was due to my attending 7 years of Bible Study Fellowship, a voluntary inter-denomination Bible study, that was equivalent to taking college course (wasn't a social thing, as the workers insinuate studies are when worldly people get together to study the Bible). Now, THEY know how to study the Bible so you understand it, and it sticks with you! And they don't push their beliefs on you. They tell you alternative understandings of various scriptures. You get an over all picture of a whole book in the Bible. Mixed with the history. The workers strong point is NOT teaching, let me tell you! When I began there, I thought, "This will be a cinch--I'm probably the only one here who has studied their Bible much" (in a class of 300 ladies). Was I EVER in for a surprise. Many of the ladies had far better answers to the questions than I did! How could I say these ladies didn't have the spirit as they shared their heart rending experiences? I couldn't. Then it began to irritate me when people in meetings put down other Christians. I didn't know that I didn't know ANYTHING. And thought I knew it all!
I had long wondered "What must I do to be saved?" Well, finally I got the answer. I learned what God really wants from us--and it wasn't what the workers were teaching. Still I hung in because I believed the lie was true that it was "the only way." It bothered me because so many things about it were imperfect--MY God was able to make and maintain perfection. So how could this be?
There are so many negative and False sermons preached at convention. One fairly recent one was they talked about the 5 wise and 5 foolish, and he said that that means "50% of people sitting in this tent won't be saved". That was REAL encouragement I thought! (NOT!). Another time they talked about our "willful sins" won't be forgiven. I actually always knew they had to be WRONG on this point.
Once you have been in contact with the real thing, a counterfeit is not hard to spot.
The Bible has opened up far more to me in the last two weeks than it has in 20 years of going to 2x2 meetings!
One thing that I have observed in talking/writing to EX2x2s is that, while they professed, they had God all tangled up with the "Way." Hence, when they left the "Truth" they were not able to find Him. To them He seems still mixed together with the "Way." I believe this is one of the reasons that some of the friends leave the fellowship and never have a relationship with God. I feel sad about this but this is yet another "thing" that the workers' teaching has done to us/them.
"A primary characteristic of cults in general is the practice of taking biblical texts out of context in order to develop pretexts for their theological perversions. In addition, cults have virtually made an artform out of using Christian terminology, all the while pouring their own meanings into the words. For example, while practically all cults laud the name 'Jesus,' they preach a Jesus vastly different from the Jesus ofthe historic Christian faith. As Jesus Christ Himself put it, the real litmus test is 'Who do you say I am?' "(Matt 16:15). (Walter Martin)
How can we not be upset when men would defile His name and Who He Is!!??
There is no neutrality with God, and everything is either for or against. All false gospels are definitely against, even if they masquerade as an 'Angel of Light' with the most zealous, lovely people.
In my 36 years of being in the system (not just in body but in spirit) I can honestly say I don't even ONCE remember hearing the true gospel message of sin, grace, redemption and justification presented by ANYONE in the system. What I understood of redemption, I gleaned through the word of God and the Spirit's work in my heart... never from a clear presentation of it.
In fact, _____ and I believe that if a worker really started preaching the true message, he/she would be put out of the work. The true gospel of God'sgrace and justification thru the blood of Jesus renders the "works" of belonging to the 2&2 system of the homeless ministry and the meetings in the home as extraneous. For the workers to begin preaching the true gospel, would be for them to preach themselves out of a congregation because of the "bondage" that is so much a part of the system. If salvation is the free gift of God (and it is-Rom 6:23) and if "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."--Rom 8:1 (and there isn't!), then we don't need to labor all our life in "the only right way" in order to earn our salvation.
Indeed, then, there is no more bondage to the group mentality, the legalism, the lack of doctrinal understanding, etc, etc... and "Then, you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."--John 8:32 the message of the 2&2 system is totally of a works-based salvation. People in the system live defeated lives... they try,they fail, they just don't know if God will EVER accept them because they just can't stay "good." I've never heard the definition of God's grace as 'His UNMERITED favor' from anyone in the group. I didn't speak of grace much because I felt I didn't really understand it... the only way I ever heard it spoken of in the group was of His strength imparted to help us along (only, with all the defeat, it didn't seem to work very well.)
Yes, because the message of the 2&2 system is a works-based message, the probability is that people would "join up" to be saved by belonging to the group... that's the message they're hearing... and that's very dangerous. Because of this, I still say, the fact that some people find salvation while they are connected to the system is in spite of and in contradiction to the 2&2 system and it's message.
And that is why I no longer believe it makes sense to try to "fix" the system. If the foundation is faulty, the building on it CAN'T be made to stand firmly no matter how hard we try... and no one NEEDS to stay in the system...it is not necessary for salvation and there is abundant and wonderful fellowship with other devoted Christians to be found all over the world! There is no reason to exclude from that fellowship those with whom we have enjoyed fellowship with in the past within the system, either... tho, most of us have found that those within the system no longer believe THEY can fellowship with US once we leave their system.
I heard a lot about the "plumbline" in meetings. I assumed they meant the Word of God, but now I'm not sure.
For some of us the "Who Is Jesus" question was a big reason why we started questioning the 2&2 fellowship and authority of the workers. Of the 20 workers we talked to or heard a definite statement from in 1992, 5 said Christ is (part of) God and the others said not. One of the 5 was a brother worker from Europe, in the work here in _____, who got our exit letter and wrote to us and freely used the word Trinity to describe his belief in God. He seemed to be under the impression that all workers believed the same and he asked the overseer in ______. An overseer in ______ had written to the overseer in ______ to warn him about us and the one in ______ had written to us that he had "never heard of such a thing as Jesus Christ being God". Later he told the same brother in _______ that he believes inTrinity and that Christ is (part of) God. One overseer on the "no" side in _______said he didn't know when Jesus came into being but he also said he believes the same doctrine as the overseer who was on the "yes" side!
Then one of the 5 changed sides and went with the majority to make it only 4. He had told me directly that Trinity is right doctrine but later wrote us and said Trinity is Catholic doctrine and that he didn't intend to go that way. In the same letter he stated that WE were wandering around in the confused religious world. Later when the pressure was off, he told others again that Trinity is true doctrine. We asked him if he could hear the rooster crowing but I guess that wasn't nice.
What is the sum of all this? I can understand there being some difference in opinion over exactly how we describe the relationship between Father and Son and even within a church group such as the 2&2s I would not complain if there was some differences but not if they teach that their GROUP is the Only Way to be saved. Then they must be in complete agreement. [The point, of course, is, that the workers do not agree with each other on their doctrine!]
My dear Mom DID understand the Trinity and she was STILL sucked into the 2x2s. She did NOT know that the workers don't believe in the Trinity.
I had asked the workers if I could tape record their sermons and I was told "No, because it might get into the wrong hands." Looking back I wonder why that didn’t sound strange to me. One would think that if God’s true word is being preached, there would be nothing to hide. Isn’t God’s word able to stand against any test?
One of the "Two by Twos" most vehement objections is aimed at the use (and especially ownership) of a special building for their regular church meetings. Being extremely conservative, they strongly oppose anything that might suggest extravagance or vanity. They claim that regular meetings of the "saints" should be held only in private homes. To support this position they call attention to the several references in the New Testament where the church is spoken of as meeting in a person’s home. Granted, there are such references, and no doubt the early church did make considerable use of private residences for church meetings where the apostle’s teaching, fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayers were engaged in. However, there is NO specific command or principle, expressed or implied, which maybe interpreted as FORBIDDING any other meeting place for the church. The question centers around whether or not the mere mention of a house for church meetings in the Scriptures MUST be taken as a pattern which cannot be departed from without violating the will of God. The "Two by Twos" insist that it DOES furnish such a pattern. Let us examine the Scriptures to see if this is truly the case.
In the early days of the church we find examples of Christians making use of the Temple in Jerusalem for prayer (Acts 3:1). In Acts 16:13-18 a careful study of the circumstances indicates that the "place of prayer" near the river had become a regular meeting place for the newly converted group of Christians which included Lydia and her household. Paul had been going to this place for "many days," no doubt to teach these new Christians and to pray with them.
After meeting with opposition in the synagogue of Ephesus (Acts 19) Paul separated the disciples and began meeting with them "in the school of Tyrannus." The use of this building evidently continued for two years as the meeting place for Christians. It was probably some type of school room or hall where classes were conducted by a man named Tyrannus.
There are a few instances where Christians met, as a church, in a location OTHER than a private house. From this we learn that there was no requirement of "home meetings" in New Testament days. While the advent of what we call "church houses" or "meeting houses" developed somewhat later, the New Testament contains neither command nor principle which would give Scriptural grounds for us opposing their construction and use.
Let us look at the church meeting in Acts 20:7-12. Was it a private house? The context does not indicate that it was. It does mention that it contained three floors, but we have no way of knowing, with certainty, whether it was a private residence or not. One could argue either way with equal force. We cannot draw conclusions from SILENCE of the Scriptures. The "Two by Twos" have taken the position this WAS a private house, not because of what the Bible says, but because of a preconceived idea they have settled upon.
Scholars are generally agreed that there is a possible allusion to the use of a special meeting place for the church in I Corinthians 11:17-34. This passage discusses the church’s assembly for the Lord’s Supper. The church in Corinth was abusing the practice of the Lord’s Supper by making it a time for partaking of a regular meal at the same time. This was causing division because those who were better off had plenty to eat while the poorer ones had little. Paul asks the question, "What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in ? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not?" (verse 22). The implication is that THIS meeting place was NOT a private house but some other type building large enough for accommodating a sizable congregation. This is further suggested by verse 34 which says, "If any man is hungry, let him eat at home…" While we cannot dogmatically assert the exact type of building this was, there are notable indications that it was not a private home.
Anyone even slightly acquainted with church history is fully aware of the fact that the early church met for worship in catacombs beneath the streets of Rome. This was necessitated by the sever persecution being waged against Christianity in those days. If the church had been required to meet in private homes during those trying times, obviously it would not have survived. The early church knew nothing of mandatory "private house meetings" as "Two by Twos" insist on today.
They have such strong feelings about this subject that some members have been known to misapply, grossly, various passages of Scripture in an effort to "prove" their point. The case of the Jewish leaders whom Jesus rebuked for loving "the chief seats in the synagogues" (Matthew 23:6) is used to "prove" that people who make use of church buildings today are Pharisees. They also assert that the "synagogue of Satan" mentioned in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 is a reference to the sin of meeting in a church building. The absurdity of such misuse of Scripture seems to know no bounds.