The sad thing is, most Revivalists will assume you are 'one of them corrupted scholars' who argues against The Truth(tm).  Some Pastors might justify a primae facea (sp??) rejection on the basis that "you haven't got the fundamental cornerstone correct (not jesus but the revival stance on tongues) and so anything else you say is invalidated, "clanging brass" and building on sand.  Sad but true.

However hopefully there are enough members and maybe Pastors who are having doubts or are finding it hard to reconcile some inconsistencies and will realise the standard answers above are not satisfactory. 

As you suggest, it is hypocritical to hold such a strong belief in the authority of the bible and the importance of it to salvation as opposed to trusting in the authority of man (like them wicked catholics and pentecostalists), but at the same time put hands over ears and lalalaing and clapping along when someone makes a case from the bible that you might have screwed up your salvation message somewhere along the line.

Hi, Jojo.

Agreed. You may not be surprised to discover that a couple of RF pastors have done so already. Piet Visser from Holland wrote a particularly daft editorial on the subject of "Spiritual Gifts" a few months ago, which I briefly responded to. His email to the "faithful" in Europe as a consequence of my piece was typically Revivalist: he ignored absolutely every point that I raised, preferring instead to label me a "Pentecostal preacher" (gaaak!), one who was apparently only interested in defending some novel ideas about the (Pentecostal) "word of knowledge" and "faith healers"! Yeah, that sounds like me

More recently Laurie Nankivell from Adelaide decided to do pretty much the same thing. Faced with questions generated by my "large" Acts essay, he thought it best to devote an entire "talk" to the subject of "qualifications". As well as proving that his own ignorance was beyond any doubt or question, he tried to have a couple of "cheap shots" at not only my qualifications, but also my person, and my spirituality to boot! But just like Visser, Nankivell did not make a single attempt to address any of the points that I raised in my essay. He simply ignored them as if they didn't exist.

I suppose in the RF hollow rhetoric is the best that any pastor can marshal when faced with insurmountable proof that they ain't preaching the truth! I do wonder 'though, whether the people sitting in the seats are as stupid as the pastors clearly believe them to be. Given my engagement with a good number of them over the years I know very that they aren't, so I guess I credit them with having more intelligence than do their own leaders! Who would have thought?

Blessings,

Ian


(Message edited by Didaktikon On 24/05/2009 01:20:28)