Covered up William Irivine as the 2x2 founder?

[nathanb]

Re: Hypothetical Twist on Truth Founder William Ir
« Reply #2 on Jun 8, 2008, 17:30 »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jun 8, 2008, 16:54, Brick wrote:

This may be too philosophical, but what, exactly, DO we know? That "original cabal" is long gone now, and most who were witnesses to it all. So what do we have? Where is the truth without spin, or an agenda? We have impressions, scant records, but what else? Was there a cover up? Whodunnit? How do you know that there was a conscious decision to conceal the origin of the fellowship?

1) friend1 wrote:
If not a conscious decision to conceal the origin, there certainly was not and is not any openness in that regard, at least on the left coast.

I have never heard W.I. mentioned in a fellowship, Gospel, Special or Convention meeting. Has anyone?

I have heard a lot about Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, the alpha and omega, etc. Is there any error in this?

To consider the original question: "if no one in the F&W at this point were to know about W.I.", I don't think it would make much difference. My impression is those who left upon learning about W.I. were not satisfied in the fellowship anyway and had it not been the W.I. issue, it soon would have been something else.

I realize that is a fairly arrogant statement, if for no other reason than that my actions and spirit could easily be the "something else."

[nathanb]

1) John Wegter wrote:
I'll just share what I heard two west coast overseers share in personal visits about William Irvine.

Tharold Sylvester told me in 1982 that he remembered William Irvine visiting convention in Oregon when Tharold was a boy. (I'm thinking 1911 is the date he mentioned, but I could be wrong.) He said at that time there was no hint of William being in any kind of special capacity; he was simply introduced as 'one of the workers from the old country'.

When Tharold himself learned more details about the 'early days' in the mid 70s, he personally arranged for Joshua Gamble from Ireland to make the entire round of west coast conventions, and asked Joshua to mention the subject at each convention with the purpose of trying to dispel the 'continuous unbroken chain' myth. I heard Joshua at two conventions that year.

I think most people didn't really take much note of what he said, but he certainly made it clear enough that there was no continuous ministry going out in this fashion and no recognizable fellowship of this type before the late 1890s.

Eldon Tenniswood told me in 1997 that William Irvine had visited a number of times in Michigan during Eldon's childhood, and the older Tenniswoods thought very highly of him, to the point that they named one of their sons Irvine.

But again he was never mentioned in any special capacity as founder or supreme leader. It was just on his last visit to a Michigan convention (either 1913 or 1914) that the Tenniswoods came home quite disappointed because WI had preached himself as 'founder' there, saying (Eldon's exact words) "I am the father of you all." Tenniswoods' reaction was, "William's changed, and we don't believe we can trust him anymore."

I believe an anonymous (Eddie Cooney) quote dated 1909 that used to be on the TTT website (not sure if it's still there) sums up the attitudes of the early workers quite well: "We are not starting a new religion. We are earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints and trying to separate it from the traditions of men..."

Some will no doubt debate that point, but to me that attitude explains why William Irvine was not mentioned as 'founder' by the early workers in North America and elsewhere. The simple fact is that they didn't consider him the founder, and they weren't promoting him in any way above other workers.

Most of the written records (letters, memoirs, etc.) seem to agree that some time after 1910, a change was perceived in WI's approach, and he began to make claims for himself as a prophet that he hadn't made previously, which caused the majority of the workers and friends to lose their confidence in him and eventually to separate him from their fellowship.

This leads me to believe that prior to this he was not especially promoting himself in such a way (see Goodhand Pattison's memoirs, for example) and neither were the workers who first came to North America in that first decade when their message spread so rapidly across the continent.

So when WI was separated from fellowship, there was really no need for a "coverup" or a change in teaching, because he hadn't held any special place in anyone's teaching from the beginning, except in his own in those last years.

Unfortunately, because most in this country didn't know anything about the history--and didn't seem to care much about it--somehow people began to seize on the notion that there had been an unbroken chain, and the efforts to combat that teaching weren't strong enough, so it gained a foothold which has persisted and has caused no end of problems.

I have personally heard a number of overseers in both eastern and western areas speak explicitly in workers meetings about the folly and error of teaching living witness doctrine and/or apostolic succession.

I have been in meetings and personal visits with men who were close protégés of both George Walker and Jack Carroll, and those men stated explicitly that Jack and George taught workers to deny those doctrines. And yet somehow, through ignorance, they proliferated in certain circles.

I'll have to say that I heard stories all my life from relatives with a strong bent for history about 'the first workers', and was shown copies of 'the first hymn book', so that it was pretty evident there was a time when there weren't workers and meetings as we know them, even though I didn't know all the details.

Two of my first three companions had been companions of George Walker, and when I asked them questions about history, they answered me without hesitation with what they knew of the beginnings in Ireland. I realize that in this respect my experience differs from many, and in no way do I mean to invalidate the experience of others.

My point is that the supposed "coverup" simply has not been nearly as universal as some would like to claim. Again, my own feeling is that any denial of the facts of our history as a fellowship has to do with ignorance and disinterest, and not with any determination to deceive.

[nathanb]

1) John Wegter wrote:
I 'll just share what I heard two west coast overseers share in personal visits about William Irvine.

Tharold Sylvester told me in 1982 that he remembered William Irvine visiting convention in Oregon when Tharold was a boy. (I'm thinking 1911 is the date he mentioned, but I could be wrong.) He said at that time there was no hint of William being in any kind of special capacity; he was simply introduced as 'one of the workers from the old country'.

When Tharold himself learned more details about the 'early days' in the mid 70s, he personally arranged for Joshua Gamble from Ireland to make the entire round of west coast conventions, and asked Joshua to mention the subject at each convention with the purpose of trying to dispel the 'continuous unbroken chain' myth.

I heard Joshua at two conventions that year. I think most people didn't really take much note of what he said, but he certainly made it clear enough that there was no continuous ministry going out in this fashion and no recognizable fellowship of this type before the late 1890s.


Hi John,
good to hear from you..... Did Tharold or Joshua ever read or heard of the Vaudois Christians apostolic 2x2 itinerant ministry, belief, doctrines from A.D. 70-1800.

The Pilgrim Church written by E. H. Broabent

I read about a well-known ex-worker who left the fellowship wrote in 1950 he had read the Pilgrim Church where men and women had a continous 2x2 Itinerant ministry for 1800 yrs before John Govan and William Irvine were born.... so William Irvine was NOT the first who came up with this 2x2s workers ministry or idea.

The Vaudois believed in apostolic succession for 1800 yrs just like the Catholic but their lineage trace it back to Paul instead of Peter.

[nathanb]

Re: Hypothetical Twist on Truth Founder William Ir
« Reply #12 on Jun 9, 2008, 9:38 »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jun 9, 2008, 8:41, John Wegter wrote:Nate,

This thread is about William Irvine, not about the Vaudois, so let's not hijack it too far, okay?

I have no idea if Tharold or Joshua ever heard of the Vaudois, and I don't think it's relevant or not whether they did. I've never been presented with any convincing evidence that our fellowship group has any temporal connection to the Vaudois, even though we may espouse many of the same ideals.

You and I have been talking about this subject for years, and I think we need to agree to disagree on this one. Except for one apocryphal story told by one man and repeated enthusiastically by another, there is no evidence anywhere that the early Irish workers were aware of any Vaudois connection. They felt no need to prove any line of succession at all, and were content with their convictions that God had raised up followers of the New Testament pattern in their day, without feeling any compulsion to prove any kind of temporal heritage. So why should we?


~~~ N9: Thanks, John... but we should not just stop at William Irvine... My point is God has has always raised up and sent more laborers/workers into His harvest field in EVERY generation and William Irivine was one of the hundreds and thousands ones who sent forth by God the past 2,000 yrs.

Before sending out the 12 and 70 apostles=sent ones Jesus said to his disciples. "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are FEW. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to SEND out workers into his harvest field." (Matthew 9:37,38) (NIV)

It doesn't matter if you or me agree or not with Robert Darling's an early 2x2 1905 worker's story or not. It is good to give the readers all information of the past and the present then people can see a clearer of the BIG picture then they're able to form their own conclusion.

[nathanb]

1) JW wrote:

What I'm trying to say, Nate, is that whether it's the early Irish workers or the Vaudois or whomever, it isn't overly relevant to me and to most believers. Putting the emphasis on a person-to-person heritage has been at the root of much disappointment and disillusionment for many.

~~~ N9: It's an unhealthy belief, and thinking if anyone based their Salvation on geneology of the past instead in Jesus is the Lord. That's a big and serious mistake. They've missed the boat.

It is very encouraging, uplifting, and edifying to read those who gone before us on how they kept true to Christ's teachings even before they were burn at stakes.

2) What is important to me is that I heard the gospel of the Lord Jesus, I believed it, and was born again of His Spirit, bringing me into a personal relationship with Him. This is very real to me, and while I value the fellowship with other believers, such fellowship is not the determining factor in my salvation.

~~~ N9: I agree that is how I feel also. When I professed in 1979 I didn't know about WI or too many of the early workers names. There was a cry for help deep down within my own heart, a need of seeking God for my own salvation and He showed it to me.

My Salvation was NOT based of knowing who started this or was there a covered up... I couldn't careless at the time. Jesus was the One who died for me and I needed Him as My Lord and Savior.


3) While my particular group of interests may make it fascinating to me to know the details about the individuals who were sent by God to help me and others understand the message, the existence or non-existence of an unbroken chain of believers does nothing to enhance or detract from my experience of walking with God. In my opinion, it has been a grave error made by some in our fellowship to try to introduce that human factor as a vital element of salvation.

~~~ N9: Yes, you and I are on the same page on this one, John.

4) For people who are interested in history--and I am--great! Let them trace as many connections as they can and appreciate the stories of individuals through the ages who have been called and sent by God. No doubt lots can be learned from their experiences, both their triumphs and their errors.

But keep it as an interesting sideline, and by no means the centerpiece. Some, unfortunately, have made it the centerpiece, resulting in the outlook that "We're saved because we're associated with the right chain of people" instead of the scriptural experience that "We're saved because of God's grace through faith in the Lord Jesus." [/quote]

~~~ N9: I agree with you 100%! ;D I love reading church history we can learn a lot from their own journey, mistakes, courage for truth in Jesus but our Salvation should NOT depend in knowing the geneology, lineage because we can trace it back to Peter or Paul.

Salvation should be trusting in Jesus and in Him only when we confess inwardly and publicly He's our Lord and Savior.

[nathanb]

Re: Hypothetical Twist on Truth Founder William Ir
« Reply #21 on Jun 9, 2008, 15:39 »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jun 9, 2008, 13:08, Strange wrote:
So let me get this straight, Irvine preached, quote - the self revelation of Apostolic succession - unquote. AND he claimed he FOUNDED the church too. Does that strange to you?


~~~ N9: Yes, something is really fishy here. William Irivne had claimed he was the First or the founder! then what happened to the Christians Vaudois apostles and believers like them in many countries in Europe, Russia, England, Ireland, Scotland, France, Italy, etc.. who had done the same thing for 1800 yrs before he was born. So that made them them the first and before WI, right? Therefore WI could NOT claim to be the First or the father of it all.

And if they had done it for 1800 yrs then how could William Irvine claim to be the the FIRST, the Founder or the father of it all....hmmmmmmmm I believe WI was getting a little too nutty around 1910-14... just before he left the 2x2 ministry.

WI claimed he was FOUNDER after he LEFT the 2x2 ministry and eventually became an ex-2x2.... I think he was mad, angry at the early workers for not listening and believe in his false gospel, untruth revelation prediction and unbecoming behavior toward proffesing women before he left on his own in 1914.

[nathanb]

1) An anonymous wrote: Nathan, PLEASE STOP OBSESSING OVER GENEALOGIES.

~~~ N9: Huh? then why are you reading the Bible? it has a lot of genealogies of the children of Israel the past for 4000 yrs.... what are you so afraid of history of the past, and history before WI was born.... Could it be because it debunked WI claimed he was the Founder or the father of it all theory.

Or the theory the 2x2 workers ministry is WI own concoction, motion, idea... so it started by A MAN by the name of William Irvine....

Geneologies and history of other Christians like the Vaudois DEBUNKED the theory that there were nobody was preaching the 2x2 Itinerant method prior to the time WI was born.

So the covered up WI was the founder is a frabrication or something certain ones came up with to make the 2x2s fellowship is a CULT.

[nathanb]

Jun 9, 2008, 16:00, others too wrote:
It was not just William Irvine who claimed to be the founder of the group, other workers who followed also claimed this as we have read on this board.

~~~ N9: Let me ask you some simple questions and think about it, Ok... How could WI be the first 2x2 Itinerant worker when many other men and women had done the sameit before him 1800 yrs?

How Paul, Peter, James, John, Barnabas? I thought Jesus was the first true apostle/worker. Didn't he started and founded the Itinerant ministry in the Gospel and didn't His own apostles continued the Itinerant minisry themselves in the book of Acts?

Wouldn't Jesus be the first or do you think Willliam Irvine was the first/founder before Jesus?

[nathanb]

Jun 10, 2008, 0:49, dietcoke wrote:
Yes, Jesus was the real deal, Nathan. I admit, though, I never know quite how to feel about that title, "Messiah."

He did not fulfill the Jewish hope of Messiah, nor will he...so in my mind, he is not the biblical Messiah (there turned out to be no such thing, nobody to save the Jews from persecution and set the world right) regardless of how much effort the gospel writers put into showing him as the fulfillment of scripture. The "anointed one" as you put it.

That does not mean we cannot make him a very personal Messiah.


~~~ N9: You're a very interesting person, and a thinker... DC.. you're unique in your own way. You make us think.

Jesus fulfilled His messiahship by dying for all humanity.... The Jews in Jesus' time did not fully understand the purpose two comings of the Messiah! The first time the Anointed=Messiah came as a suffering king to die for theirs and theirs and our sins. The second time when Jesus the Messiah came back as a conquering king of kings to rule all nations.

Someone wrote: The New Testament many times uses the phrases Jesus Christ, and the Christ, Christ is NOT a name, but a title. It means "anointed one."

Calling Jesus the Christ meant that He was "God's anointed One," the One whom God has chosen for an extraordinary mission on earth.

Christ a Greek word, has the same meaning as the Old Testament's Hebrew word "Messiah."

In the Old Testament the word Messiah can refer to almost any person or even an inanimate object that is anointed. But as time passed, the Jews began to believe that God would send one special person, the Messiah, who would restore the nation of Israel to its polictical and spiritual glory at His 2nd coming NOT at the 1st coming.

Many people saw this figure as a Warrior king who would chase the foreign oppresors from the land. Groups of guerrilla fighters and terrorists banded together occasionally, trying to put the dream into action. One group of these was called the Zealots, and one of Jesus' disciples was a Zealot name Simon.

No doubt and some of the followers of Jesus wondered if He was the long-waited Messiah who would chase the Romans from the land.

~~~ Jesus failed to meet these expections. He told the Romans governor, Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36) Yet many people had become convinced that Jesus was the Messsiah, the Christ. They perceived that their expectation of a military-political strongman had been wrong.

Jesus the Messiah was a spirit Savior, one who would SAVE people NOT from foreign armies but from their OWN sins!

~~~ Jesus has two comings! which foretold in the Old Testament. The first time as a suffering king... and the second time as a conquering king of kings and Lord of lords to reign on the earth for 1000 yrs with His followers.

He came the first time to redeem the Jews from their own sins then when He returns again as king of kings to Reign 1000 yrs and to subdue all nations under his feet.

The Jews in Jesus days got the two comings backwards so they didn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

Jesus is the Anointed and the Messiah that the Jews have been waiting for but when he came he didn't delieverd them from the Romans oppression because they had misunderstood or mixed up two of His comings.

Jesus first coming wasn't to deliver the Jews from Romans oppression/rule but to deliever them from their own SINS. The second time when Jesus returns He will deliver the Jews from ALL of their enemies as King of kings and the LORD of lords on the earth for 1000 yrs reign on the earth. (Romans 11)

[nathanb]

1) Fionajane wrote:

Hi Nate,
Upfront I have to tell you that I think promoting an unbroken link is dangerous, and in my opinion caused more to lose faith than it does to build faith.

~~~ N9: This is where people get confused and don't understand there is NOTHING to promote. It is historical and documents facts! Unbroken link with the Vaudois apostles for 1800 yrs and the Catholic church! 2000 yrs.

It doesn't matter if you and I believe in Unbroken link or not! because it is historical and document facts of the Catholic Church and the Vaudois and many of their own similiar brothers in other countries.

Remember Jesus sent out 82 apostles=sent ones in the Matthew and Luke 10.... And many more such as Matthias, Paul, Barnas, Silas, Timothy, Apollos, Titus, Tychicus, Aristacus, Justus, Ephaphas, Archipus, Ephraroditus, etc.. were sent forth as workers in the book of Acts.

It has nothing to do with to lose faith or to build faith at all. But to say unbroken link isn't true then you don't know what you're talking about. It shows others the ignorance of church history.

2) I have no problem with 'feeling a sense of brotherhood/sisterhood' with people who have lived before because of common faith and experience.

~~~ N9: That is the point I am trying to convey there has always been brotherhood/sisterhood with the Vaudois Christians who had lived because of common faith, belief, and teachings. So WI and John Long were NOT the first two founders to come up with the 2x2 workers Itinerant ministry in 1897.

3) I can read the experiences of the pre-Reformation Waldenses and feel a connection. Just as I can read of others throughout the ages and indeed in current times and feel that same connection.

What I can't come to grips with is people who promote the link to the Waldenses, because they recognise common beliefs ( and ignore the things that are foreign!) but refuse to recognise common faith amongst groups in our time. (I am aware that the connection most make is with common practices).

~~~ The purpose of my website is to show to the readers that WI and John Long were NOT special or the first two men to go forth as the apostles like in the New Testament. It is nutty for WI to claimed he started his "experiement" or the father of it all when hundreds and thousands men and women had done it before him.

4) Are you aware that many groups cite Broadbent as proof that their group is the continuation of the first century church? ( Plymouth Bretheren, Seventh Day Adventists, Church of God in Christ Mennonite) I can provide links if you are interested. Here is one from the Holdeman's. It is longish but please take time to read it and comment.

~~~ Yes, I am aware of them because I have read about it but none of them have kept the teachings and tradition of the apostles and Jesus. That was one of the reason they started their own groups.

5) I would be really interested to know how you reconcile the fact others can see their groups with their particular emphasis in these early groups too.
www.bibleviews.com/holdeman.html

Do you feel a 'spiritual connection' with the Waldenses because of common faith and practices ? or do you really see them as 'the friends and workers in the Middle ages'
Do you feel a similar connection with the Holdeman's?

~~~ N9: Yes, I feel there is a spiritual connection and kindred of spirits because of common faith, belief, practices, the Itinerant without homes, and the church meet in the homes of believers for the Eucharist/emblems.

According to Jesus teachings, the book of revelation.... The True Church which He started in the gospel, continued in the book of Acts and it existed throughout the ages.... The Vaudois had problems just like the 2x2s today!

It is a miracle how William Irvine, John Long and many of the early had this vision! I don't believe many of them realized it would last this long.

The Vaudois were called the "friends" of God for ages.

6) I have more questions, but will wait !

~~~ Please, do and I try to answer them according to my best ability and understanding.

[nathanb]

~~~ N9: This is where people get confused and don't understand. There is NOTHING to promote. It is historical and documents facts! Unbroken link with the Vaudois apostles for 1800 yrs and the Catholic church! 2000 yrs.

It doesn't matter if you and I believe in Unbroken link or not! because it is historical and document facts of the Catholic Church and the Vaudois and many of their own similiar brothers in other countries.

~~~~ Fionajane wrote:
Apologies for people who have heard this go back and forward at least 400 times! However I just need to understand where Nate is coming from. So are you saying.....

1) There is a proven link from the first century church to the Vaudois yes/no.

~~~ N9: Yes. The link is on my website.

2) there is a proven link for the from the first century church for the 1800 years and then a break in the link? ( or a hidden link?) yes/no.

~~~ No break in the link according to the Vaudois church history for 1800 yrs..

3) there is a proven link from the first century church to the Catholic church yes/no

~~~ Yes. The Catholic church can prove the link unbroken for 2000 yrs.

4) there is a proven link from the first century church to both the Vaudois and the Catholic Church yes/no

~~~ Yes, the Catholic Church and the Vaudois Church at one time were ONE church! One Faith.... but the Catholic Church in Rome persecution those who upheld the teachings of the apostles so they fled to the Alps, Swiss moutain, France. There were many of their similiar brothers and sisters in Christ opposed the Catholic in many countries also.

5. There is a proven link from the fist century church to friends and workers with the Vaudois forming part of that link? yes/no

~~~ Yes, Robert Darling a 2x2 worker (1905) said there was a link.... It is amazing to find there are many similiar teachings, belief between the Vaudois and the 2x2s.

6. Are you saying the Vaudois were the friends and workers? yes /no.

~~~ ALL I know from what I read about their church history, belief, teachings.... that they have many of the same belief and faith. ONLY God know the answer to your question whether the Vaudois were the friends and workers during those dark ages, before and after.

[nathanb]

Jun 11, 2008, 1:12, fionajane wrote:
Again please bear with me! So are you saying that the Catholic Church contained the 'Truth' until the Vaudois broke away in the 1500's?

~~~ Yes, the Catholic Church and the Vaudois Church at one time were ONE church! One Faith, One Fellowship.... but the Catholic Church/believers in Rome persecution those who upheld the teachings of the apostles so they fled to the Alps, Swiss moutain, France. There were many of their similiar brothers and sisters in Christ opposed the Catholic in many countries also



Good question: Here is my understanding...

By the end of the 1st century the Truth and Way of Jesus was multiplying in many countries in Europe, Russia, Africa, etc.. including the Christians in Rome, Italy... the catholic church in Rome was only one of the hundreds or perhaps thousands of homes churches scattered through the world.

The Church in Rome started or began in Acts 2 when there were some from Rome converted to become Christians during the Pentecostal feast in Acts 2.. Paul preached the gospel in Rome when he was sent there to stand trial before Nero 68 A.D.

It was in Rome where some Romans were converted after they listened to the gospel which Paul preached in 68 A.D... There was a big divisions of policital power, fractions between the bishops, Christians, and apostles in Rome. Those who were holding hold on to the apostles traditions, teachings, belief were persecuted by the bishops who opposed them around the 3rd century.

These Christians who held on to the apostles tradition, belief, practices in Rome fled to Swiss Alps mountains during the 3rd century. They came and dwelt in the Valley Vallense= they were called the Vaudois.

~~~ Your question "Are you saying the Catholic Church contained the Truth until the Vaudois broke away in the 1500 A.D.?

To answer your question.... Yes, the Catholic Church was one of the True Churches of Christ exist at that time. The Christians in Rome who left Italy in the 3rd century became known as the Vaudois.

There were many Christians like the Vaudois who opposed the Church in Rome authority throughout many countries as the ONLY the true Church. So when the Vaudois apostles preached the gospel in France, England, Scotland, and Germany, Russia, etc.. they found many of their brethren who had the same faith and belief like they did.

[nathanb]

Jun 11, 2008 22:51:02 GMT -5 @fionajane said:

Interesting thanks.

SO Nate do you see a connection between the rise in the authority of the Church in Rome and their insistance they were the ONLY true church and the appearance of these breakaway groups?

~~~ N9: My understanding only: These breakaway groups came about because they were persecuted, eliminated, destroyed by these hardliners in Rome who now got mixed up in politics and hunger for powers.

Those bishops in Rome wanted all of their brethen churches around the world to submit and come under ONE umbrella as the ONLY true church and ROME is the Mother of all churches.

2) i.e was this 'only true church ' doctrine at the heart of the reason for departures from the church or were there other issues (traditions/other doctrines) that bought about the departures?

~~~ The Church in Rome tried to conquer the world by the Gospel of the swords! submit to us or die.... opposite than Jesus' teachings conquer the world with the Gospel of Divine LOVE by telling His love, and ultimate sacrificed on Calvary's Cross.

CC had introduced many pagans rituals, teachings, ceremonies, ideas brought hoping to get the pagans convert to Christianity to make the transition a little easier... like putting new wine into an old wineskins... eventually it will burst.

CC in Rome got involved with Polictics after Constanstine became a Christians... he gave them powers! authority and it corrupted them to seek more power to do whatever they want... They decided they are the ONLY Church of God on earth and their brothers and sisters in Christ who do NOT submit to them will be tortured, eliminated and killed.

CC were getting further and further away from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

[nathanb]

~~~ N9: The Vaudois originated from Italy in the 3rd century they left their own country and lived in the Alps, Switzerland moutains because of the severed persecution from their catholics brothers in Rome.

Peter Waldo was a French man who became a disciple of the Vaudois for a few years then he went forth to preach the Gospel 1160 A.D. in France, Germany, Bohemia, etc..


1) Anonymous wrote: Peter Waldo was a French man who was the founder of the Vaudois then he went forth to preach the Gospel 1160 A.D. in France, Germany, Bohemia, etc.. read about his life and ministry on the internet..

~~~ N9: hmmmm.... let me ask you this.... how could Peter Waldo a French man be the founder of the Vaudois when they (Vaudois) EXISTED in the Valley of Switzerland for 1160 yrs before Peter was born in 1100's A.D..

The second question for you.... How could Peter Waldo called the founder when he was a follower of the Vaudois and became a preacher for the Vaudois sect? even his name explain it Waldo!

[nathanb]

1) An anonymous wrote:
Historical organization

Among the Waldenses the perfect, bound by the vow of poverty, wandered about from place to place preaching.[7] Such an itinerant life was ill-suited for the married state, and to the profession of poverty they added the vow of chastity.

Married persons who desired to join them were permitted to dissolve their union without the consent of their partner.[7] Orderly government was secured by the additional vow of obedience to superiors.[7]

The perfect were not allowed to perform manual labour, but were to depend for their subsistence on the members of the sect known as the friends.[7] These continued to live in the world, married, owned property, and engaged in secular pursuits. Their generosity and alms were to provide for the material needs of the perfect.

~~~ N9: The above part is true and correct about the Vaudois apostles and believers.

2) [7] The friends remained in union with the Roman Catholic Church and continued to receive its sacraments with the exception of penance, for which they sought out, whenever possible, one of their own ministers.

~~~ hmmmm.... can you show us where did you get this information from?

3) [7]The name Waldenses was at first exclusively reserved to the perfect; but in the course of the thirteenth century the friends were also included in the designation. [7]

The perfect were divided into the three classes of bishops, priests, and deacons. The bishop, called "major" or "majoralis", preached and administered the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and Holy Orders.[7] The celebration of the Eucharist, frequent perhaps in the early period, soon took place only on Holy Thursday.[7] The priest preached and enjoyed limited faculties for the hearing of confessions.

The deacon, named "junior" or "minor", acted as assistant to the higher orders and by the collection of alms relieved them of all material care.[7] The bishop was elected by a joint meeting of priests and deacons.[7]

In his consecration, as well as in the ordination of the other members of the clergy, the laying-on of hands was the principal element; but the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, so important in the Waldensian liturgy, was also a prominent feature.[7] The power of jurisdiction seems to have been exercised exclusively by one bishop, known as the "rector", who was the highest executive officer.[7]

Supreme legislative power was vested in the general convention or general chapter, which met once or twice a year, and was originally composed of the perfect but at a later date only of the senior members among them.[7] It considered the general situation of the sect, examined the religious condition of the individual districts, admitted to the episcopate, priesthood, or diaconate, and pronounced upon the admission of new members and the expulsion of unworthy ones.[7]

~~~ The above part is very strange.... According to what I have read there were only TWO classes! among the Vaudois.

1) ThePerfect/Worker/apostles/Preachers

2) The friends/the church elders/deacons.

Can you show us the link or website where you got the above information from. I'd like to read it for myself myself. Thanks.

I wonder if you have added 2 and 3 for your own agenda to confuse the pro-Catholic and the Vaudois teachings.