Posted on 15/11/2009 22:07:57
Reply to Galien
Meta,
Me thinks you have a screw loose !!!
Well if i do, shrinks can't pick it. So either they are REALLY stupid or I am REALLY clever.
Perhaps Meta I am just a tenacious believer in love, with a major attitude problem and a wicked sense of humour (which sadly John cannot seem to understand). I suspect, as much as I hate to say it, that Ian is probably the only one who does understand it.
(Message edited by Galien On 15/11/2009 21:21:56) |
Galie,
I wouldn't put John in the category of humourless, or not at your level of wicked humour. I think John has a keen sense of humour, which sadly YOU obviously cannot seem to understand. As for the many others here who know of your major attitude problem and, well, I suppose the wicked sense of humour too, don't fool yourself I think most would understand where you're at better than you think they do. However you and Ian being "kindred spirits' would probably be more to your liking. Although, I've noticed Ian hasn't exactly "opened his heart" to you as you've suggested many a time, he being too concerned as you say (or to the effect) with biblical fact and not enough with heart stuff. Wise man keeping it on that level.
God Bless to you Galie.
Epi
Posted on 09/11/2009 20:02:19
Hmmmmm I wonder who put that together for him.
Epi
Posted on 08/11/2009 21:24:47
Reply to Didaktikon
Hi, Epi.
I guess the issue rests on what one understands to be intended by the term "myth". For example, I have no problems whatsoever with referring to Genesis chapters one and two as "myth"! But this admission is contingent upon the academic definition, rather than the "popular" definition, of the word. Similarly, one must be very cautious about writing off the term "evolution". Again I have no problem with accepting micro-evolution; however, I would baulk somewhat at what's implied by the "macro" version.
I'd suggest that the balance is to be found in reading Scripture literarily before one reads it literally!
Blessings,
Ian
(Message edited by Didaktikon On 08/11/2009 00:01:24) |
Good Morning Ian,
Thanks for your reply.
Regarding your last sentence, I think I have been a bit "unbalanced" in this regard. So Chapters 1 and 2 are narratives of the origins of things, to preserve the tradition of God as creator, but symbolism is used as to how God created all things. Does this apply in Chapters 3 and 4 describing the loss of harmony and the barrier between God and man by the fall of the human race into sin.
God Bless
Epi
Posted on 07/11/2009 22:15:45
Thanks Ian for those book titles. I know a few people I would like to pass the Genesis ones on to.
There's some worrying "liberal" thinking among some in (various) church leadership/teaching positions who are of the strong belief that the account of creation, Adam and Eve are a mythical representation of the beginnings of the world and of the human race. The first five chapters of the bible are being classified as myth, theory, parable, folklore opening up the option of individual evolutionist thinking. It opens up a beleive it or not thinking, allowing liberal christians to believe that they can have their cake and eat it too, so to speak - belief in both evolution and the bible.
Then of course there's the unusual Lloydian Revivalist slant on Adam and Eve not really being the first human beings.
Epi
Posted on 28/10/2009 19:25:02
All,
It's been a huge realisation to me just how, when in Revival, scripture verses were flippantly and irrisponsibly bandied about without much consideration for context. Such profound ignorance.
Epi
Posted on 28/10/2009 19:13:04
Good Morning Ian,
Thanks for your helpful summary. I for one would like to consider the detail, in detail. Revivalists grasp on to those few words "spirit and truth" to substantiate their claim that they have the Spirit as evidenced by tongues and so, have the truth. The verse is used often in Revival circles when "witnessing" to people. It would be good to draw out more detail. Please proceed.
God Bless,
Epi
Posted on 28/10/2009 18:52:54
Good Morning HG,
Thanks for bringing up the subject.
Epi
Posted on 28/10/2009 04:34:01
Hi Ian and all,
Ian, I would very much like to hear what you have to say about this whole chapter. A good explanation would certainly help clear any misunderstanding that comes from Revival teaching. As it is one they use frequently to back up their Spirit/tongues claim, especially when only one or two verses are quoted, it can easily fit their purpose and deceive the uninformed.
My basic understanding from reading it as a whole chapter over and over is that it is very much to do with Jesus speaking to the Samaritans through the woman at the well giving them a spiritual drink of living water, earlier in the chapter. His word being the living water. He Jesus being the truth who brings all believers into a spiritual relationship with God.
The opposite of spirit is physical, material, worldly and God is spirit. Worship will not be offered specifically on a mountain or in Jerusalem as in the past but in a spiritual relationship with God through Jesus, the truth.
The Samaritans shared with Israel in the messianic hope and through Jesus words with the Samaritan woman at the well other Samaritans were quick to see this in Jesus. They wanted him to stay longer and because of his words many more became believers.
Just a few of my thoughts on this chapter because long ago I felt doubtful about Rev's use of this one verse and needed to look harder, but with limited understanding myself.
Would appreciate if you would explain this chapter Ian.
God Bless.
Epi.
Posted on 09/10/2009 07:05:58
Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not essentially "speaking in tongues"
Brolga,
Agreed.
Epi
Posted on 09/10/2009 06:52:14
Oh dear, don't know what happened here. Please refer to my post on the actual thread.
Epi
Posted on 09/10/2009 06:46:21
Reply to brolga
____________________________________________________________________________________________ My question is; why is there suddenly a movement in these latter days which changes the meaning of scripture that has been established and proven over decades by the Christian church and claim to still hold onto the salvation God has ordained? |
Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church or any other other orthodox church does not change the meaning of scripture and it is not in opposition to the established church. You might be looking at it from a Revivalist perspective. Tongues is not the all important and it is certainly not a requirement. They do not operate in the same way as Revival but look to a fullness of the person of the Holy Spirit in the lives of christians and in the life of the Church.
I hope I've explained it adequately.
Ian's comments in chat box explain it perfectly and I wish he would add more to the subject on the forum. I quote :-
"All: There are significant differences between Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement of the Roman Catholic Church. Underpinning, which is a completely dissimilar understanding of pneumatology (the doctrine of the Spirit) anthropology (doctrine of humanity) soteriology (doctrine of salvation) and ecclesiology (doctrine of the Church) People who think that "tongues" unites them couldn't be more mistaken. Ian"
God Bless.
Epi
Posted on 08/10/2009 21:43:15
Reply to brolga
When one reflects on watching the people in the video (Catholic charismatic history) and Pente, etc “churches,” they are more to be showing an outward appearance of an emotional state within and moving on their feelings rather than having that deep personal conviction toward the things of God which I believe one acquires at conversion. Is this really baptism in the Spirit? I see much the same thing at a football match or a musical gig or similar. Gone are the days when folk would gather in the name of a holy day (Sunday) where there would be a more sincere and heartfelt relationship in worship and reverence to God, singing hymns that meant something to the glory of the Lord. To me, baptism in the Spirit is that which is given to endow power to those that would sincerely and reverently follow Christ according to his will, having a desire to gain the knowledge and in the work of spreading the good news of his kingdom here on earth. |
Hi Brolga,
Charismata - Charis (gifts) Mata (grace)
Although appearing to be on similar lines the Charismatic movement is distinct from Pentecostalism in many ways and was never associated with them, certainly distancing themselves from the Pentecostal extremes such as Toronto blessing, etc It arose years/decades after the Pentecostal Churches began.
The movement was not confined to the Catholic Church. Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists and even Lutherans had/have their "charismatic arm" in their churches, sometimes called by different names. I think Anglicans referred to it as "The Renewal" while in the Catholic Church it was the Charismatic Renewal. It was not part of the traditional worship but sometimes is incorporated into for special services such as healing services etc. However they operated and whatever they called it, it swept through traditional churches in Australia in the late 70s, 80s and onward, many holding annual well attended conferences with excellent speakers.
Movements rise and fall or wane and the charismatic by it's meaning will always be in churches, the form might change from full on, high powered to more steady.
The Catholic Charismatic Movement when it began did bring the laity into action and the laity enthusiastically took it on board, gathering often without clergy (many clergy reservedly later entered the fray) using their Holy Spirit given gifts as in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 of faith, knowledge, prophecy, tongues etc although sometimes forgetting the gift of self control in their enthusiasm and freedom.
There are many positives that came from the Charismatic Movement in the Catholic Church.
God Bless.
Epi
Posted on 29/09/2009 20:20:59
Hi Xracer2,
In one of Ian's replies he aptly stated :- "The fact of the very strong RCI pastor-congregant relationship, based as it is on an upwards focussed degree of implicit trust, led to the presumption that what took place was perceived as an abuse of spiritual authority"
In your last sentence you say :- Still I am only interested in how you deal with something like this and when the oversite is crossing the line in peoples personal lives"
Xracer, crossing the line into peoples' lives has never worried RCI leaders, ever. Check that out by reading the Guidelines For The Smooth Running Of The Assembly. When I first joined RCI it was stated as a proudly held policy that no financial dealings were to be entered into between assembly members and if anything like this did come about it would be revealed to the leaders by the Holy Spirit. Well, the difference here is that it was the leaders themselves who were breaking their own rules - leaders the people were in obedience to. Obey the Oversight.
Perhaps SL, as the RCI world leader should have tackled it the same way as with much, much more minor offenses like smoking, drinking etc, by excummunication. Even Tupperware, Jewellery etc parties (hate the things) when they gathered momentum were clamped down on, so why not this? Unless the operation headed by a few aimed at achieving big dollars similar to the way certain members of Hill$ong do it.
Epi
Posted on 21/09/2009 20:01:34
Good Morning All,
Like Urch, I enjoyed the discussion on Luke. The thread is open of course to further discussion should anyone want to tackle other points within the gospel. Some of Paul's letters like Ephesians and Romans could be good subjects for discussion. It might even endear Paul to any who might not be too keen on him and his theology!!! Also the seven churches in Revelation might be a good one, especially as in Rev. we were given quite a lot on this subject especially the churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna. The churches according to Revival are epitonised in Revival.
Just adding my suggestions.
God Bless.
Epi
Posted on 20/09/2009 20:45:04
Tommo and all,
Why is it do you think that the Revival groups change people so much? It's like a bending of the mind in the name of unity. I've seen lively, happy, vibrant people come in and in a very short time they are quite changed into rather sombre human beings. All those meetings, and the Revivalist only associations are definitely a ploy to get into the mind.
Epi
Posted on 13/09/2009 00:43:07
Reply to MothandRust
Yeah
The ever changing Revival morals stand. I'd like an apology for being co-erced into marriage at the age of 17, and I dare Mister Brad Smith to do so one day. That they can at least admit that their 'wisdom' ain't always that wise (incredibly rarely actually) is something, and knowing that they have relaxed this unfair practice may be enough to allow this mothy ghost in the machine to move towards the light and peacefully put it behind him.. |
Moth,
I have looked a little further into the 'about turn' and I think the reasons for relaxing this 14 year stand were to cover themselves rather than to lighten the burden for the people. The bunden being lightened because it was brought to their attention that these marriages could be seen as forced and consequently against the law. Being 'put out' to return only when married, if not actual force, is emotional manipulation and I guess they didn't want to take chances.
Epi
Posted on 08/09/2009 22:16:11
Hi All,
I might be a little out of date here but it seems the RF morals policy has changed. While talking yesterday with a long standing RFer the subject of fornication came up, about those who've been put out and thrown into panic and uncertainty because if they don't marry in order to both return, only one may return, which is how it has been since the RCI split statement on the subject. With a seriously concerned face I was told "No, no, no, we don't force or pressure anyone to marry in order to return to fellowship. That would be very wrong and no-one is put in that position." It appears now that both are allowed back (after serving time out) in their single state to choose whether to marry or look for someone else in the future. It was said as if this had always been in practice. I had to point out that I'd been around a long time and knew differently to which there was faltering and rearranging of what was said to include how it once was but not anymore and how it is now.
So much for the many who've gone before who've felt obligated in this situation to marry being told to "come and see us after you're married." I know a few who were aggrieved by their treatment in past times when faced with the prospect of having to marry or one misses out. I wonder if there were apologies to them when, or if, the new policy on fornicators was announced. That they are not now obliged to marry but may both return in their single state to resume life in the fellowship, closely watched I'm sure. Or, has this just surreptitiously crept in as the way it has always been and how could anyone think otherwise. I think this more likely would be the case.
It's not that I disagree with this change, I think it is a very healthy change and avoids a lot of anguish to people in the position of having made a mistake.
What does amuse me is the past pompous finger pointing at those unstable "mainline" churches and the compromising Pentecostals who change things and take a soft approach while Revivalists are a straight down the line, no compromise, no change church.
Any current RFers who would like to contribute to this subject?
Epi
Posted on 07/09/2009 21:17:17
This got posted before I'd finished so I'll continue :-
......included in Luke's account of Jesus's early history which he was at great pains to present. Giving more facts to a hopefully worldwide fellowship Luke may be giving a more biography style story of Jesus hopefully for a curious worldwide fellowship which would transcend the limits of the Jewish nation itself, but embracing all nationalities, Gentiles as well as Jews.
Epi
Posted on 07/09/2009 21:10:57
Hi All,
So we have established that Luke's gospel, although addressed to Theophilus is definitely not for private use but to be set before the broad public and giving the facts of the life, death, resurrection and ascention of Jesus of Nazareth, the founder of the way called Christianity.
Looking at the "Harmony of the Gospels" chart I see that Luke provides an account of Jesus' early life which no other gospel does, even pre birth and even pre birth and birth of John Baptist.
I am slowly reading Gospel of Luke in full again and noticed the detail to the early life, John's birth, Jesus birth announced to Mary, Mary visits Elizabeth, Mary's the Magnificat, John Baptist birth, Circ. of John Baptist, Zecharias' Prophecy, Birth of Jesus, Circ. of Jesus and the Presentation in the Temple. I found Luke's description of Simeon's reaction interesting :-
Luke 2 : 25 - "And behold there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, awaiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law, he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said: "Lord, now You are letting Your
servant depart in peace, According to Your Word; For my eyes have seen Your salvation. Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples, A light to bring revelation to the GENTILES, And the glory of Your people Israel."..............Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother............."Yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."
Luke seemed keen to point out that Simeon was waiting for the Colsolation of Israel (the Messiah) to bring comfort of God's people and his acknowledgement of Jesus as "the one". He also emphasised the activity of the Holy Spirit here. He follows here with the prophetess Anna who "never left the temple but worshipped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem" Luke doesn't say exactly why she gave thanks but sees fit to include her acknowledgement that the child and Israel's redemption were connected. The boy Jesus in the temple is included in L
Posted on 06/09/2009 19:59:55
Good Morning Ian,
Lots of background information and learning has come from the discussion on the twice mentioned Theophilus of Luke's gospel and the Acts. Thank you for drawing attention to Paul, Luke Theophilus and patronage. I see clearly now how Paul would use Luke's eloquence with words in addressing his two books to Theophilus, an ideal patron for the Christian way.
Patronage was ubiquitous in the church of my upbringing in a little country town in Australia. I cannot understand why I didn't see it in the Luke, Theophilus opening passages of the two books. In my early church times every project had a patron, (and benefactor where possible) some notable of the town, not necessarily of the same persuasion. Even in the church tennis club someone of influence, with keen interest in the sport, would be approach to act as patron, usually donating some end of season trophies. Most were honoured to accept. Just adding a bit of local trivia on the subject of patronage.
It's been great reading.
Epi
