|
Metanoian
|
51#
|
Registered:13/06/2009
|
Reply To Luke735
(Date Posted:22/07/2009 00:00:13)
Luke if I may,
Understand this: The King James Bible is nothing more then a TRANSLATION and the same goes for every English Bible there is. And When you read an English Bible, you are reading through the EYES OF AN ENGLISH TRANSLATER.. However the Greek New Testament is THE WITNESS and out of this witness comes the various translations. Being able to engage in the Greek Text fluently such as what Ian can do with much ease means being able to syntactically and grammatically draw out the meaning of not just mere words alone but also entire sentences and paragraphs. Unfortunately your association with the Rev groups doesn't afford the luxury of being given the chance to pursue the necessary learning and training needed to develop responsible handling of ancient language text. And this is NOT YOUR FAULT. It is the fault of a institutionalised cult that basically controls your learning of the text which really in effect is held under a guise of a controlled learning molded by a "Revivalist Paradigm". In short you are reading scripture through the eyes of Noel Hollins and Noel's very very limited grip on the sacred and this is hurting and damaging you personally to a very large degree.. And so much so that you are robbed of the REAL value of the Texts that God has preserved for you to enjoy and grow with.
In closing, what you have attempted to unpack in Luke 11 is NOT right at all. In fact it completely misses the mark and you are unfortunately reading through the eyes of Noel Hollins.
Noel Hollins has a brain the size of a pea so you are going to have to get rid of all your "Hollinese" first.
Take care Luke as I am sure you mean well..
Blessings
Metanoia
(Message edited by Metanoian On 22/07/2009 00:22:14)
|
|
Didaktikon
|
52#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Fremde
(Date Posted:22/07/2009 00:17:54)
Hi, John.
I'm hearing ya, bro'!
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Metanoian
|
53#
|
Registered:13/06/2009
|
Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:22/07/2009 00:29:29)
|
|
Luke735
|
54#
|
Registered:11/06/2009
|
RE:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:22/07/2009 20:50:53)
Thank you for your post Metanoia
I have never had any experience of Hollins church GRC; as such I do not speak "Hollinese"
I see your point and I also understand where Ian is coming from.
Were it not for the fact that the Bible is a Spiritual book which is to be understood in the light of, and guidance of the Holy Ghost I probably would be inclined to see things fairly similar to Ian.
The major problem is that, as in Jesus time the Scribes and Pharisees (who were the academics of their time) were far from right in their approach to God.
I am sure that many of them had good intentions. Nicodemus is one such example. I do not know what formal qualifications he had compared with say Annas and/or Caiaphas but in terms of academic reasoning he would not have been in the same class.
The following story I think captures what I am getting at and why Ian and myself simply cannot agree.
Introduction: In this story the Pharisees argue that Jesus could not possibly be the Messiah because he was from Galilee and as we all know the Messiah was going to derive from Bethlehem of Judah. This misunderstanding meant that the Pharisees (like Ian) builds upon a fundamentally flawed (physical appreciation of the facts) foundation. Anyhow read for yourself.
John 7:32 The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. John 7:33 Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. John 7:34 Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come. John 7:35 Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?
John 7:36 What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come?
Notice the total exasperation being experienced by the Pharisees. They are completely naturally minded in their approach. This is similar to Ian (as well as other orthodox Christians) they simply become frustrated by the total lack of comprehension on the part of us “simple” Christians.
Jesus then continues to be Spiritual in his speech.
John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Now take note of the two types of responses: 1) Appreciated the underlying spiritual truth and 2) the Pharisaic, natural, academic point of view.
John 7:40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. John 7:41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
Note the Pharisaic, natural, academic point of view questioned saying….John 7:42 Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? John 7:43 So there was a division among the people because of him. John 7:44 And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.
John 7:45 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? John 7:46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. John 7:47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?
Note that those who had “Appreciated the underlying spiritual truth” were termed by the Pharisees as having been “Deceived”
John 7:48 Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?
Now note how that they immediately made reference to the majority of fellow academics as if Majority Rules! Lest I remind you that the majority said “Crucify Him”
John 7:49 But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.
Wow! What a potent statement. The idea that the understanding of how we relate to God is measured in terms of our understanding of the “letter of the Law” academic reasoning based on our relative expertise in the text analysis. Be honest now, How much does this sound like the academic. Rationalist arguments being set forth by Ian?
It is such a shame, it saddens me that Ian has so brainwashed himself in his own intellect that he can become so blind. He is obviously sincere, but he is sincerely WRONG and for your safety this must be exposed.
Now, one Pharisee who did Appreciated the underlying spiritual truth responds.
John 7:50 Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) John 7:51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? John 7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. John 7:53 And every man went unto his own house.
This story very accurately characterises the majority of the discussions between Ian (and the like) and those “Spiritually minded” people especially Ian’s ridicule of the same.
This type of characterisation is also apparent in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, one of the things that the Pharisee plumes himself on is that he gives tithes of all he possesses (Luke 18:12). He is an example of the Pharisaic arrogance of those “who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and set all others at nought.” Their claiming the first seats in feasts and synagogues (Matt 23:6) was an evidence of the same spirit.
So why then do I bother arguing with Ian?
Many people who haves suffered abuse at the hands of individuals in Revivalist Churches, come to this forum to find others who have also experienced mistreatment at the hands of Revivalists. Unfortunately this site is being used by people like Ian who are using the fact that people have suffered grief to delude them into following "Another Gospel". Basically "Abusing the abused"
This is a very effective (but damaging) tactic. What he does is this:
1) He makes a connection between the bad behaviour that has been directed towards you; and the Acts2:38 salvation massage. "Logically there is NO Relationship"
2) He cultivates peoples hurt and uses it to say that the experience of receiving the Holy Ghost is false.
3) He uses his position and academic resume to substantiate his claim of being an authority to make his assertions, rather than the Power of God.
Those who have been hurt by Revivalist are very unlikely to be able to resist such an assault and fall victim to this strategy time and time again. My desire is to bring this to light so that you can at least consider the possibility that you are being victimised again!
Again thank you for your post, I assure you I am not a disciple of either Noel Hollins, L. Longfield or any one else but my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
How do I know this, Because He (Jesus) confirms the words I speak with signs following.
God Bless
Luke 7:35
(Message edited by Luke735 On 22/07/2009 21:03:45)
|
|
Didaktikon
|
55#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Luke735
(Date Posted:22/07/2009 21:19:04)
"Luke",
Given that your so-called "spiritual reading" of Scripture derives results that aren't tied to, or dependent upon, what the biblical texts mean according to a supposedly "natural reading" of the actual words; how can you be sure that your interpretations are valid? To what is your "meaning" tethered if not to the text itself?
Next, you've stated that I "...make a connection between the bad behaviour that has been directed towards you; and the Acts 2:38 salvation message. Logically there is NO relationship." Where have I made such a connection?! When have I made such a connection?! Can you provide even a single example of me having done what you've claimed that I've done? What I do suggest (and prove), however, is that Acts 2:38 doesn't mean what ignorant Revivalists such as you believes it means.
Next, "...he cultivates people's hurt and uses it so say their experience of receiving the Holy Ghost is false." Actually, 'no', I don't. I simply point out that what the Revivalist
groups promote about "receiving the Holy Spirit", and what Scripture promotes about the subject, are poles removed . I simply point out that there isn't a single example of anything described in the book of Acts, which even remotely matches the Revivalist's so-called "salvation experience".
And finally, "...he uses his position and academic resume to substantiate his claim of being an authority to make his assertions, rather than the power of God." Actually what I do is use my academic training and exegetical abilities to conclusively demonstrate that Revivalism reads into Scripture it's own ideas rather than drawing out from Scripture what is actually there. As Romans 1:16 clearly states, "for I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to effect salvation for everyone who believes..." Ergo, I correctly rely on the "power of God" (i.e. the gospel) to prove my assertions.
In closing, "Luke", the delusions that you hold to aren't Jesus' confirmation of your words.
Ian
P.S. I'm still waiting for several responses to my original rebuttal. You aren't going to simply ignore the "hard" questions, I hope?
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 22/07/2009 22:13:27)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
prezy
|
56#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2650
Posts:125
Registered:06/02/2007
|
RE:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:22/07/2009 21:42:36)
Its a huge assumption, and a dangerous one to assume that because the Pharisees were wrong that Lloyd and Noel are right! Its part of their brainwashing technique. Praise the Lord the scales fell from my eyes when I left cookoo land (GRC) and found the Truth in God's Word. One of the other stupid arguments revivalist promote is that the Apostles were not learned men! What an insult to Jesus! 3 years spent entirely with him and they weren't educated!What about Paul?Very educated. Give me the experts in Greek over babling self appointed lunatics anyday.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person........
|
|
Luke735
|
57#
|
Registered:11/06/2009
|
RE:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 02:15:15)
Hi Ian you said "Obviously you'd know this, but what passes for "pastoring" and "preaching" in Revivalism isn't in any way comparable to what we enjoy in orthodox Christianity. It would be comparable to a Revivalist holding up a candle to the sun!" in the Chat-Box.
Can I ask, What Church specifically?????
I would like to check it out this Sunday perhaps.
Luke
|
|
Chartdoctor
|
58#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2590
Posts:125
Registered:29/08/2005
|
RE:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 03:25:18)
Ian, CD asking again, that is you may have missed my small sentence request to tell why you still
pray in tongues?
That was mentioned recently here, and as I remember you said that you do pray in tongues, but if you stopped, (for whatever reason) it would mean zilch to you?
Now that is from memory, so a slight inaccuracy could have occurred,
For what reason would you stop praying in tongues?, and for what reason do you pray in tongues?
|
|
Didaktikon
|
59#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Luke735
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 16:32:53)
Good morning, "Lukie".
So you're interested in checking out orthodox Christianity? Yeah, right! However, if you do ever want to discover what faith in Christ is all about, then you could do worse then to visit the following types of churches: Presbyterian, Lutheran, (evangelical) Anglican, (Baptist Union) Baptists, Congregationalist, Salvation Army, Wesleyan Methodists, and even the good old Roman Catholic and the respective National Orthodox (although I've no doubt that you'd be so biased against the latter two as to dismiss the possibility altogether). Whilst each of these approaches to Christianity is "flavoured" by certain long-standing cultural trappings and traditions, each of these approaches also understands what the gospel of G-R-A-C-E is about. And, of course, even the most liberal example of the above traditions would be a step forwards from where you currently stand with respect to Christian teaching and practice.
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Talmid
|
60#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4190
Posts:205
Registered:21/04/2008
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 16:53:12)
>>... us "simple" Christian ...
I'm increasingly fascinated with the way those who, like Luke, promote the "no-tongues-no-Spirit" story claim to be simple yet have to explain away the scores of plain references in the bible that belief in(to) Jesus as Lord and saviour results in salvation, and the clear teaching that *in the body of Christ* (not "in the meeting") not all speak in tongues. The games played with Mk 16 by those who think it prescribes speaking in tongues are mind boggling.
Yet they expect those who read their words to take their "plain meaning" and apply them where there are "comparable particulars".
Ah well God chipped away at my arrogance for 30 years before I returned to from heresy to Christianity, so it behoves me to extend the same grace to others.
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
61#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Chartdoctor
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 17:07:28)
Good morning, Brian.
So you're still interested in my approach to Pentecostalist "tongues", eh? To begin with, what passes today for "tongues" isn't what we find recorded in the book of Acts; the former is glossolalia, the latter xenoglossa. Second, it's my firm conviction that almost all Revivalist "tongues" are examples of nothing more than learned, "coached" and therefore group-conditioned behaviours. Consequently there's absolutely nothing "miraculous" about being taught to waffle on in unsophisticated and repetative gibberish.
1 Corinthians 14 in particular discusses a spiritual manifestation of '"tongues". I'm open to the possibility (unlikely as it is) that some Revivalist examples fall into this category. But there is nothing in the Corinthian passages which indicates that people needed to repeat "hallelujah" over-and-over in contrived settings, whilst being told to let their "tongues go" by others, in order to receive or attain this "gift". So I'm quite doubtful that the vast majority of Revivalists can claim even this, the least of all spiritual "gifts".
So what is my practice? To begin with, after I became a Christian in my bedroom that Friday night, I sincerely prayed that God would grant me the gift of tongues that my Revivalist witnesses had told me about. On the following Sunday, immediately after I was baptised in the Brisbane RCI, I "spoke in tongues". Was it the authentic, Corinthian gift? Who knows? Possibly, but I'm also open to the possibility that it wasn't. So where does such fit in my personal schema? As follows. It remains a spiritual discipline of mine to commit myself to roughly 90 minutes of daily prayer. Of this perhaps 5% (or four to five minutes in total) comprises "tongues". The obvious question becomes, if I harbor doubts that what I "do" is the authentic "gift", then why do I "do" it anyway? The answer is simple. I find the practice to be useful. It provides me with "interludes" during my prayers than enables me to "transition" between prayers. For example, if I've been earnestly praying for specific people for a while, 30 seconds in "tongues" relaxes the mind so that I can more easily move onto my next "section" of prayer. So to me, "tongues" functions in a similar way to sorbet in a meal: it "cleanses the palate" between "courses".
Am I ever overly concerned if I forget to "pray" in "tongues"? Hardly! Would I lose sleep if I never "prayed" in "tongues" again? Not so much as a wink!
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 23/07/2009 17:54:00)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Chartdoctor
|
62#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2590
Posts:125
Registered:29/08/2005
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 17:20:59)
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".
(copied from Fremde this thread 20/7/09)
Talmid, be fascinated no more.
I'm increasingly fascinated with the way those who, like Luke, promote the "no-tongues-no-Spirit" story
Talmid, Ian himself does not believe what he has written in the "PLEASE CONSIDER' as the above statement, and not denied by Ian, indicates ITS NOT FOR HIM REALLY, BUT FOR YOU, AND THE OTHERS,DEFINITELY NOT FOR IAN, AS P/C DOES NOT GIVE ANY REASON TO SPEAK IN; TONGUES.
Goodness, this is really easy, its not REALLY EXEGETICS, BUT MORE THE LAWS OF LOGIC.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
63#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Chartdoctor
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 17:59:24)
Brian,
Huh? Were you writing in "tongues", just now?
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Talmid
|
64#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4190
Posts:205
Registered:21/04/2008
|
Reply to Chartdoctor
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 18:16:24)
Ian - schmian. (He wasn't even out of primary school when the Spirit first started niggling me about RCA doctrine 30 odd years ago.)
Goodness ... I've got almost no idea what you're on about, although your post 62# *does* seem to have missed the guts of what my post 60# was about and it seems to misunderstand Ian's 61#
BTW ... just so you know ... since I lack the patience of others on this site, I'm no longer going to bother replying to something that doesn't meet at least grade 6 levels of English expression and reflect a similar level of comprehension ... unless it from someone with a non-English speaking backgound.
Hmmm that's 10, no 15, oops 20, minutes of my life I won't get back again :-(
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
Galien
|
65#
|
Rank:Poster Venti II
Score:8650
Posts:425
Registered:17/01/2005
|
RE:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 18:24:41)
Talmid,
BTW ... just so you know ... since I lack the patience of others on this site, I'm no longer going to bother replying to something that doesn't meet at least grade 6 levels of English expression and reflect a similar level of comprehension ... unless it from someone with a non-English speaking backgound.
Don't you think that is somewhat harsh? People's level of comprehension, grammar or spelling ability is not something they really have control over. If you have a superior gift, appreciate it, but don't look down on others because they are not similarly gifted. That is just high school silliness.
Hmmm that's 10, no 15, oops 20, minutes of my life I won't get back again :-(
And that is just plain dismissive and mean. Aren't other people of value to you Talmid?
--------------------------------------------------------------
I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. So there.
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 18:27:34)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Chartdoctor
|
67#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2590
Posts:125
Registered:29/08/2005
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 18:32:15)
(Message edited by Chartdoctor On 23/07/2009 19:35:06)
|
|
Didaktikon
|
68#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Seguidor
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 18:37:46)
Good morning, Ralph.
The authentic (Corinthian) gift of "tongues" is just as valid a manifestation of God's grace in the 21st century Church as it was in the 1st century Church. However, the place that it should find in the Church of today should be the same place that it held in the original Church (Paul was quite specific in identifying that Christians should seek the "better"gifts; "tongues" not being within this category).
I simply don't believe that Scripture or experience presents authentic (Corinthian) "tongues" being anywhere near as widespread a manifestation in the Church as people often naively assume to be the case!
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Didaktikon
|
69#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Chartdoctor
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 18:44:09)
Brian,
Again, just what are you prattling on about? I've actually written an essay that addresses "praying in the Spirit", and it appears at "Please Consider". Furthermore, all of those essays (from memory) were written between 2000 and 2003. My research into the various subjects didn't end with me posting them then, and my thinking has changed with respect to certain details since then.
I've explicated, in sufficient detail I think, why it is that I "pray" in "tongues". If you'd like to accuse me of something, try being a little more candid with respect the details, m'kay?
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Chartdoctor
|
70#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2590
Posts:125
Registered:29/08/2005
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 18:52:41)
Of this perhaps 5% (or four to five minutes in total) comprises "tongues". The obvious question becomes, if I harbor doubts that
what I "do" is the authentic "gift", then why do I "do" it anyway? The
answer is simple. I find the practice to be useful. It provides me with
"interludes" during my prayers than enables me to "transition" between
prayers. For example, if I've been earnestly praying for specific
people for a while, 30 seconds in "tongues" relaxes the mind so that I
can more easily move onto my next "section" of prayer. So to me,
"tongues" functions in a similar way to sorbet in a meal: it "cleanses
the palate" between "courses".
(my last post overlaped, Ians reply) as above.
So Ian the best you can do, to avoid quoting a scripture, is that you speak in tongues,
to BE
'USEFUL' 'INTERLUDES' 'TRANSITION' 'RELAXES THE MIND'
'CLEANSES THE PALATE'
WELL CONGRATULATIONS IAN. 1111111111 THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS TO ME, WHEN I PRAY IN TONGUES, BUT ITS CALLED BEING BUILT UP IN THE SPIRIT.
( thanks for telling me Ian, but dont tell the others, they simply dont seem to understand)
|
|
Didaktikon
|
71#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Chartdoctor
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 19:00:44)
Actually, Brian, it's clear that you don't understand at all.
To begin with, who says that what you "do" is the biblical gift of "tongues"? (and, therefore, warranting the quoting of Scripture in support) You? Based on what, exactly? I've pointed out, here and elsewhere, why there are sufficient grounds to be cautious in simply presuming Revivalist "tongues" to be representative of the biblical model. You need to consider the arguments, both pro and con. To date, you've not done so.
I bet that you didn't notice that the Corinthians whom Paul upbraided, were completely unaware that the apostle also shared the over-vaunted gift? At least, they were unaware until he advised them otherwise!
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 23/07/2009 19:13:12)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Talmid
|
72#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4190
Posts:205
Registered:21/04/2008
|
Reply to Galien
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 19:00:59)
Yep I was harsh and dismissive, but CD just showed that s/he can do better. If s/he wants me to listen s/he has the responsibility to *try* to explain clearly, and s/he just showed s/he could, as I've seen him/her demonstrate elsewhere. (Grade 6 level still has spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and awkwardness.)
Like many others I actually have family who have been schooled through what I was brought up calling "special school", I have a family member who has Downs syndrome, I have lived with adults who can barely read and write, and I have spent time assisting "remedial readers". Such people I treat with respect, love and admiration. CD, though was being a smart aleck ...
Enough defensiveness ...
--------------------------------------------------------------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
Chartdoctor
|
73#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2590
Posts:125
Registered:29/08/2005
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 19:12:13)
To begin with, who says that what you "do" is the
biblical gift of "tongues"? You? Based on what, exactly? I've pointed
out, here and elsewhere, why there are sufficient grounds to be
cautious in simply presuming Revivalist "tongues" to be representative
of the biblical model. You need to consider the arguments, both pro and
con. To date, you've not done so.
Ian, I didnt expect you to agree, sufficient just to point out to the other brethren here, what you actually do in total, so they can make up their own minds.
I am not wanting to get into lengthy discussions, at this time, that is for others to do.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
74#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Chartdoctor
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 19:14:24)
Brian,
Yet again, you've lost me. What are you going on about?
Ian
P.S. After re-reading your posts a couple of times, I think it valid to make the following observation. If the "tongue" that comprises 5% of my daily prayer discipline is authentic, then it functions as simply another complement to my devotion as a Christian (another "arrow in the quiver", so to speak). However, this is still poles removed from your wholly unbiblical assertion, that posits the equation: "no tongues = no Christianity". In other words, "neither arrows nor quiver"!
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 23/07/2009 20:14:12)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
prezy
|
75#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2650
Posts:125
Registered:06/02/2007
|
Reply To Didaktikon
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 19:20:22)
Reply to Didaktikon
Brian,
Yet again, you've lost me. What are you going on about?
Ian
Ian, your a smart man. Have you been to a revival meeting? If they can come up with a religion like that from trying to interpret the Bible, how do you expect them to interpret your posts?
--------------------------------------------------------------
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person........
|
|
Didaktikon
|
76#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To prezy
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 19:32:14)
'Prezy',
Good point 
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
MothandRust
|
77#
|
Rank:Ghost in the machine
Score:34610
Posts:1585
Registered:27/02/2004
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 19:37:08)
Heel Charty... we're 'trying' to be LESS sarcastic and a little MORE respectful
Of course this thread will go on 'forever' because most of us have come OUT from that doctrine and have therefore weighed the pros and cons many times already. Luke et. al. have no intention of questioning or leaving Lloyd's doctrine behind them and will therefore ignore, or circle talk the points... which has been their way over the years.
I don't blame Talmid for opting out, because how many times should this stuff be laid out on the table for these guys? Years later, they STILL come back and try to sell their confused web of prooftexts. It's the old pigeon on the chessboard routine, and it gets old. There's no way this thread will have much at all to sink into Luke's head (not yet, anyway... one day the penny just might drop to coin the RF phrase), but it's certainly a good discussion to show 'thinking and thoughtful' Revivalists trying to make sense of it all. Luke's asking all the typical stuff and I think it's great that the core of the tongues problem is being addressed piece by piece.
I think Ian has kept his posts fairy well simplified for the layman, but to dumb it down for the laylaylayman would just be embarrassing.
(Message edited by MothandRust On 23/07/2009 19:39:53)
|
|
Didaktikon
|
78#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To MothandRust
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 20:29:24)
Moth,
Fairly said. As for me? I'm still waiting for "Luke" to attempt to rebut those "pesky" little problems that I brought to his attention from his first post. I'm left thinking that he's simply hoping they will "go away".
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Chartdoctor
|
79#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2590
Posts:125
Registered:29/08/2005
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 20:47:47)
Well, what can I say, Moth.
Of course this thread will go on 'forever' because most of us have come
OUT from that doctrine and have therefore weighed the pros and cons
many times already. Luke et. al. have no intention of questioning or
leaving Lloyd's doctrine behind them and will therefore ignore, or
circle talk the points... which has been their way over the years.
As you know, I havent posted here for a time, but I am on the computer a lot on other matters, and so am a "lurker" at times.
The thread that will go on "forever" can be a little annoying, and Ian continually repeats himself over and over,however I can live with that.
We have J/w's and Christadelphians in our ears most times, amongst others, well so be it.
I wont post again here, unless I have something different, or intelligent to say.
WE should respect each others sites, and avoid saying things that will traumatize any one of us.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
80#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Chartdoctor
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 21:29:18)
Brian,
If spiritual truth "traumatises" you, then perhaps you should ask yourself 'why'?
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
MothandRust
|
81#
|
Rank:Ghost in the machine
Score:34610
Posts:1585
Registered:27/02/2004
|
RE:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 21:31:27)
Heya
I think it's unfair to say Ian has been repetitive throughout the thread so far. He HAS repeated the word CONTEXT a few times, but I'd argue that's for very good reason!
|
|
Chartdoctor
|
82#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2590
Posts:125
Registered:29/08/2005
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 22:11:45)
well, moth
I think it's unfair to say Ian has been repetitive throughout the
thread so far. He HAS repeated the word CONTEXT a few times, but I'd
argue that's for very good reason!
This is one of the problems with internet conversation, I am saying something, and its heard at your end as something different. We all need to be patient on the net.
I was referring to Ians repetitive use of words over the months and years indicating that the "Revival" folk, either in a Rev centre or possibly out of a Rev centre, have a certain "revival mindset" and live their lives according to that mentality.
He even mentioned that the Armageddon site on Lukes site, is Revival thinking, which is amazing as it is nothing like is preached or talked about there, as one example.
I am not indicating, in any event, that Ian was being repetitive in the Luke thread.
|
|
MothandRust
|
83#
|
Rank:Ghost in the machine
Score:34610
Posts:1585
Registered:27/02/2004
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:23/07/2009 22:57:50)
Sorry to misread you Charty.
The thread that will go on "forever" can be a little annoying, and Ian continually repeats himself over and over,however I can live with that.
It seems there was a little misunderstanding between us for three reasons. 1. This language may not be your native tongue 2. There's some grammar in question, and 3. The context needed to be established. Coincidentally and ironically, these are also the three main reasons that got Lloyd all confused with his bible translations resulting in the convoluted doctrine we see his family of churches promoting.
|
|
Chartdoctor
|
84#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2590
Posts:125
Registered:29/08/2005
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:24/07/2009 02:47:39)
Ian, I am not over and out yet,
5% (or four to five minutes in total) comprises "tongues". The obvious question becomes, if I harbor doubts that
what I "do" is the authentic "gift", then why do I "do" it anyway? The
answer is simple. I find the practice to be useful. It provides me with
"interludes" during my prayers than enables me to "transition" between
prayers. For example, if I've been earnestly praying for specific
people for a while, 30 seconds in "tongues" relaxes the mind so that I
can more easily move onto my next "section" of prayer. So to me,
"tongues" functions in a similar way to sorbet in a meal: it "cleanses
the palate" between "courses".
IAN
Our posts over lapped somewhat, which unfortunately for me, caused me to speak out somewhat aggressively , which would not have occurred if I had waited a little for a reply.
I apologize for that behavior.
You were kind enough to reply regarding the information I was seeking, indicating that you do speak in tongues on occasions. I dont believe you have ever tried to hide this fact about yourself
It could be deemed hypothetical as you indicate that this could possibly stop at some time in the future, as for all of us, we dont know about tomorrow.
Would you please consider putting this information on the please consider site, or the p/c site,could be termed a little "deceptive", in light of what you have just spoken of now, and at earlier times.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
85#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Chartdoctor
(Date Posted:24/07/2009 02:55:47)
Brian,
For goodness sakes, what are you prattling on about?! If by, "on occasions" you mean "daily" (as I clearly said), then why didn't you simply say so? And furthermore, there is nothing at the "Please Consider" website that could be construed as being "deceptive" based on any admissions that I've made concerning my prayer habits.
Speak plainly: what statement are you expecting me to place on the "Please Consider" site?
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 24/07/2009 03:03:23)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Chartdoctor
|
86#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2590
Posts:125
Registered:29/08/2005
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:24/07/2009 04:35:01)
IAN
a spiritual discipline of mine to commit myself to
roughly 90 minutes of daily prayer. Of this perhaps 5% (or four to five
minutes in total) comprises "tongues".
Yes, Ian, daily prayer as your post indicates , as the above words extracted from your post indicate.
A suitable sentence to this effect would be highly appreciated.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
87#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Chartdoctor
(Date Posted:24/07/2009 04:56:19)
Brian,
Why? To what end?!
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Fremde
|
88#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4470
Posts:219
Registered:19/09/2007
|
RE:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:24/07/2009 08:54:59)
Ian,
You have activated something that has gnawed away at me for some time.
Having stated that I was coerced by the usual method of repetitive Hallelujahs to Revivalist babble.....their crude attempt at mimicking the Biblical "speaking and/or praying in tongues" and the rude awakening (very deserved) that my interpretations and prophecies were as legitimate as any other I heard, that is to say, of the flesh and not Holy Spirit given, I have more and more as the years have passed, been apprehensive about using that "tongue" as a form of prayer, lest it be a blasphemous form of worship (I speak for me and me alone), in that I am unsure of its source per se and that I may be doing despite to the Holy Spirit.
It took me a while to get used to praying in English, both mentally and verbally, after Revivalistic so called worship. You may or may not be aware that the PRC and the CAI met up to eight times a week (including up to five meetings on weekends), during which we would "pray in tongues" for between a half an hour up to two hours!
Bear in mind I had no deprogramming by men or another church, however, I have by the grace of God, shed a great deal of Revivalist doctrine and have had a better run than most (for which I am greatly thankful to God) and am less scarred than most of my ex brethren that are in the main, as you are aware, still very traumatised or have turned their backs on God. Is that because I have been forgiven the most, that I love him more (Luke 7:40-43) and that has pulled me through? God knows. I know that I am an annoyance to many for the abundance of grace I have been afforded, just like the Prodigal Son was to his brother.
I am edgy about doing that which was such a big part of Revivalism/Pentecostalism and which forms such a web of delusion that has entrapped so many.
I would be interested to know yours and any others (excluding those who are still deluded) thoughts regarding my thinking.
John
|
|
prezy
|
89#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2650
Posts:125
Registered:06/02/2007
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:24/07/2009 17:03:09)
Reply to Fremde
Ian,
You have activated something that has gnawed away at me for some time.
Having stated that I was coerced by the usual method of repetitive Hallelujahs to Revivalist babble.....their crude attempt at mimicking the Biblical "speaking and/or praying in tongues" and the rude awakening (very deserved) that my interpretations and prophecies were as legitimate as any other I heard, that is to say, of the flesh and not Holy Spirit given, I have more and more as the years have passed, been apprehensive about using that "tongue" as a form of prayer, lest it be a blasphemous form of worship (I speak for me and me alone), in that I am unsure of its source per se and that I may be doing despite to the Holy Spirit.
It took me a while to get used to praying in English, both mentally and verbally, after Revivalistic so called worship. You may or may not be aware that the PRC and the CAI met up to eight times a week (including up to five meetings on weekends), during which we would "pray in tongues" for between a half an hour up to two hours!
Bear in mind I had no deprogramming by men or another church, however, I have by the grace of God, shed a great deal of Revivalist doctrine and have had a better run than most (for which I am greatly thankful to God) and am less scarred than most of my ex brethren that are in the main, as you are aware, still very traumatised or have turned their backs on God. Is that because I have been forgiven the most, that I love him more (Luke 7:40-43) and that has pulled me through? God knows. I know that I am an annoyance to many for the abundance of grace I have been afforded, just like the Prodigal Son was to his brother.
I am edgy about doing that which was such a big part of Revivalism/Pentecostalism and which forms such a web of delusion that has entrapped so many.
I would be interested to know yours and any others (excluding those who are still deluded) thoughts regarding my thinking.
John
|
Hi John, my experience would be very similar to yours. When I first spoke in tongues it was when I was alone with my Bible and looking to Christ. Not the usual hallelujahs over and over again. I felt physically hot and cleansed. I felt a connection with Jesus. I never felt this when speaking in tongues at grc meetings. It is worth noting that the deciever can imitate things of God to trick people. I'm not saying neccessarily that is the case with tongues in revival but I am cautious. My way of looking at it is this. Tongues are a sign. I am looking out the window now at a melaleuca tree. It has signs of being an apple tree. Real signs, it has leaves, trunk root system etc.. I also have a real apple tree and know it by the same signs as the melaleuca tree. The great difference is the real apple tree bears fruit. So the signs that the maleleuca tree is an apple tree are fake. At a prayer day at our local Presbyterian Church I felt that same communication with Jesus as when I first spoke in tongues, even though I had prayed in English and read my Bible. The fruits are abundently present where I go now and I thank the Lord for placing me in a fellowship that I can feel confident He is present. I no longer speak in tongues at all. It had a purpose in my life the first time it happened as it did on the day of Pentecost, even though the purpose was different. Obsessing over a sign can cloud your vision to see the Christ. Certainly not understanding the Trinity is a big part of this in revival. I remember a testimony where someone said" he gave me his Holy Spirit" and the Spirit is an "It". They really have a lot to learn. Lastly where I have used the word "revival" It is only in reference to the Longfeild, Hollins etc groups, as oposed to the true revivals that we have by the Grace of God experienced over the centuries and are possibly entering in at this time. Of course the revivalists like to align themselves with the true revivals but the Fact remains no one in the Church was speaking in tongues in the days of Bunyan, Calvin or the Wesley's to name a few.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person........
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:24/07/2009 18:15:09)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Didaktikon
|
91#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Fremde
(Date Posted:24/07/2009 20:28:56)
Good morning, John.
Actually, I think your concerns are perfectly valid! To my way of thinking, Revivalist "tongues" (certainly the approach that Revivalists take to them, at any rate) qualify for the Scriptural prohibition against "vain repetitions" (and/or "babblings"). Personally, I don't see a whole lot of benefit to be gained from mistakenly associating what Revivalists "do" with prayer either, whether "in the Spirit" or not. Far better to engage with God in communication that involves the whole person, rather than simply gibbering away with one's mind disengaged.
Blessings,
Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Chartdoctor
|
92#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2590
Posts:125
Registered:29/08/2005
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:24/07/2009 23:25:18)
Hullo Ian
Brian,
Why? To what end?!
(and this more recent post added)
Personally, I don't see a whole lot of benefit to be gained from mistakenly associating what Revivalists "do" with prayer either, whether "in the Spirit" or not. Far better to engage with God in communication that involves the whole person, rather than simply gibbering away with one's mind disengaged.
IAN,
Up until 2 days ago, and for some time before, your daily prayer life consisted of some 90 minutes which included some 5 minutes of praying in tongues.
For anyone to read the entirety of your "Please Consider" site it would seem that a conclusion could be reached,being that you would never"PRAY IN TONGUES".
That is why the P/C site and the facts of what you "ACTUALLY DO" are in conflict.
I am not mounting a case to take it to the world council of churches.
I dont believe that you have changed your mind in the last 24 hours, however if you have and you no longer PRAY IN TONGUES, then simply say so, and this request is ended.
IF however your mind has not changed as to what you did some 2 days ago, then I am simply requesting that you insert somewhere appropriately within the Please Consider site , the information that you do include in your prayer life some 5 minutes of praying in tongues.
Incredibly as it may sound, I am not on this site to "DAMAGE" anyone in anything I have posted, that even includes you Ian.
(Message edited by Chartdoctor On 24/07/2009 23:27:07)
|
|
Didaktikon
|
93#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Chartdoctor
(Date Posted:25/07/2009 01:05:23)
Brian,
"PC" isn't a site that seeks to promote my prayer habits. It's a clearing house for information assessing Revivalist beliefs against Scripture. So, 'no', I won't be making an addendum of the sort that you seek.
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 25/07/2009 01:09:24)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Aimoo Team
|
|
|
Re:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:25/07/2009 01:32:24)
This message has been deleted due to Termination of Account.
|
|
Fremde
|
95#
|
Rank:Regular Member
Score:4470
Posts:219
Registered:19/09/2007
|
RE:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:25/07/2009 02:38:15)
Ian, A very concise answer!
Prezy, A perfect tree analogy!
Ralph, Thanks for the exhortation. I can assure you that I need Revivalist thinking of any sort, like a fish needs a bicycle!
All much appreciated,
John
|
|
MothandRust
|
96#
|
Rank:Ghost in the machine
Score:34610
Posts:1585
Registered:27/02/2004
|
RE:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:26/07/2009 06:00:02)
Chartdoctor:You said, "I wont post again here, unless I have something different, or intelligent to say", And I'm thinking you should take some of your own advice already. You're conjuring up issues that don't really exist. Ian has never hinted at 'forbidding' the act of tongues in any of his work and he hasn't encouraged the use of the gift either outside of what he HAS already put it into context. The issue is whether such an act should be deemed as being what marks a Christian, and of course, it doesn't. Now a few things about Luke-eemia: Luke has admitted to using Ian Thomason's name as his own in his Aimoo profile and said it was just his sense of humour, and that's fair enough, a bit obsessive and silly, but ok (He says this isn't a game to him, yet he still does these infantile things). He's also called us liars and not admitted to using username puppets in discussions, which he has, but was probably, again, just his way of joking - childish, but probably not malicious. Such a thing can't be proven for the public records, however, let me just say this: Luke has been allowed to have his say here, and then asked to move on. He chose not to, and was insistant that all his 25 essays be laid out wherever he liked and was fairly arrogant with it. His request was denied and was shown the door and then he obsessively harassed individual members of the forum via private messages, and threatened to flood the forum with 'thousands' of user-names more than once. I mean, Sigh... These are all hostile actions in ANY forum, yet alone one designed for ex-cult members. So he was banned, and asked not to return. Some people cannot handle rejection gracefully and any civil person would take this as a hint and have taken their toys and gone home. Not Luke. No, Luke comes back under different guises continuously, and of course he does have to take on a different user-name each time due to the banning, but when he does strike up a conversation, he NEVER admits to being the same troll that has been banned repeatedly, until someone catches him out. ALL the regulars KNOW this to be true... hey I can relate to obsessive people, but someone slap me hard if I ever get this far gone. Anyway, squeak enough and someone will oil the hinge. Due to Luke's incessant whining and bi-atching and carrying on, he has been granted a thread here where he can go for it for as long as he likes. I wonder if Ian will be allowed any such freedom to reply to the roasting forum that's pretty much dedicated to discrediting 'his work'. Luke can't have free reign of the whole forum here because he and his doctrine are simply not wanted sprayed over all the furniture. I just checked out his forum, and it seems to be an ex-"'Revival Churches discussion forum' Forum" built on anti-Ian obsessiveness, and pouting. The forum of a scorned woman, if I may. The Revival doctrine is considered to be just that. Revivalist. This forum welcomes ex-members of the organisation to take part and vent and support each other and so on and etc. and always has. Naturally, there'll be ex-members who still hold on to the doctrine, and they can ask questions and discuss it, as long as they expect it to be questioned. And if you come on board here to push the doctrines of the cult we came from then you will only be allowed a certain amount of time before you're asked to cool it. You can't make this your home to 'fill' with endless pages of scripture dumping. Case in point: Jehovah Witnesses... if you leave their organisation, but still hold onto the core doctrines, you're pretty much still a JW. Kudos for coming out and being separate, but supporting their doctrines at an ex-JW site would just NOT be on. To Lukazade about me Luke has mentioned on his rip-off forum that I have a website called Aint-Christian, but it hasn't been called that for a LONG time, and it can be found at www.mothrust.com and is called Mothrust and is a hilarious collection of Religious and Christian satire. I still don't consider myself a Christian (nor do I consider Luke to be a Christian), but I don't consider myself an atheist either and repented of that. I'm a searcher and have been opening myself up to consider things after a dark period in my life after enduring the disorientation I felt when I discovered that the 17 years of Revivalism I lived was a sham cult that controlled my life. This forum isn't FOR Christians, and you can tell Ian to bugger off if you want to. You can leave Revival and become a Buddhist and still come for a chat, but if you preach Buddha, you'll probably get a challenge from Ian... Meh, if you know your "Buddha" then go for it... if you just want to be Buddhist and left in peace, just be loud and proud. That's enough ramble from this big mouth for one night, and no offense intended, this is YOUR thread, and I'm thanking you for coming on over and chewing the fat with us. I appreciate it and it's fun, and I don't think the tone has got nasty at all. I mean, why should it.
(Message edited by MothandRust On 26/07/2009 09:07:53)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
|
|
Luke735
|
97#
|
Registered:11/06/2009
|
RE:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:26/07/2009 17:08:58)
Well said Moth!
Though the perceptions of some at your end reflects a general misunderstanding of who and why I am.
I agree that at times my methods have been regrettable and unwise. Fir this I am truly sorry.
With respect to the doctrine I will not be compromising any time soon.
One thing though, You have stated many times that I carried conversations with myself under different usernames. This is untrue, I believe if you review my posts, then you will realise that you are mistaken with that assumption.
I understand that you guys believe what you believe and at the end of the day its your choice.
I do however believe that the applications of scripture that Ian and others here have made are a rationalistic, naturalistic interpretation and this is where the Bible differs from all other studies of text.
Ian is good at performing a text analysis but that is not (in my humble opinion) the sole way of interpreting scripture. As such Ian (like the Pharisees of Jesus) find themselves drawing conclusions that are wrong and leading others into error.
I am compelled therefore to do my best (remembering that I am a reformed drug dealer) to limit his impact on the innocent.
There have been many misunderstandings of intent on both sides of the fence for the reasons Chartdoctor has cited. But thats life I guess. Anyhow, thankyou for you post I enjoyed your comments very much. Luke
|
|
Didaktikon
|
98#
|
Rank:Old Forum Fogey
Score:31600
Posts:1517
Registered:29/08/2007
|
Reply To Luke735
(Date Posted:26/07/2009 17:20:05)
"Luke",
Well now. I've pointed out several very substantial "difficulties" with respect to your approach to, and understanding of, Scripture in my responses to you thus far. I've also asked you several questions which you've not yet responded to. Given your recent claims, why haven't you tackled these issues?
Next, if my conclusions (drawn as you've accepted them being from the actual biblical texts) are wrong, then indicate where and why. Such a task shouldn't be too hard for you, surely?
Third, I'd also like you to explain exactly why it is that you believe the human authors of Scripture didn't use standard writing conventions of their day, and why you believe Scripture can't (or shouldn't) be interpreted in light of such conventions.
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 26/07/2009 17:36:01)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivos voco, mortuos plango
website: www.pleaseconsider.info email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Luke735
|
99#
|
Registered:11/06/2009
|
RE:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:26/07/2009 19:08:07)
The importance of Understanding:
I think that if we all were personally acquainted with each other we would find that we have more in common then any of us would like to admit. I would like to share with you all my story so as to help you all to better understand my motivation.
In 1989 I was a drug dealer and addict. I was using approximately $1100 worth of my own product per day. I ran three houses along with two others major dealers.
I was an overt atheist and had no interest in God whatsoever. This was the case right up to January 31 1990. I was invited to a Revival meeting where I was challenged that God, through his Son Jesus Christ would prove himself to me personally. That was a Sunday, I left that meeting with a clear understanding that the Gospel of Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension represented an opportunity for people like me to be born again and start afresh. However to avail myself of this sacrifice I must in like manner; die (to my life) be buried (in water) and be resurrected (in newness of life through the baptism of the Holy Ghost) in like manner to Jesus.
This played on my mind on the Monday and by the Tuesday I decided to prove whether these things were true by being baptised in water and committing to God that if these things were true, that I would do whatever his word said I must.
I was baptised on the Tuesday morning. Bearing in mind I was still very entrenched in the business with my partners in some very unsavoury activities I was faced with quite a challenge.
Over the next three days I went to my parent’s house and I read through the pamphlets on salvation so as to navigate the many references in Acts and the gospels.
On the Friday night I went to a young people’s activity where I asked God to fill me with the Holy Ghost. I kneeled down to pray and immediately burst out speaking fluently in tongues (not stammering or babbling) this was very fluent.
The next day I met with the other dealers. Normally we would drive up to the top of a place called Mount Grey and shoot-up and generally discuss (the drug) business. This day when we were on the way up, the driver stopped the car, turned and said “something is different”. I said lets go up to the mountain and “I’ll show you”.
We got to the top of Mt grey and I told them what had happened in the previous 6 days. They asked what was different and I said I could not really explain it but I said we should ask God to verify my experience by them also doing what I had done by praying/asking for the Holy Ghost as I had.
This we did, two of them likewise began to speak fluently in tongues. After this we proceeded back to one of our drug/party houses where the third received the Holy Ghost the exact same way in which I and the others had.
Over the next few weeks several other drug users experienced the same thing and all ceased their drug use and changed their lives. 22 people in total.
My father, who was a staunch Catholic had been disabled due to a stroke and heart attack and was subsequently healed, Some of the direct healings included an inability to speak & walk. I saw him healed with my own eyes after a half hour prayer that I had in the Hospital toilets. As a result of theses healings He also experienced the same experience of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.
My Mother, sisters and extended family. Later my wife, children and my wife’s family the same. I have continued to tell people all over the country what Jesus has done in my life with an expectation of the same for them, and seen similar resultant changes.
In one case I prayed with a deaf/dumb man who could not speak at all. (including “Free Vocalisation) As we prayed he began to gesture with his hands at the base of his stomach rotating in a circular motion upwards until he reached the base of his chin. Once he reached his chin he burst forth in tongues fluently. The moment he ceased speaking in tongues he resorted to being unable to speak.
In other cases I have prayed with those who have been healed and seen countless lives changed for the better.
Over the last 19 years I have also seen an evolution of the Church. This has (from my observations) been the greater development of a hierarchy within larger fellowships where cliques etc have been (at times) rife. This has accounted for many people leaving disappointed and disillusioned.
Many if not most of the offences on this site seem to derive from the GRC (correct me if I am wrong) with a much lesser amount from the RCI and even less from the RF. Within the RF this seems more prevalent in the larger assemblies.
What I have also noticed is that these behavioural issues have been highlighted and linked (“Bad root Bad Fruit) to the “Salvation Message” This is (in my opinion) intentional and wrong. This is my number one problem with this site.
I have over the years travelled all over the country and attended several other churches, AOG, Orthodox, RCI and RF and what I have seen is that there are good people in all these churches and I trust that God sees this and Loves them all and is guiding them all. I also believe that institutional issue often hinder the members form developing closer relationship with Jesus. Wherever and whenever I see this I try to prayerfully and purposely act to stop this from occurring.
In recent months I have found this to be the case in my local fellowship with several innocent victims. I have therefore separated and outreached to these disappointed and disillusioned people, with immediate success; many retrieved.
I also notice that on this site that many had a desire to communicate and were feeling isolated and condemned. This site (because of the focus on attacking the “Salvation Doctrine” and lumping all the various Revivalists in the one lump was failing to be helpful and often harmful.
I have set up an alternative to act as a voice to those who have been hurt by the behaviour however see no intrinsic link between the behaviour and the “Salvation message”.
I hope this helps to frame who and why I am here and why I simply cannot swallow the idea that what I have “Seen and Heard” is simply a construct of my imagination. May God bless all of you in your search for truth.
Love in Christ
Luke 7:35
(Message edited by Luke735 On 26/07/2009 19:12:58)
|
|
prezy
|
100#
|
Rank:Regular User
Score:2650
Posts:125
Registered:06/02/2007
|
RE:For 'Luke', an opportunity.
(Date Posted:26/07/2009 19:59:57)
Thank you for your testimony, it is encouraging and I can see some excellent points you have made. There are e few points that you need to validate with scripture, and I believe this will not be possible. "In like manner to Jesus"? Jesus never spoke in tongues. "The salvation message" I fear you have an incorrect view of what this really is, as I did when I was still in your situation. Look toward Grace. Try to read the Bible without the "revival" slant on it. Pray about this and God will show you amazing things. Also the recent(100 or so years ago)revival pentecostal theory of speaking in tongues being the moment you recieve the Holy Spirit is flawed.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person........
|
|
|
Your post is a classic 
