(Message edited by MothandRust On 17/07/2009 05:41:16)

Moth,

I find it more than a little ironic that Tony/Luke/etc used to gripe to all and sundry about being barred from involvement at this site, in spite of him adopting all manner of aliases to flood the place with his disjointed, proof-texted and thoroughly ridiculous Revivalist beliefs; and now that he's been provided an opportunity to engage he apparently has no desire to do so. Well, perhaps it's simply the case that he's finally learned his lesson as a result of his last attempt: the "what is the rest" garbage he sought to convince people about.

The man certainly ain't no "rocket scientist". But I'd suggest that he's even less qualified to be (mis)representing himself as a teacher of biblical truths. Blind guys and ditches yet again.

Blessings,

Ian


(Message edited by Didaktikon On 19/07/2009 17:55:26)

The little darlin' pm'ed me very recently...

He opened up with a baffling comment about my ear condition, whether he was making light of it, or was attempting some sort of mock 'care' I don't know.

He got excited about his forum a little, and then told me Jesus is coming  back very very soon and that I am in much danger of eternal hell fire... unless I follow Lloyd's Longfield's doctrine I suppose.

Well, I think Lloyd's tongue doctrine makes as much sense as eternal fire torture, so I'm not concerned by having someone point a 'bone' at me. sheesh

(Message edited by MothandRust On 20/07/2009 20:36:59)

Mothster,

He's a "rum" chap, eh? You don't fit Tony's paradigm, and I reckon it causes him no end of grief. I mean, you make no claims to being Christian, yet you consistently demonstrate greater grace and "godliness" then he does, and your understanding of the Christian Bible eclipses his as well!

Blessings,

Ian

Hi All: I feel that I need to respond to this invitation:

My first reaction to this invitation was "Finally!"

My second  thought was "Why?" and it dawned on me that it is ineffective to debate the issues with Ian and co until I have comprehensively exposed their foundations.

Also any engagement of these guys tends to degrade very quickly and the essence of the debate gets lost.

Simply stated the best method of extracting the truth as I see it is threefold:

1) Gather the information that collectively makes up the foundation of their scriptural position.

2) Measure their foundations against the word of God, highlighting the contradictions, assumptions and deviations from the word of God.

3) Present a detailed explanation of what I believe to be the correct (confirmed by Jesus) explanations of the scriptures.

The big difference that should become apparent to the reader is that these guys have entirely naturalistic, academic physical approach to their interpretaions of scripture. Also what will become apparent is that there are several assumptions made that are suppositions that are more a result of deception than deduction.

At the end of the day some areas of difference cannot be resolved. I am sure that Ian and co mean well just as surely as some of the Pharisees mean't well in Jesus' day. However our Gospel by definition is something that is Confirmed by Jesus with signs following. Anything else is mearly "Elequence of speech" or a convincing argument.

That is the bottom line as I see it.

As such I have created a forum where these foundations can be discussed openly and discussion on my main forum can be more centred on Jesus where it should be.

Ian and co will be allowed to post on the new forum, but not for about a month to allow me time to respond to the MANY foundational topics from Ian, Drew and Co.

This is why I feel any balanced debate cannot take place on this (Unkoolman's) forum. If the behaviour of Moth, Ian etc is any example of methodology then what other choice do I have.

I am 1 man, with a full time job + a Fellowship + Family & 3 kids + I am a carrer for a Blind brother (in the Lord). As a result I have to put these things in their proper place. I simply cannot devote suffient time to this exercise in one week without those to whom I am already committed to serve suffering as a result.

To date the focus of discussions have been too ego centric (that is based on me or Ian) The focus should be Bibliocentric. (Based solely on the Scriptures) I have now acted to correct this.


God Bless

Luke 7:35


(Message edited by Uncoolman On 19/07/2009 19:39:23)

Tony,

As I recall each and every time that you've attempted to defend your various positions from the Word of God, that very same Bible has been used to demolish your arguments! And as I also recall, the last time ended with you stating, "...yes you're correct BUT...", "...yes I agree the Bible says that BUT..." and similar. In other words, the clear and simple teaching of Scripture conclusively demonstrated that you hadn't a clue about what you pontificated on.

I've had a read of your supposed "assessments" of my various PleaseConsider essays and similar over at your site. All that your long-winded diatribes there demonstrate is that: (1) you really haven't the first clue about logic; (2) or how to evaluate the merit of arguments; or (3) the methods, practices and principles of biblical interpretation.

Now as I also recall, you've been proven to be a liar and a hypocrite too. Not a very good start, methinks.

Ian

 


(Message edited by Didaktikon On 19/07/2009 19:32:36)

Tony

Feel free to post as much as you like (within reason please) within this particular thread. Nothing will be deleted or edited except for hotlinks to your other forums.

Forum rules apply or you will be booted from this thread. Please read the forum rules.

Three strikes and the ballgame's over.

Enjoy

 Luke/Tony or whomever you are.

1.Your posts have a lot of I's, My's, and me's.

2.Your excuse about being time poor is flimsy. It shouldn't take more than 5 mins to nail your colours to the mast and defend them... if you can...  I suspect your platform of revivalist beliefs is as flimsy as your grasp on the english language. In short, you are out of your depth in a theological debate and even a moderately educated person like myself can punch holes in your logic.

however, have a go if you like, why does it have to be another forum.. whats wrong with this one?



(Message edited by tommo On 19/07/2009 19:49:27)

Like I said...."if the behaviour of Moth, Ian etc is any example of methodology then what other choice do I have."

Soooo predictable.



(Message edited by Luke735 On 19/07/2009 19:40:04)

Tony,

Also soooo true (another predictable aspect of me).

Ian

My behaviour... pmsl

Okay laughing-boy, but let's hope you don't use your same old nasty tactics, huh? To list a few.

I promise not to create pretend user-names to agree with my arguments. Will you?

I promise not to create a whole other forum called "Tony Barton the Heretic". Will you?

I promise not to call into question and judge 'your' salvation. Will you?

I promise not to attack you personally and respect you as a decent fellow human. Will I get as much courtesy? I hope so.

Alrighty then, we have an accord!

Luke

Commendation for a job well done:

 Hi all: I just wanted to commend Ian and drew for a job well done. When I started my studies on their work I really didn’t expect very much. Over the years I have found myself debating one on one with many an Orthodox preacher. I figured Ian to be a Baptist or maybe a Methodist. But after reading through the great amount of work both he and Drew have put into “Please Consider” I am truly impressed.

The straight out reading of the scriptures are crystal clear. Acts 2:38 couldn’t capture this any better. The whole purpose of Jesus coming into this sinful world was to make available the opportunity for men and women to be filled from head to toe with the Holy Ghost. The way that Ian especially was able to masterfully explain away the scriptures is a credit to his great skill as a Theologian.

I mean think about it. To be able to take statements as clear as “Repent, and be baptized every one of you” and make it an optional extra. BRILLIANT!

To take a room where the Bible goes to the trouble of giving an actual number (~120) and convince people there were actually only 12 to negate their need to seek for the Spirit.. BRILLIANT!

To systematically take every affirmative statement throughout the Book of Acts, toss it up in the air like a pizza (with enough SPIN) and present it as the exact opposite. BRILLIANT!

I am truly thankful, I am actually having to really think (Work the problem, so to speak!)

Think about this for a moment.

Imagine if you were Satan and you wanted to stop people from receiving the Holy Ghost. What would you do?

Especially given that People are always going to seek God, it’s innate.

1)      “Like a needle in the hay stack”

It’s simple really; in legal jargon they call it a snow job. Here’s how it works.

By law if there is a document that is requested by your opponent you must hand it over. So what you do is give them 20,000 pages more than they need. It makes it almost impossible for them to find the one they need. That is the first ploy that Satan has used.

2)      Rat poison

If you give a rat poison they will not eat it. So what you do is give the rat 99% nutritious food and 1% arsenic. That’s the second thing Satan does he makes sure his people are  giving  (preaching) good food as long as it has enough poison in it to kill them.

Now the $64,000 question

The Baptists would say that they are right and the Catholics are giving poison. Ian would say that orthodox is right and Revivalist are giving poison. Moslems would say we all are giving people poison. WHO IS RIGHT?

 Well this brings me to my favourite.

3)      The weakest link

Jesus came to give us the Holy Ghost. Now this is a totally supernatural experience where God’s Spirit and your Spirit became one Spirit thus making unity. Ephesians 2:16 “to make in himself of twain one new man” Now what is Satan’s strategy? Well he doesn’t mind if you go to church, he doesn’t mind if you pray, he doesn’t even mind that much if you get baptised in water. But the number one target for Satan is to stop you from receiving the Holy Ghost.

But how can he stop you from receiving the Holy Ghost if you are going to seek it?

Eureka!!! I have it! Get people to think that they already have it.

I mean you are not going to seek something you already believe you have are you?

But how are we going to do that?

Eureka!!! Re-define the terms of reference in the Bible. Keep driving to the lesser. In other words get people so driven to convince others that they don’t need to seek God for the infilling of the Holy Ghost (because they already have it DAH!) and then they can praise and sing to their hearts content and Satan wins.

Now that’s a strategy. Shhhhh Don’t let Satan know or we are all in some trouble.

Now I don’t want to come off as an alarmist but the clearest identifier of those who are found to be actually working (unknowingly) for Satan is that they drive to the lesser or to people not being filled as opposed to people being filled in like manner to those in the early church.

These same people call me a liar, a hypocrite a false witness etc. So what should you think about me and they? Well have a read of this and consider as if your life depended on it Brothers and sisters.

2Co 11:12  But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 2Co 11:13  For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2Co 11:14  And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2Co 11:15  Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Now I wasn’t being sarcastic when I said “after reading through the great amount of work both he and Drew have put into “Please Consider” I am truly impressed.” (ok maybe a little) I am going through his work and the more I do the more insipid and deceptively clever I find it to be. It has taken centuries no doubt to perfect this false gospel (and it shows) but at the end of the day. My God answers by Fire (signs, wonders and miracles) if this is not the case for you then all I can say is something’s broke and it isn’t God.

Please Consider!

Luke 7:35

(Message edited by Luke735 On 20/07/2009 06:18:20)

Reply to Luke 7:35

I mean think about it. To be able to take statements as clear as “Repent, and be baptized every one of you” and make it an optional extra. BRILLIANT!

So Luke, can you explain to me why so many people who were filled with the holy spirit in the revival centres never became more christlike, never cared one iota about love or the people they were supposed to be "Helping in their joy". Why was it that the assembly was always rife with bitching, gossiping and sucking up to the in group? Tell me what being filled with the holy spirit actually DID for these people?

 Uh huh

Sarcastic he thinks? Maybe a little? How about 'a helluva lot?' Sigh, so much for what I hoped would be a peacable entry from Luke... sigh again.

Maybe his next post will be a little less unduly patronising in tone and and more Bibliocentric as promised... here's hoping, but I think the 'style' has been set.

A challenge to MYSELF and us ALL... Nice and DECENT and COURTEOUS and even RESPECTUL coversation... gosh wouldln't that'd be refreshing and so much easier to read?!


(Message edited by MothandRust On 20/07/2009 06:56:57)

Luke,

I have to take issue with you over your take on "speaking in tongues". Whether or not you, me or anyone considers Ian's or Drew's take on Pentecost and whoever or how many spoke in tongues, you are blinded (as was I) to the reality that Revivalists and other Pentecostals do not manifest speaking in tongues as reported in the Book of Acts.

1. It is rarely spontaneous. You won't find "seeking" in the Bible, or coercion to talk the novice into babbling.

2. Interpretation of tongues at Revival gatherings is not interpretation at all. It is the will of an individual to say what ever he or she pleases in response to someone babbling.

3. Most interpretations and so-called prophecies follow a set pattern from regular grand-standers and more often than not are in King James English. While I have a liking for the style of the KJV, I find it hard to believe that God would speak to 20th or 21st century people in imitation KJV. I say imitation, because the grammar and syntax is usually awry from the correct form.

4. If the tongues, their interpretation and prophecies are Holy Spirit given, then why are they so silent on the corruption and vileness that is rife amongst so call pastors and elders?

5. Galien raised the point as do I, that if the Revivalists et al, are so "filled" with the Holy Spirit, why is their fruit so rotten? Why have they so many heretical doctrines (e.g. British Israel) if the Holy Spirit is leading them into all truth?

6. The "tongues" one hears in Pentecostal churches are cringeworthy, because one hears either repetitive babbling or childlike imitation of languages.

About 15 years ago I attended a Revivalist meeting and the so-called pastor played a tape of a husband and wife duo in Florida, whose names I cannot remember. The purpose of their diatribe was to "teach" people how to speak in tongues, interpret and prophesy. I was not a happy camper. During their spiel they mocked the "King James" style they said they had often witnessed in churches. After the tape the so-called pastor asked for comments and one person pointing to me said "he always interprets or gives prophecies King James style". Quite a few folk had a big laugh at my expense. But........what did I get out of it? 1. How can anyone "teach" another to interpret or prophesy, considering they are supposed to be Holy Ghost given? 2. Yep, I was guilty as charged, what a wake up call! I never "interpreted" or "prophesied" again.

Odd that you see Ian as anti tongues. he has quite a few times on this forum stated that he still speaks in tongues. You also said that Jesus came to give us the Holy Ghost and then proceeded to refer to "Him" (the Holy Ghost) as "it".

I hope one day you will have a relationship with Jesus and God the Father that is not predicated by an obsession with false "proofs".

I would caution you to examine yourself that as you see Ian as reprobate, that you yourself are all the more by your stance with man-made doctrines and interpretations. Think not that I am an acolyte of Ian, we have crossed swords far more than he has with you. However you won't win over even the most ardent opponent to Ian by the "Tongues is proof of receiving the Holy Spirit" heresy.

I will, and I ask that others pray for you, which probably will excite the usual vitriol from the "Nachfalter" (Moth)

John

By the way Luke, you owe me $ 64,000.00. The answer to your question "Who is right" is obvious...... "Let God be true, and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).

I'd like you to make out the cheque to my favourite charity "Commonwealth Association School Hospitals", but you don't have to write it in full, just the initials C A S H will suffice.

John

Reply to Luke

Luke,

Not only did you ignorantly proceed to refer to the person of the Holy Ghost as "it" but also as "something"  and I quote "seeking something you already believe you have."

Also and I don't know how many times I've heard Revivalists say as you said (or similar) that the "whole purpose of Jesus coming into the world was to give us the Holy Ghost, irreverently relegating Jesus to a job well done so that Revivalists can have their tongues proof.

Peter, Paul and the other apostles preached Jesus and the resurrection.  The initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost empowered the apostles to witness to people of "every nation under heaven" about Jesus.  Through the Holy Spirit christians are regenerated, counselled, comforted, bear witness in themselves and spread the gospel of Jesus Christ through his teachings, example, his life, death and resurrection and through him are given hope of eternal life.

Revivalists seem to fall down in always trying to prove the Holy Spirit by continually stressing the need for evidence, tongues, to substantiate their doctrine, sometimes forgetting that proof is in the christians who bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

The following is a quote from a post split Revival Sunday meeting - it matters not which one of the two.

"Why is the priority on the Holy Ghost and not on Jesus.  People tend to think that it is Jesus we should be praising and that Jesus is Lord.  Certainly Jesus our Saviour is worthy of honour and glory and praise, but that name Jesus isn't going to save us.  It isn't the magic formula or magic word that suddenly changes our lives.  It's just the same as Joshua in the Old Testament - the same name.  Sometimes people call their children - I think there's a boxer in the Philippines who's called Jesus.  It's just a name - it's a meaning.  But the Holy Ghost is the life raft and if you don't get in the life raft or you throw the life raft away it would be foolishness.  And certainly there is no other salvation other than being born again of water and the Spirit.  The bible tells us you cannot enter the Kingdom of God any other way than to repent and be baptised and be filled with the Holy Spirit.  So this is the context;  this is the emphasis - get the Holy Spirit as Jesus said in John 19" (probably meant to be John 16)

Hmmm, interesting, nothing in New Testament about "priority" given the Holy Spirit over and above Jesus.  In fact the apostles preached, healed, prayed, gathered etc in the name of Jesus Christ and risked the lives and died in the name of Jesus Christ. 

God Bless

Epi
 

Reply to John

"I will, and I ask that others pray for you, which probably will excite the usual vitriol from the "Nachfalter" (Moth)"

That's rather unnecessary John. Try being nice, huh? I think I got past my negativity for such things as prayer etc. a long time ago. I can't see prayer as being a bad thing, just not something I want to do, not being a Christian, and all... but lets not deviate with a side conversation about how prayer works, if it works, how it works best, can prayer change the heart and attitudes of others, etc.

By all means, Pray! If you see any such thing as being a help for Luke then go for it, he needs all the help he can get, whether he sees it or not... pray that he does see it.


(Message edited by MothandRust On 20/07/2009 16:47:10)

 Hi Luke

I say again, talk to me about these signs, miracles and wonders of which you speak.

Surely you are not talking about the learned/coerced behavior of tongue talking... or is it the "blessed" carparks available to revivalists or perhaps the broken arms which miraculously repair themselves over a 6-8 week period when kept immobilised? Maybe its the lives that are turned around from drug dependencies and replaced by power over other church members... are these the miracles you speak of... help me out here.

(note use of sarcasm which is clearly your preferred language)

Good morning "Luke".

I was tempted to call you "Legion" given that I didn't want to exclude a single one of your multiplied identities. I didn't 'though, because that would no doubt get me a slap on the wrist from the Moderator; and a tongue-lashing from those who apparently aren't intelligent enough to grasp the humour implicit in sophisticated irony.

Sad to see that not too much has changed with your posting style, although it was pleasing to note that you didn't go overboard with the colours, and that you managed to keep yourself below the magical 10,000 word count! Anyway, enough for my attempt at "sarcasm-in-kind", time now to address your attempted "exegeses" (I'm not sure if there's too much that I can add given that John, Thommo and Epi got in before me).

I mean think about it. To be able to take statements as clear as “Repent, and be baptized every one of you” and make it an optional extra. BRILLIANT!

Excepting for the fact that I've nowhere and at no time made Acts 2:38 into an optional extra. I'm actually on record stating it to be a very clear command (i.e. an "imperative"), one that if followed would result in a covenant promise being fulfilled. What I have done, however, is point out the important issues relating to context: describing what the passage says, and to whom it says what it says. But unlike you I didn't read Acts 2:38 through an imposed/artificial pre-understanding.

To take a room where the Bible goes to the trouble of giving an actual number (~120) and convince people there were actually only 12 to negate their need to seek for the Spirit.. BRILLIANT!

Two requests, if I may? First, could you please indicate for me where the passage says 120 people were in a "room"? Second, could you please indicate for me where the passage says that they needed to seek for the Spirit?

To systematically take every affirmative statement throughout the Book of Acts, toss it up in the air like a pizza (with enough SPIN) and present it as the exact opposite. BRILLIANT!

Or perhaps, to simply affirm every affirmative statement by explicating them in such a way as to identify their individual meanings(in context), and then without the need to resorting to Revivalist "spin"?

Imagine if you were Satan and you wanted to stop people from receiving the Holy Ghost. What would you do?

I don't know. Perhaps I'd attempt to confuse the simple gospel of grace to such an extent that I'd be able to convince people that a natural and coached "experience", one undertaken in a completely contrived setting, was somehow "supernatural" and "definitive"?

Jesus came to give us the Holy Ghost. Now this is a totally supernatural experience where God’s Spirit and your Spirit became one Spirit thus making unity. Ephesians 2:16 “to make in himself of twain one new man” Now what is Satan’s strategy? Well he doesn’t mind if you go to church, he doesn’t mind if you pray, he doesn’t even mind that much if you get baptised in water. But the number one target for Satan is to stop you from receiving the Holy Ghost.

Interesting. I was under the distinct impression that Jesus came to effect atonement? Anyway, were you actually suggesting by "...God’s Spirit and your Spirit became one Spirit thus making unity..." that God's incorruptible nature (i.e. his Spirit) combines with our corruptible one (i.e. our spirit), the end result being a single, unified spirit? If you are, then I'd suggest that you try a little theological reflection and recant before I lower the boom on this particular heresy for all to see.

But how can he stop you from receiving the Holy Ghost if you are going to seek it?

Two things. First, please delete "it" and insert "him". Second, to repeat myself: where in Scripture are we admonished to "seek" for the Holy Spirit?

Eureka!!! I have it! Get people to think that they already have it.

Again, "it"?

I mean you are not going to seek something you already believe you have are you?

Speaking for myself, I'm not going  to "seek" after anything that Scripture doesn't adjure me to seek (like "tongues", for example).

Eureka!!! Re-define the terms of reference in the Bible. Keep driving to the lesser. In other words get people so driven to convince others that they don’t need to seek God for the infilling of the Holy Ghost (because they already have it DAH!) and then they can praise and sing to their hearts content and Satan wins.

Re-defining the terms? Now there's a thought ...

Now I don’t want to come off as an alarmist but the clearest identifier of those who are found to be actually working (unknowingly) for Satan is that they drive to the lesser or to people not being filled as opposed to people being filled in like manner to those in the early church.

Sure. But I've pointed out to you that you've been doing this for years, so I don't think you can really claim the "unknowingly" defence. Oh! Oops .... were you talking about me?

These same people call me a liar, a hypocrite a false witness etc. So what should you think about me and they? Well have a read of this and consider as if your life depended on it Brothers and sisters.

I thought you were called a liar because you were caught out in your lies? And a hypocrite because your actions exposed your hypocrisy? And a false witness because you continue to bear false witness? Were there other reasons about which I'm yet unaware?!

Now I wasn’t being sarcastic when I said “after reading through the great amount of work both he and Drew have put into “Please Consider” I am truly impressed.” (ok maybe a little) I am going through his work and the more I do the more insipid and deceptively clever I find it to be.

I'd suggest that you seek to demonstrate grounds to support your claim before assuming the laurel wreath, my friend.

It has taken centuries no doubt to perfect this false gospel (and it shows) but at the end of the day.

Centuries? Not really. Let's see, 2009 minus 1958 (actually, 1962 but I'll save this point for later) equals 51 years.

My God answers by Fire (signs, wonders and miracles) if this is not the case for you then all I can say is something’s broke and it isn’t God.

You might wish to have a look at how "fire" is near universally portrayed in Scripture! I'll give you a hint to begin your study: it ain't your parlour trick idea concerning Revivalist "miracles".

Please Consider!

I have. And it seems that nothing has changed (sadly).

Ian




(Message edited by Didaktikon On 20/07/2009 21:17:38)

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Imagine if you were Satan and you wanted to stop people from receiving the Holy Ghost. What would you do?

Um develop advertising. Work on people's vanity and greed until I helped develop a society where people had forgotten about their inner lives, and where they only cared about how they looked, what they owned, their status and the approval of those they consider their peers. I'd make sure that what I developed would harden the hearts of people so they forgot how to love, how to feel empathy, how to care about anyone outside their own circle. I would teach them to admire as heroes empty shallow people with a taste for attention and them make them think that was the pinnacle of human achievement.

Imagine living in a place like that.

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

Yes, we clearly do. I was being sarcastic. Someone is very good at his job, but people make it SO easy.

Yes it was unnecessary, even if it was true, exchanging railing for railing was puerile and churlish of me. 






(Message edited by Uncoolman On 20/07/2009 23:43:26)

Moth,

Hmmm, interesting. Normally "Lukie" would've flooded the thread with his multiplied responses by now. Perhaps he's actually gone back to Scripture looking for passages that he believes support his contentions? I can but live in hope!

Would any of his "disciples" care to enter the conversation? Chartie? Sabs? Pooh? Up for a little scriptural discussion?

Blessings,

Ian


(Message edited by Didaktikon On 20/07/2009 21:47:25)

Hi Ian,

I'm sure he's a little overwhelmed by the interest in this topic and we know that he's a busy fellow with work and family and fellowship and maintaining dozens of burgeoning forums full of colourful text and 'tongue stuff'. His post was mainly theory and opinion, so I'm betting he's compiling swathes of bible verses and accompanying commentary.

I'm also hoping for more user-friendly sized posts that focus on individual sub-topics rather than endless digital reams of text. It'd also be courteous, I think, to reply to the various questions put to him already in the thread before going on to flood the place as was general practice. Questions such as the 'person' of the Holy Spirit might be a good start. The bad 'fruit' that accompanied the forced blanket tongues salvation criteria was another; and the issue regarding 'tongue training' sessions was also pertinent.

But yeah, he might feel a little 'ganged' up on. Such is the case when discussing Revival doctrine in an ex-Revival forum, so he would probably appreciate Sabrina and Chartie to give some support.

Mothster,

For comic relief I went back today and reviewed "Luke's" the "Isaiah and the rest" piece. Whilst it was a little tedious/demoralising having to re-read his (very) lengthy drivel over afresh, doing so reinforced several things to me. First, was that "Luke's" standard practice has been to altogether ignore any and all points which either didn't fit his paradigm, or that demolished the logic of his argument. The only time that he did actually address a difficulty, was when he believed he could salvage something substantive by "spiritualising" the respective biblical texts. In other words, the "real" meaning was to be "spiritually discerned" by "spiritual" people. I'm very much hoping that our biblical scholar/webmaster will have the intestinal fortitude to do otherwise this time, and so will show the moral integrity needed to face up to the many biblical challenges to his position. Sadly, from what I've seen to be the case at those many sites of his propounding the "Revivalist" gospel, I shan't be holding my breath in expectation!

As for "Chartdoctor" and "Pilinut" providing support to "Luke", well, it would have to be "moral" support at best. Brian's very rare efforts at biblical exegesis/Revivalist apologetics over the years have been consistently underwhelming; whilst Sabs has demonstrated time and again that there simply isn't a biblical defence for her brand of the Revivalist heresy. Or if there is, then she certainly can't sustain it in any sort of debate.

By the way, I think I found out why Tony no longer fellowships with the RF. And an interesting tale into the human psyche it makes.

Blessings,

Ian


(Message edited by Didaktikon On 21/07/2009 00:22:42)

Hi there just a quick couple of comments ( <10,000 words)Just for you Ian (Sorry about the colours)

1)      Ian said “Two things. First, please delete "it" and insert "him". Second, to repeat myself: where in Scripture are we admonished to "seek" for the Holy Spirit?”

Answer 1) Sorry about that “it” reference. (I must remember to proof read!!)

Answer 1a) Seeking for the Holy Ghost

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

ASK: G154 αἰτέω  aiteō 

Of uncertain derivation; to ask (in generally): - ask, beg, call for, crave, desire, require. Compare G4441.

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

SEEK: G2212 ζητέω zēteō

Of uncertain affinity; to seek (literally or figuratively); specifically (by Hebraism) to worship (God), or (in a bad sense) to plot (against life): - be (go) about, desire, endeavour, enquire (for), require, (X will) seek (after, for, means). Compare G4441.

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

Note that both ASK & SEEK are compared to G4441.

G4441  πυνθάνομαι   punthanomai

Middle voice prolonged from πύθω puthō, a primary word, (which occurs only as an alternate in certain tenses); to question, that is, ascertain by inquiry (as a matter of information merely; and thus differing from G2065, which properly means a request as a favor; and from G154, which is strictly a demand of something due; as well as from G2212, which implies a search for something hidden; and from G1189, which involves the idea of urgent need); by implication to learn (by casual intelligence): - ask, demand, enquire, understand.

The reference you seek (excuse the pun) is below Ian

Luke 11:5  And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves; Luke 11:6  For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him? Luke 11:7  And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. Luke 11:8  I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth.

Luke 11:9  And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Luke 11:10  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Luke 11:11  If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Luke 11:12  Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? Luke 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Further we read in Acts….Act 17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

2)      Why I left the revival Fellowship (I have nothing to hide)

No controversy I’m afraid, I simply had noticed that several people had recently left our fellowship and were going nowhere. As such I could not continue going along and turn a blind eye to my brothers need for fellowship. I hadn’t initially intended taking any drastic measures like leaving however I read a scripture that changed my mind.

Pro 3:26  For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken. Pro 3:27  Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. Pro 3:28  Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and to morrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee.

I simply had to act and as such I formally left the RF and assisted those who were having difficulty by way of fellowship and ministry.
I fully, completely, absolutely believe the Revival Fellowship doctrine is the right one. However the circumstances required this unorthodox action. My hope is that this will be a short term situation and we can come back under the RF umbrella so to speak.

One thing I would like answered is this:

Now I notice that there is a huge difference between RCI, GRC and RF but they are all lumped together on this site. I think that this is unwise and inaccurate. I know that there are some here who attest to the same kinds of behaviour in the RF as has been cited in the GRC and RCI. But this has not been my experience. I have however witness ISOLATED misbehaviour that has been corrected in time but certainly not the type mentioned here on this site.

Now I am not saying that you guys are liars but I can only respond to those matters that I am exposed to. Surely this is reasonable.

Anyhow enough said. I am spending a couple of days just reflecting over the scriptures especially Mat 7:3  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Mat 7:4  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?Mat 7:5  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Mat 7:6  Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Just one other thing:

In my process of reflection I am forced to consider my discussions on-line. When I do this I try to mentally look at things from the other person’s perspective (in this case Ian and Moth)

Having done this I feel I owe both Ian and Moth an apology.

Some of my comments of late have been unnecessarily hostile sounding. This conduct is inexcusable and I am deeply sorry for any offence.

Please do not take any of this personally, I am trying to focus on scripture/doctrine only. If I deviate from this at all; please feel free to respond by saying “Remember Matt 7:5."

Please also note that these comments above do not constitute a change in my scriptural position. But the Bible is clear. The Christian MUST strive to be; Self-Examining and especially Self-Correcting.

Again I am sorry for any offence.

For now I just want to complete my analysis of the entire “Please Consider” website so that I can with a good conscience say that I “see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.”

This Shouldn’t take too long.

God Bless

Luke 7:35

 

(Message edited by Luke735 On 21/07/2009 02:35:47)

Luke,

Just a quick couple of comments in response to your post.

Revivalists look at these scriptures in the context of receiving tongues.  Luke 11 : 5-13 is oft quoted in Revival circles to explain the "pressing in" in the seekers' room and thereafter until one of the leaders has confirmed that tongues has been received.  Because of this time of intense "pressing in" with the speeding up of many hallalujahs and because of the seeking, knocking and importunity (harassment) God has seen fit to give the Holy Spirit/tongues Revival fashion. 

Jesus might quite well have been promising insight and direction through the work of the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit directs the hearts of those who respond and come boldly before God at any time of the day or night.  As the Holy Spirit directs the hearts of believers their desire will grow for the things which will be of benefit spiritually.

God Bless

Epi

Luke,

Aren't we missing something here? Where's my $ 64,000.00?

John

Hey guys, is it half time?

Just a question or so here,
What was it that happened to you when you did speak in tongues, what was the need for this in your life,if you didnt receive the Holy Spirit at that time, what did you receive? , and why does Ian pray in tongues for, what bible verse encourages him to do this? 
I dont think I have heard it answered, or not recently.

The following is a quote from a post split Revival Sunday meeting - it matters not which one of the two.

"Why is the priority on the Holy Ghost and not on Jesus.  People tend to think that it is Jesus we should be praising and that Jesus is Lord.  Certainly Jesus our Saviour is worthy of honour and glory and praise, but that name Jesus isn't going to save us.  It isn't the magic formula or magic word that suddenly changes our lives.  It's just the same as Joshua in the Old Testament - the same name.  Sometimes people call their children - I think there's a boxer in the Philippines who's called Jesus.  It's just a name - it's a meaning.  But the Holy Ghost is the life raft and if you don't get in the life raft or you throw the life raft away it would be foolishness.  And certainly there is no other salvation other than being born again of water and the Spirit.  The bible tells us you cannot enter the Kingdom of God any other way than to repent and be baptised and be filled with the Holy Spirit.  So this is the context;  this is the emphasis - get the Holy Spirit as Jesus said in John 19" (probably meant to be John 16)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Those words have reduced me to tears - it is just SO sad!! Maybe someone (Luke?) could answer this for me? When Revivalists say 'praise the lord' WHO are they actually praising if not Jesus? Who else is there TO praise? The article says quite clearly that the name of Jesus isn't going to save us - I strongly disagree. There is no other name in heaven or on earth by which we are saved.

Urch

Hi Charto






(Message edited by MothandRust On 21/07/2009 05:26:37)

People tend to think that it is Jesus we should be praising and that Jesus is Lord.  Certainly Jesus our Saviour is worthy of honour and glory and praise, but that name Jesus isn't going to save us.  It isn't the magic formula or magic word that suddenly changes our lives. 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The name of Jesus ISN'T going to save us? What an amazing statement!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgRKNvKZTWk

Listen to this beautiful song. Urch

(Message edited by Sea Urchin On 21/07/2009 06:01:35)

 When I 'spoke in tongues' for the first time, I was very much wanting to fit in, and 'everybody else' was doing it.



Thanks for sharing that with me, Moth,
The above line is about the closest to what I believe one of the brothers thinks of his experience that I go bike riding with.
Yes, I have been thinking that to, about the mind, extremely fragile, and no baseball bat thug in sight.

 The name of Jesus ISN'T going to save us? What an amazing statement!

Reply to Sea Urchin ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Those words have reduced me to tears - it is just SO sad!! Maybe someone (Luke?) could answer this for me? When Revivalists say 'praise the lord' WHO are they actually praising if not Jesus? Who else is there TO praise? The article says quite clearly that the name of Jesus isn't going to save us - I strongly disagree. There is no other name in heaven or on earth by which we are saved. Urch

Hi Urch,

Mistakes are made.  No-one is perfect.  Pastors make mistakes.  He might not have been feeling well, loss of concentration while ad libing, getting carried away, unsufficient preparation, not well trained if a junior pastor etc.

What is more worrying is that only two people appeared to notice the irregularity.  The two commented to others that this wasn't right but others hadn't noticed, didn't want to admit that they had or didn't want to worry about it.  A tape was bought but the two people didn't persue it further.  Others, o/sights, h/leaders either didn't notice or also cast it aside as there was no correcting of this mistake at the following meeting.

You must remember some oddities in talks during your time Urch.

God Bless

Epi

This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.

I find that weird, but it is probably quite normal. I have never cared about "fitting in". I'm my own group LOL. I spoke in tongues for the first time when I was 14. I was alone, not after tongues but in a pretty anxious state crying out to god for some answers. I didn't use tongues as a general part of my christian life after that because I wads told by the AOG church I went to at the time that the closer you got to god, the more demons would follow you around. Nice. I got baptised in revival 10 years later, and every night for a month I had nightmares until I think god actually intervned in  some way and the fear of demons just dissipated. But that was okay, I was still scared of pretty well everything else.



Mine's like an actual language. Sounds a bit asian. One woman used to make a sound like Zena Warrior Princess that sent the kids into hysterics. Yes I saw a lot of that. But what I rarely saw was it making any kind of a difference in the lives of people. They never changed, in fact a lot of them became more arrogant and sure they had all the answers. It just didn't make sense to me after what I knew the bible already said and the way I had seen other people change, and the things god had already revealed to me. To me christianity is about the sacrifice of jesus taking our sin away, making us acceptable before god and changing us into the kind of people he wants us to be. No point banging on in tongues if you are STILL an asshole 10 years later. What is the point?


Never had any tingly feelings, I'm not a magical thinking kind of gal. Lived pretty much my whole life in raw survival mode, so I don't have time for "tingly feelings". I do know though that the pelvic inflammatory disease I'd had for 8 years and which had rendered me infertile strangely disappeared taking with it scar tissue and adhesions (how the hell does that happen by itself), and presented me with an entirely unexpected daughter. Weird shit happens in the world, it just does. At some kind of exorcism I was at when about 13 I heard voices, several of them at once come out of a person and at the same time 2 windows smashed, outward at the same time. I took my little sister and pissed off quick don't worry about that. What I still wonder to this day, what on earth were people thinking having kids at a thing like that? There is supernatural stuff about, but yeah to me its just part of the rich tapestry that is our world.

Good morning, "Luke".

1)  Ian said “Two things. First, please delete "it" and insert "him". Second, to repeat myself: where in Scripture are we admonished to "seek" for the Holy Spirit? Answer 1) Sorry about that “it” reference. (I must remember to proof read!!)

I wonder if it's simply a case of poor proofreading? Or whether what's actually at stake is a deficient understanding of the nature of God? I wonder because try as I might, I couldn't find a single reference in any of your previous posts of you using a masculine personal pronoun in reference to the Spirit of God! Interesting, hey?

Answer 1a) Seeking for the Holy Ghost.

I've excised all your "wanna-be" Greek "Strong's" definitions and verbiage. You don't have any personal facility in the biblical languages, in spite of false claims made by you in the past to the contrary, and I just get unduly cranky watching you try to manipulate a language that you don't even understand. Anyway, what I'll now do at this point, is provide you with a brief lesson in exegesis, to demonstrate what can be achieved by someone who actually knows how the Greek language functions, m'kay?

To begin with I'll start by pointing out to you that the context for Luke 11:5ff is to be found in vv. 1-4 (the Lord's prayer). And what is the thrust of this version of the Lord's prayer? "Seeking for the daily forgiveness of sins", first from God, and then from each other. And why? Because keeping "short accounts" with God and our fellows makes it possible for us to (1) approach our Father to meet our daily needs with a clear conscience; and more importantly, (2) it provides the situation wherein God's Kingdom becomes a present reality on earth. Jesus then took the general truths contained in the prayer, and translated them into specific truths via his use of the concrete teaching example that followed. Consider this to be point one, the literary C-O-N-T-E-X-T. Next, what you've altogether failed to understand is that αἰτέω and ζητέω are not simple synonyms. Even your "Strong's" definitions made this plain when it used contrastative language such as "generally" versus "specifically", or didn't you notice? Point two, lexical C-O-N-T-E-X-T.

Further, understand that words don't function as "codes"; meaning results from the way words are used in combination with other words. Consider this to be point three, syntactical C-O-N-T-E-X-T. The entire "man in bed when a friend comes knocking" story is an extended metaphor: it contrasts the situation of the Jews to that of the disciples. More specifically, with how the two groups responded to the arrival of the "visitor", Jesus! The Jews believed the Mosaic Law to be completely sufficient; consequently, they weren't in any hurry to get up! Jesus' disciples, on the other hand, came to realise that Moses pointed towards the Messiah--the eschatological giver of the Spirit. So it was left to the disciples to "harry" the complacent Israel until the latter acted in their own best interests and woke up! This accords perfectly with Acts 2:38 in that the gift of the eschatological Spirit was a covenant promise made by Yahweh to his nation Israel, and was explained to them as such by Christ's apostles! I develop this theme in some detail in my "Tongues and the Temple" essay. Consider this to be point four, theological C-O-N-T-E-X-T.

But what of your contention that vv. 9 through 13 teaches that an individual needs to somehow "seek" for the Holy Spirit? In short, such a position is nothing more than eisegesis: the reading into a passage of what one hopes to find! To begin with, the pericope itself is informed by the complex of ideas that builds from the "model prayer"--the irruption of the Kingdom of God into the world via the arrival of God's Messiah. Second, the three Greek present imperatives (translated, "ask", "seek" and "knock" into English) directly related to what Jesus taught in the previously mentioned story/metaphor: don't give in! Keep at those recalcitrant Jews! Wake them up! Third, the entire pericope also points towards Jesus being the eschatalogical giver of the Spirit to Israel corporately (God being the Father, corporate Israel being the son). And the fulfillment of this metaphor is found in the actual events of Pentecost itself, when the promised Spirit was poured out upon covenant Israel corporately! (I'm also betting that you didn't even notice that the pronouns translated "you" in English were Greek plurals!)

Finally there isn't a single example in the entire book of Acts of anyone "seeking" for God's Spirit, and this is not in any way surprising. A proper appreciation of what Jesus taught in Luke 11 makes the very notion absolutely ridiculous. And of course, we shouldn't forget that Luke wrote both the Gospel and the Acts and that he did so as an intentional author!

In short, Jesus taught his core group of disciples that it would be their job to lead covenant Israel out of their "sleepy stupor"; that it would require constant haranguing on their part to do so; but that it was necessary that they did so, as God would then fulfill his covenant promise of providing his Spirit to Israel corporately. All of this gels perfectly with what I've explained in much greater detail in my "large" Acts essay, but none of this fits with your thoroughly individualistic Revivalist nonsense.

2)  Why I left the revival Fellowship (I have nothing to hide). No controversy I’m afraid, I simply had noticed that several people had recently left our fellowship and were going nowhere. As such I could not continue going along and turn a blind eye to my brothers need for fellowship. I hadn’t initially intended taking any drastic measures like leaving however I read a scripture that changed my mind.

Sure, but appreciate that I've heard somewhat differently. In any case, you've admitted that you've "flipped-and-flopped" in and out of Revivalism several times over the years. Did you always leave for the same reason? And did you always return for the same reason? If not, then why not?

I simply had to act and as such I formally left the RF and assisted those who were having difficulty by way of fellowship and ministry. I fully, completely, absolutely believe the Revival Fellowship doctrine is the right one. However the circumstances required this unorthodox action. My hope is that this will be a short term situation and we can come back under the RF umbrella so to speak.

Ah. You simply had to act, did you? So you believe yourself capable of ministering to recent RF departees, but the formal Oversight to be incapable? And as for your actions being "unorthodox", as you call it, I'd suggest that they're actually more akin to being schismatic. And this seems to be precisely how you are perceived within the RF. But I also know that you already know this.

In my process of reflection I am forced to consider my discussions on-line. When I do this I try to mentally look at things from the other person’s perspective (in this case Ian and Moth). Having done this I feel I owe both Ian and Moth an apology. Some of my comments of late have been unnecessarily hostile sounding. This conduct is inexcusable and I am deeply sorry for any offence.

Indeed. Such being the case, I imagine that you are now going to go back to your various "counter-Ian" sites, and completely reword all of your posts there? So as to remove "offense", and all that.

I'd like you to feel free to post any other bits-n-pieces that you believe support your heresies. But I'd also like to see you respond to rebuttals first.

Ian
 


(Message edited by Didaktikon On 21/07/2009 19:13:06)

To Ian I hope you just missed it but Luke did say he was duly sorry and gave an apology,What should a Chrisitan do?

Good morning, Spangler.

I guess I'll accept "Luke's" apology when I see the "fruit" of such repentance: concrete changes made to the wording of his many pointed missive at his various sites. Such would demonstrate a modicum of sincerity on his part.

Blessings,

Ian


(Message edited by Didaktikon On 21/07/2009 19:10:08)

Batmothman,

I doubt you'd be surprised, but over the years I've heard pretty much your story repeated on the lips of scores of former Revivalists. The amount of people who consciously make up their "tongue" (to be contrasted with the 99.95% of Revivalists who subconsciously make it up) just to fit in to the group expectation, can often be quite provoking, especially to people who mistakenly believe that what they speak are the equivalents of what we find recorded in Acts!

And what happens when you extrapolate such nonsense to the very same people having their "tongues" "interpreted" in Revivalist meetings? Well, one doesn't need to be a genius to reach the obvious conclusion. Several years ago I visited a large Revivalist assembly and began to vocally praise God in Mishnaic Hebrew. A very, very well known and senior Revivalist pastor then provided the "interpretation", replete with "thees" and "thous". Suffice it to say that what he spruiked wasn't what I spruiked!

Blessings,

Ian


(Message edited by Didaktikon On 21/07/2009 18:55:00)

Hi Luke,

Please reconsider.  If I had previously fully, completely, absolutely believed the RF doctrine to be the right one, after that explanation of Luke 11 in context I would be compelled to reconsider.

There has always been something odd about the way Revivalists "use" scripture.  From the RCI beginnings scriptures have been picked out to suit the purpose by unskilled men.  These "raised up by God pastors" adopt an authoratitive persona (LL set the scene) and the unwary accept all.

Being "out" could be a good opportunity to do some personal searching, casting aside the former and investigating in more depth.

God Bless

Epi

Attention Ian:

1) I would just like to apologise for one more thing.

It seems I was a little vague earlier when I said sorry for the apparent hostility that I displayed.

What I said was “In my process of reflection I am forced to consider my discussions on-line. When I do this I try to mentally look at things from the other person’s perspective (in this case Ian and Moth) Having done this I feel I owe both Ian and Moth an apology. Some of my comments of late have been unnecessarily hostile sounding. This conduct is inexcusable and I am deeply sorry for any offence.”

Now it seems that you have mistaken this for repentance. Hence your comments to Spangler: “I guess I'll accept "Luke's" apology when I see the "fruit" of such repentance”

Repentance suggests that I have had a “Change of Mind” which I most certainly have not. I continue to maintain that your doctrine “Has a form of Godliness but denies the POWER thereof” and as such those who listen to you are making the mistake of their lives. I was simply apologising for the TONE of the comments that I felt were too hostile.

2) Your explanation of the verses in Luke 11 is perfectly legitimate as applied to that local context. However once again you are demonstrating your “Tunnel Vision” in your application of scriptural/spiritual directives.

Where we read in Luke 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Clearly shows that there was 1) A requirement to ASK (Seek) for the Holy Ghost which as yet had not been poured out. You can you can dance around these and other comments as much as like however all this does is exemplify your capacity to “Deny the POWER thereof” as already stated. PS Your comments made in your post (Date Posted:21/07/2009 17:55:50) in no way deal with the wider application of Jesus’ massage in Luke 11.

In short whenever I or anyone brings up any scripture that contradict your RELIGIOUS position you simple prescribe an assigned meaning to the text that you have constructed from the text in an entirely Religious, academic, naturalistic explanation of why you have not had confirmation from God that your doctrine is true.
In short; in the absence of God’s authority you have formulated your own bases on your learning. “Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” Read Romans 10:1-5

A Question for ALL:

How can someone who is very intelligent and well schooled and is able to extrapolate the Greek text very well be so continually wrong in their APPLICATION of the text?

Perhaps this story from Acts 16 may help.

Act 16:16  And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

 

Spirit of Divination = Πυìθων = a Python

 

Act 16:17  The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation.

Act 16:18  And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

Act 16:19  And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers,

Act 16:20  And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city,

Act 16:21  And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans.

 

So what an I getting at?

Serpents in the Bible are symbolic of “Opposition to God and God’s people. See Mark 16:18 & Luke 10:19. However Pythons do not kill it’s prey with venom (words) they kill them by wrapping themselves around their prey and squeezing the BREATH (symbolic of the Holy Ghost) out of their prey.

Pythons do not break the bones (Symbolic of Structure or form) of their prey either. They simply contract until their prey dies slowly due to a lack of breath.

Conclusion: This story is a prophecy about how the Church was going to fall into apostasy due to a deviation from the Holy Ghost and Fire ministry. Resulting ultimately into this shell of the original. i.e. 2Ti 3:5  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2Ti 3:6  For of this sort are they which creep into houses (and websites like this), and lead captive silly (gentle, innocent) women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 2Ti 3:7  Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Ian would be almost heaving as he reads this, he is totally blind to the meaning of scripture.

Ian’s type of blindness is spoken of in 2^nd Corinthians chapter 3:

2Co 3:3  Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 2Co 3:4  And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:2Co 3:5  Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 2Co 3:6  Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Ian and other Theologians are wonderful in their understanding of the “INK” but just not capable of comprehending the “SPIRIT”

Pauls goes on to say…2Co 3:12  Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 2Co 3:13  And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

2Co 3:14  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; (in Ian's case New Testament as well)  which veil is done away in Christ.

2Co 3:15  But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. 2Co 3:16  Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.

Similarly when Ian, or anyone for that matter who is not Spiritual but carnal reads these scriptures they are simply Blind to what it says.

No doubt Ian will reply to this post with a beautifully written, eloquent explanation (ridicule) of all of my so called delusions, just as surely as the Pharisees did in Jesus time.

No different to the thousands of Educated Mormons, JWs, Adventists, Catholic, Islamic and Hindu experts in Language and customs. Compare Acts16:21  And teach (Religious) customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans. (Orthodox, catholic, protestant, AOG etc etc.)

All I say is that I can do nothing but declare the things I have both seen and heard and declare the wonderful, miracles that my God has performed in my life and continues to perform. If you find yourself following people with “enticing words of man's wisdom” then you need to re-think where you are going.

As for me...1Co 2:4  And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 1Co 2:5  That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 1Co 2:6  Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught: 1Co 2:7  But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

God Bless all you innocent people on this site.

Please, please be careful!

Luke 7:35

(Message edited by Luke735 On 21/07/2009 22:55:48)

Ian,

But hey, the "thees" and "thous" authenticate the interpretation don't they? Trust you to be "Mister Fussy" and expect an actual translation! By the way, you might have been polite and at least said that it wasn't me that did the translating after my posting above.....heh heh heh. You wrote that just to make me squirm didn't you!

In all the years I was in the PRC and then wooed back into an offshoot of the CAI some years later, I always was saddened that I allowed myself to be talked into "speaking in tongues" (read "babble"), because, although I was very ignorant and turned a blind eye to other things that did not gel, I could only see in the scriptures spontaneity given from God when people spoke in tongues, with no coercion.

You speak of context, context, context, to which one could also add fruit, fruit, fruit, which is in great lack in Pentecostal groups and is the proof, that their proof, is no proof at all.

As touching apologies, a qualified apology, or an apology with no restoration or rectification, is not worth a hill of beans.

Scott Williams some years ago asked my then so-called pastor why I always went quiet when he mentioned another particular pastor. He informed him that he owed me $2,500.00 in commission from sales I had made for him (this was about thirty years ago), so Scott wrote to him and he sent me a letter saying how sorry he was that he had never paid me. You know I shook and shook and shook the envelope, but no cheque dropped out! For the record, that same pastor "skinned" a few other giving folk, but he features on the CAI website as one of the loyal great men that assisted Scott in starting his great work, despite Scott knowing that the guy was a crook! Birds of a feather I hear you say?

John

Lukazoid,

Now I notice that there is a huge difference between RCI, GRC and RF but they are all lumped together on this site. I think that this is unwise and inaccurate. I know that there are some here who attest to the same kinds of behaviour in the RF as has been cited in the GRC and RCI. But this has not been my experience.

(Message edited by MothandRust On 22/07/2009 01:56:16)

"Lukie",

Let me begin by pointing out that my comments regarding your "apology" had to do with your tone, and not with your content. Hence the fact that I referred to your pointed missives.

2) Your explanation of the verses in Luke 11 is perfectly legitimate as applied to that local context. However once again you are demonstrating your “Tunnel Vision” in your application of scriptural/spiritual directives.

Please reassure me that you're not going to go down the same line as 18 months ago?! The "...yes you're correct in what you state BUT..." line of argumentation? Followed up as it was with the standard excuse: "spiritual meaning can only be discerned by spiritual people"?

Where we read in Luke 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Clearly shows that there was 1) A requirement to ASK (Seek) for the Holy Ghost which as yet had not been poured out. You can you can dance around these and other comments as much as like however all this does is exemplify your capacity to “Deny the POWER thereof” as already stated. PS Your comments made in your post (Date Posted:21/07/2009 17:55:50) in no way deal with the wider application of Jesus’ massage in Luke 11.

*Groan*. You had to go and do it, didn't you?

I'd ask that you go back and re-read my rebuttal of your argument. The context of Luke 11 had to do with the role that Jesus' core group of disciples were to play in bringing the covenant people of Israel (the Jews) to the point where they would inherit the promised Holy Spirit. The "asking" itself finds its referent in the fact of the long-promised Spirit! It points backwards to Moses' who petitioned God that all Israel would be a nation of prophets, and a light to the gentiles. And, of course, I pointed you to my "Tongues in the Temple" essay, whereupon I developed this theme in greater detail. Of course, if you honestly believe that the statement refers to individual believers (i.e. as per Revivalism), rather than as the context demands, to Israel corporately; then perhaps you could explain why Luke chose to use plural pronouns rather than singular pronouns?

In short whenever I or anyone brings up any scripture that contradict your RELIGIOUS position you simple prescribe an assigned meaning to the text that you have constructed from the text in an entirely Religious, academic, naturalistic explanation of why you have not had confirmation from God that your doctrine is true. In short; in the absence of God’s authority you have formulated your own bases on your learning. “Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” Read Romans 10:1-5.

Well that's rather interesting. You see God clearly chose to provide his special revelation to a specific people group, at specific points in recorded history, making use of specific cultural contexts, and in specific human languages. But you reckon that being aware of such specificity is actually a hindrance to proper understanding?! Well that makes sense! Actually, 'no' it doesn't. What your preferred approach does is to divest Scripture of any objective meaning, thereby making meaning itself a totally arbitrary construct!

Oh, and I have read Romans 10:1-5. It doesn't support your inference by the way (funny enough).

A Question for ALL: How can someone who is very intelligent and well schooled and is able to extrapolate the Greek text very well be so continually wrong in their APPLICATION of the text?

Let's see, shall we?

Perhaps this story from Acts 16 may help. Act 16:16  And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: Spirit of Divination = Πυìθων = a Python.

Of course! Clearly I'm a demonised deceiver! (Πυìθων isn't a reference to the snake we know as a "python", by the way. If you're interested, Google "lexical anachronism" and "lexical fallacy". In your case, the "double whammy": a lexical fallacy which is anachronistic!).

So what an I getting at? Serpents in the Bible are symbolic of “Opposition to God and God’s people. See Mark 16:18 & Luke 10:19. However Pythons do not kill it’s prey with venom (words) they kill them by wrapping themselves around their prey and squeezing the BREATH (symbolic of the Holy Ghost) out of their prey. Pythons do not break the bones (Symbolic of Structure or form) of their prey either. They simply contract until their prey dies slowly due to a lack of breath.

You've just blown any hope that I had, that you'd repented of your penchant for "allegorising" the biblical texts with the aim of twisting them to suit your heretical theories.

Conclusion: This story is a prophecy about how the Church was going to fall into apostasy due to a deviation from the Holy Ghost and Fire ministry. Resulting ultimately into this shell of the original. i.e. 2Ti 3:5  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2Ti 3:6  For of this sort are they which creep into houses (and websites like this), and lead captive silly (gentle, innocent) women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 2Ti 3:7  Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(*stunned silence ....*) Humour me for a moment. Go back and read 2 Timothy in context. Just once. Please. Pretty please.

Ian would be almost heaving as he reads this, he is totally blind to the meaning of scripture.

Obviously. It's clear that I have absolutely no idea about how to interpret Scripture so as to get at its proper sense, but that you are the teacher par excellance!

Ian’s type of blindness is spoken of in 2nd Corinthians chapter 3: 2Co 3:3  Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 2Co 3:4  And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:2Co 3:5  Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 2Co 3:6  Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Right. Well call me crazy for thinking this, but I'm kinda guessing that Paul expected the wayward Corinthians to actually grasp what he intended for them to grasp in his ink! After all, he goes to quite some lengths to (a) make his meaning plain, and (b) to reproach them for not doing what he said.

Ian and other Theologians are wonderful in their understanding of the “INK” but just not capable of comprehending the “SPIRIT”

"Damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead!"

Similarly when Ian, or anyone for that matter who is not Spiritual but carnal reads these scriptures they are simply Blind to what it says.

"Ian the Carnal", the blind reader (but not understander-er) of Scripture; contrasted with "Lukie the Spiritual", the sighted understander-er (but not reader) of Scripture!

No doubt Ian will reply to this post with a beautifully written, eloquent explanation (ridicule) of all of my so called delusions, just as surely as the Pharisees did in Jesus time.

Well, I reckon the term "delusions" pretty much sums it up. But I don't think I really needed to resort to well-crafted, logical, grammatically correct and eloquent argumentation to get across my point. All I really needed to say by way of a summary of your views was: CR*P!

No different to the thousands of Educated Mormons, JWs, Adventists, Catholic, Islamic and Hindu experts in Language and customs. Compare Acts16:21  And teach (Religious) customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans. (Orthodox, catholic, protestant, AOG etc etc.)

It pains me to have to harp on about C-O-N-T-E-X-T all the time, but Acts 16:21 had to do with the charge that Christianity was a "religio illicita" (illegal religion), whilst Judaism was a "religio licita" (legal religion). The context was that as such Christianity wasn't entitled to protection under Roman law; consequently Paul should be given the boot from the city! It speaks absolutely nothing to the clap-trap that you've just gone on with.

All I say is that I can do nothing but declare the things I have both seen and heard and declare the wonderful, miracles that my God has performed in my life and continues to perform. If you find yourself following people with “enticing words of man's wisdom” then you need to re-think where you are going.

Let me summarise between the two options: your made up religion versus biblical Christianity? Easy choice. I choose life.

Wake up.

Ian





(Message edited by Didaktikon On 22/07/2009 02:47:49)