WikiPeebia.com Forums

Like after a fellowship meeting, just better.
It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:13 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please note: This forum allows the use of anonymous usernames and is a public forum. This means that there probably are members of the PBCC active in the forums. They may try to befriend you with the intention of gathering information that should not get out into the public domain. Be very careful what you say to persons that you do not know. Bear in mind too, that use of a username on another site or forum may not necessarily be the same person on WP with the same username. There have also been actions of copying what is said here to use elsewhere. This is not allowed. Please read the forum rules properly. Full forum rules can be found at http://wikipeebia.com/forum



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 5:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 2590
Blub Rect vessel...one would like to inquire in the light of what appears to be current amongst us if kissing Our Beloved Brothers hind most parts would qualify as 'Holy Kiss' or would that be known as 'Brown Nosing'?( speaking reverently of course)...I'll pass if that's OK with you...see, one wouldn't want to accuse you of anything, but it almost appears to be an element of despisal if you don't join the lineup at the back door during the 'break'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:10 pm
Posts: 241
fisherman wrote:
I cannot vouch for the historical accuracy of this,but I recall that subject ,'withdrawing from ' vs 'putting out' being discussed at a local reading.FW explained it as 'when the original church was intact, there was no other alternative, so people deemed being 'not fit for Christian fellowship'*could be 'put out' whereas later on there were other churches in existence and all that could be done was to 'withdraw from' an individual i.e. 'with such a one, not not to socialise with, not even to eat' ( 1 Corinthians 5:11 )


Moonraker wrote:
Posterchild, I think the answer lies in JND's doctrine of "the public ruin of the Church". He believed that the outward form of the Christian church, with all its sects and denominations, had failed beyond repair. 2 Timothy predicted this and gave us guidance: individuals were to separate from all ecclesiastical evil and would find fellowship with others likeminded. But in doing this it was important to recognise the "ruin": we had lost authority even to appoint elders and deacons. We could not admit to a name because this would give us a corporate status, which is why most of us had to marry in a registry office. In keeping with this, there is no church to collectively "put away" a reprobate (Corinthians), so each individual must for themselves "withdraw from" such a person (Timothy).
This thinking was put to one side when JT Jr declared "We are the Church". But it is deeply imbedded in the EB psyche which I think explains quite a lot. Charitable acts can be credited to the "Exclusive Brethren Christian Church", while anything which might draw criticism is "individual exercise". No wonder they ran rings round the Charity Commissioners!.




Thank you Moonraker. What you have said coincides with what I see as the history and reasons. Fisherman, you seem to be saying the same thing from a perspective perhaps 100 or so years later than the original Darby teaching, and possibly your recollection of FW's comments compared to Moonraker's thoughts on the origins shows how the collective belief that no group can claim to be the church switched by degrees over 150 years to a collective belief that "We are the Assembly".

Now that you have both confirmed what I thought, I would say it something like this: Basically since we cannot truthfully claim We are the Church, and cannot act formally as such in matters of discipline, the instructions to an individual became the accepted method of dealing with evil.

Essentially Brethren are said to be withdrawn from because to claim to be The Assembly or to act formally in discipline as though you are is wrong.

Now I hear of an individual who is withdrawn from by them for stating that they are not The Assembly.
Isn't this sort of ironic and massively hypocritical? The very term "Withdrawn From" is derived from the teaching that you are not and cannot claim to be the Church! So they are using terminology that screams "we are not the Church" to uphold their current belief that they are the church.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:04 am
Posts: 1398
That is an interesting addition to the many contradictions within EB ministry. Someone is allegedly withdrawn from for agreeing with JND and FER: withdrawn from using terminology that screams "we are not the Church" in order to uphold their current belief that they are the church. I would like to know more about the case if that can be done without breaking confidences.

I don’t think many Brethren will be conscious of the contradiction, because their prevailing ethos does not encourage much interest in consistency or truth. It is striking how effortlessly people like President Trump and Brethren leaders can deny obvious truths, proclaim obvious falsehoods and hold self-contradictory views all at the same time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 2590
I doubt very much any of the brethren under age 75 even KNOW what's in the older ministry....or even in the SCRIPTURES for that matter ie. Christ overturning the tables of the merchants in the temple...the original ' Commercial System in the Assembly( like, do we have to SPELL it out?)

What is flabbergasting to anybody who knows anything about the EB is how the brethren are manipulated like dancing puppets on a string,but still maintain their 'loyalty' in spite of the blatant hypocricy of their leaders doing whatever they darn well please while the brethren kow tow to every passing whim and 'maintain separation' from their families and loved ones...absolutely OUTRAGEOS !

The irony of this travesty is all the brethren need to do is 'just say no!'like we SHOULD have done in 1959....just think of all that we would have been spared...the broken marriages and homes, families , alcoholism,all a direct result of JTJrs 'new ministry'which wasn't even substantiated by scripture..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 12:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:00 am
Posts: 290
I've said it before and I'll say it again - if Jesus came back to the earth the Brethren would not let him in the door. His beliefs do not happily exist with theirs. I doubt Darby, Raven, Coates or any of the old boys would get a look in either. And I've long said that JT Snr would get the boot today because he did not believe in separation.

What you have to realise is that the Peebs today don't worship God per se. They worship their God who is Bruce Hales. When they read white books instead of their bible - you have your proof right there. His word is final. Not God's.

The bottom line of all this is that they should not be calling themselves Christians. While they pretend to be - there is nothing 'Christian' about them. They hate the world. Christ did not. They hate other religions - Christ would not. They tell lies to cover their actions. i.e. 'Sin separates families'- not the Brethren. Well if that is the case- what about all the families they 'separated' wrongfully - and tried to apologise for 30 years too late - and then had the arrogance to say if you don't come back to us now -because we have apologised for our actions- you cannot be saved! But they have it both ways. Which can never be RIGHT!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 12:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:00 am
Posts: 290
A writer has left a message back channel for me saying that the original article here is interesting but flawed because there is no proof that the money belongs to Hales. Quite true. Hales of course covers his backside well when it comes to funds and trusts I expect. But he and his family members and his cronies like Goose in Melbourne would all be getting their 'taste' - trust me on that. These guys don't do stuff for nothing.

To a much lesser extent it's like Symington saying, when he spent over a million dollars on more farmland, paid for with Brethren donations, he has done heaps of things for the Brethren over the years for no return and felt no compunction in spending that sort of money on himself. He openly said that. I would think Hales would take a similar stand - except his windfall has been extraordinary compared to Symington's simple gift cash haul.

So Hales may be able to cover his actions in a court of law - but he is still living large in a multi-million dollar house with expensive cars, private jet travel and family trusts to ensure the Hales empire. How many Brethren cash gifts for example found their way into Hales many businesses? Who can answer that? No one. See what I mean. Of course he does not have to provide an audited account of his income and spending. Doesn't make it right. Or righteous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 3:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 2590
The brethren are masters at 'Double Speak',they are Chameleon Christians when it's convenient to be, or getting special tax status but they are businessmen when there's money to be made by operating a commercial system in the Assembly . They are the 'only collective postion ' that the Lord can come to, but when challenged,they just 'ordinary Christians like everybody else' .They have a 'universal leader' who nobody dares to move hand or foot without, but they all have 'individual Excercises ' to sell up their homes and relocate thousands of miles away( strange coincidence,these 'individual Excercises) The brethren are always right and they'll reverse engineer to make the facts fit.History is there to be rewritten. Let not the assembly be charged...see?

I call them the 'Teflon Brethren'-nothing sticks...slippery as eels


Last edited by fisherman on Wed May 17, 2017 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 75
Location: UK
abishag says -

Quote:
And I've long said that JT Snr would get the boot today because he did not believe in separation.


The facts don’t support this view unfortunately.

Exclusive Brethren by the very definition are separatists and have followed an ever increasing separation path since 1848. Even as far back as JND who’s ministry included “Separation from Evil”– Gods Principle of Unity” which has been applied in very devious, misleading and unchristian ways ever since.

James Taylor Senior was the chief architect and leader who led the Exclusive Brethren down an ever more separatist and extremist path. It was he who set the foundation for his son JT Jnr.

The China matter with Watchman Nee in 1934 spearheaded by JT Snr was all about not being allowed to break bread, or worship, with other Christians due to the separation rule. If you have ever read the letters from JT Snr regarding this, it is clear he was a deep sectarian separatist. There have also been plenty of books written about this episode

The booklet ‘marriage in the lord’ by James Taylor Senior was all about not being allowed to marry outside the Exclusive Brethren group and certainly not being allowed to marry other Christians outside the group. JT Snr called marriage to other Christians outside the group - “marrying dead bones”. This booklet is deeply sectarian and separatist and full of prejudice against all Christians outside the group. The concepts and thoughts contained in it are sickening

James Taylor Senior certainly believed in Separation

FE Raven tried to warn the Exclusive Brethren members in a meeting (transcribed as usual and put into print) not long before he died. James Taylor Senior attended this meeting, which took place shortly before he assumed supreme leadership of the EB. JT Snr did not agree to, or commit to, any of FER’s comments and its clear from JT Snr’s subsequent actions as EB leader that he completely disagreed with FER.

This foundation led to his son JT Jnr taking ‘separation’ to an even more extreme non Christian level by introducing the ‘no eating rule’ and the many other esoteric mystical fancies that the alcoholic introduced

_________________
The distinction between cult and religion lies squarely in how those leaving or those wanting to leave are treated


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 2590
I can verify that....when JTjr introduced his 'new ministry' in the early 60's it was stated that 'all he was doing was enforcing what his father introduced'

Reguarding Watchman Nee, my father told me that reguardless the 'official' reasons for parting company ( likely the last opportunity brethren had to carry out the 'great Commission' ) the real reason was Watchman Nee was becoming a bit too popular for JTsr....same with Joe Dean of Nanaimo,by all reguards a fine man ,a down to earth coal miner who was recognised for his ability as a bible teacher ...but accused of a 'rival ministry ' to JTsr.This was an 'issue' that Bruce Hales said had 'never been judged' in the Pacific North West...( in his last visit to Vancouver ,I was told by the brother( GB) who had to clean up after him that JTsr had a glass of whisky under his chair and was not able to controll himself...one of the rather embarrassing incidents that brethren don't like to admit, overindulgence in strong drink didn't start with JTjr,although he certainly took it to new depths with his public exposure at Aberdeen)

Any notion that the brethren have 'no clergy' or that there are 'no politics' and leaders are 'Devinely appointed' by the 'Lord laying his hand on them 'is utterly naive....


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brother John and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group