Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Didaktikon debunks Revivalist 'Theology' Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Didaktikon
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Date Posted:11/09/2007 3:30 PMCopy HTML

Hi, all. I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me? If so, please let me know. Blessings, Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Glad-to be out Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Posterior Maximus
  • Score:15160
  • Posts:701
  • From:Faroe_islands
  • Register:07/04/2006 8:57 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:11/09/2007 4:51 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon   The GRC equates salvation with the receiving of the Holy Spirit ( evidence of same is speaking in tongues) and baptism by full water immersion.

I know that this has been done to death, but I would like some scriptures that absolutely point to one being "saved" without having experienced the "tongues" phenomena, (apart from the thief on the cross) and also salvation, without actual water baptism.

Pretty simple stuff, but examples which cannot be twisted and screwed with, would be exceptionally liberating for any GRCer wrestling with this particular crippling Revivalist doctrine.

Thanks,

Glad  


Hi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,Ian


"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:12/09/2007 8:32 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Glad-to be out

Good morning, 'Glad'.

Okay, here are just a few passages of Scripture for you to reflect on:

When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven you." And some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, "Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, "Why do you reason about these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, Arise, take up your bed and walk' But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins" He said to the paralytic, "I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house." Immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went out in the presence of them all, so that all were amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!" (Mark 2:5-12, NKJV)

Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little." Then He said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" Then He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace." (Luke 7:44-50, NKJV)

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. (Ephesians 1:7-12, NKJV)

Then Peter arose and went with them. When he had come, they brought him to the upper room. And all the widows stood by him weeping, showing the tunics and garments which Dorcas had made while she was with them. But Peter put them all out, and knelt down and prayed. And turning to the body he rsaid, "Tabitha, arise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. Then he gave her his hand and lifted her up; and when he had called the saints and widows, he presented her alive. And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed on the Lord. (Acts 9:39-42, NKJV)

Justus, one who worshiped God, whose house was next door to the synagogue. Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized. (Acts 18:7b-8, NKJV)

He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. And therefore "it was accounted to him for righteousness." Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification. (Romans 4:20-25, NKJV)

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:4-9, NKJV)

And my personal 'favourite', the only passage in the entire NT that asks the question, "what must I do to be saved?", and then provides the crystal clear, simple answer:

But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were loosed. And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, "Do yourself no harm, for we are all here." Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." (Acts 16:25-31, NJKV)

God bless,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Glad-to be out Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Posterior Maximus
  • Score:15160
  • Posts:701
  • From:Faroe_islands
  • Register:07/04/2006 8:57 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:12/09/2007 8:42 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon and my personal 'favourite', the only passage in the entire NT that asks the question, "what must I do to be saved?", and then provides the crystal clear, simple answer:

But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them. ??Suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately ??all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were loosed. And the keeper of the prison, awaking from sleep and seeing the prison doors open, supposing the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself. But Paul called with a loud voice, saying, "?Do yourself no harm, for we are all here.?" Then he called for a light, ran in, and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas. ?And he brought them out and said, ?"?Sirs, what must I do to be saved??" So they said, ??"?Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.?" (Acts 16:25-31, NJKV

Hard  to see the keyboard through the tears in my eyes !!

Thank you !!

Cheers,

Glad

"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:12/09/2007 12:35 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Glad-to be out

Hi, 'Glad'.

Hard to see the keyboard through the tears in my eyes !!

I know the feeling! My eyes often 'leak' when I read Scripture too

Thank you !!

No need. Thank God, it's his Word

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
For Zions Sake Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Newbie
  • Score:560
  • Posts:25
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:17/12/2006 9:57 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:13/09/2007 5:29 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Hi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,Ian

Hi Ian...yes, many...but I'll start with this one for now. Thanks.

What is water baptism?

Infant or Adult?

Sprinkle or immersion?

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

Can a person be baptised by anyone?

Do we have to get re-baptised if we find a new Church after being baptised in Revivalism?

Thanks again... 

For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest.... Isa 62:1
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:13/09/2007 9:24 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon & Glad


But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:4-9, NKJV)

Hi guys

I love the clarity of this passage - it has come to mean so much to me. I am constantly blown away by God's amazing grace and love to us. 

This is from a book I read recently by Charles Swindoll, The Grace Awakening; Jesus found himself standing before the brain trust of legalism, the Pharisees (sound familiar?) Listening to Him were also many who believed in Him. He had been presenting His message to the crowd; it was a message of hope, of forgiveness, of freedom.  "As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him. So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, ' If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free' " (John 8:30-32)

He spoke of the liberating power of the truth. Even though the official grace killers rejected His message, He assured them it could make them free.  All who embrace grace become ' free indeed'.  Free from what? Free from guilt and shame, free from the tyranny of others' opinions, expectations, demands.  And free to what? Free to obey, to love, free to forgive others as well as myself, free to allow others to be who they are - different from me! Free to live beyond the limitations of human effort, free to serve and glorify Christ. " So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" John 8:36

An alternative to salvation by grace would be to emphasise ' works' over grace when in fact, works follow faith, behaviour follows belief, fruit comes after the tree is well rooted. Martin Luther's words come to mind: No one can be good and do good unless God's grace first makes him good, and no one becomes good by works, but good works are done only by him who is good. Just so the fruits do not make the tree, but the tree bears the fruit.. therefore all works, no matter how good they are and how pretty they look, are in vain if they do not flow from grace.

I apologise if I have gone off-track here, but I feel it is important to emphasise that the Revival groups' doctrine of ' no tongues, no salvation'  (or 'gracelessness' - is this a word?) has the same result as the Pharisees (the official grace-killers).  Full of law but no understanding of grace.

Words from a song by Chris Tomlin "His grace is enough, His grace is enough for me"

Urch

Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
Glad-to be out Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Posterior Maximus
  • Score:15160
  • Posts:701
  • From:Faroe_islands
  • Register:07/04/2006 8:57 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:13/09/2007 10:47 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Sea Urchin  I think you are right. Grace is such a wonderful thing, it definitely sets you free, from all manner of things.

The GRC always harps on about having a heart that is "soft' to the Lord, but I honestly don't think that they have any understanding of the softness of heart that is achieved once you experience the gift of the Lord's Grace. The best way I can describe it is that you become "mellow" and far more compassionate, understanding and tolerant towards others. 

I have been amazed at the agression that has been displayed in various posts and now realise that the writers are yet to find peace within their "Faith".

I used to love a chorus that had the words, "Be still my heart and know that I am God ................", the stillness of the heart is, I believe,  a small portion of the beauty that is Grace. 

Cheers,

Glad


Reply to : Didaktikon & GladBut God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have beensaved),and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceedingriches of His gracein His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.(Ephesians 2:4-9, NKJV)


"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
Glad-to be out Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:Posterior Maximus
  • Score:15160
  • Posts:701
  • From:Faroe_islands
  • Register:07/04/2006 8:57 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:18/09/2007 12:37 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon    Hi Ian, your help please. It has been brought to my attention that the GRC has "twisted" yet another scripture for its own perversion.

This has caused grief to a person in the middle of a very sad situation with regard to the GRC. Could you please give your considered interpretation of the scripture here.

It seems that the GRC apart from banging on with added intensity that it is "the one true church" is now preaching with regard to "honour thy mother and father"' that the mother IS the GRC and the father IS the Lord. 

The pressure being applied to the "saints" to conform and obey this instruction has now become intolerable in a  particular circumstance.

Any assistance would be most welcome.

Cheers,

Glad


Hi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,Ian
"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:18/09/2007 12:56 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Glad-to be out

Hi, 'Glad'.

It seems that the GRC is now preaching with regard to "honour thy mother and father"' that the mother IS the GRC and the father IS the Lord.

Wow! Huge mishandling and misinterpretation of Scripture!

The answer, however, is quite straightforward. The passage derives from the Decalogue ('Ten Commandments'), specifically Exodus 20:12. If you have a look at the way the Decalogue is set out, you'll notice the following: the first section relates to one's obligation towards God (vv. 1-11), which is primary. The second section addresses one's obligations towards the community (vv. 12-17), and begins by outlining one's responsibilities towards one's parents, which is also primary given that the family forms the basic unit of society. Now the New Testament is replete with teaching on the role that the Church finds in moderating the life and conduct of the Christian, and metaphors abound. However, at no point do we find the Church Universal (or it's local expression, the congregation) described as a believer's 'mother'.

In short, this is very clearly just a further example of Noel wresting Scripture in an attempt to shore up his ever diminishing control of the 'folk'.

Very sad

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Never too Late Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5370
  • Posts:246
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/06/2007 2:26 PM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:18/09/2007 2:23 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Reply to : Glad-to be outHi, 'Glad'.It seems that the GRC is now preaching with regard to "honour thy mother and father"' that the mother IS the GRC and the father IS the Lord.Wow! Huge mishandling and misinterpretation of Scripture!The answer, however, is quite straightforward. The passage derives from the Decalogue ('Ten Commandments'), specifically Exodus 20:12. If you have a look at the way the Decalogue is set out, you'll notice the following: the first section relates to one's obligation towardsGod(vv. 1-11), which is primary. The second section addresses one's obligations towards thecommunity(vv. 12-17), and begins by outlining one's responsibilities towards one'sparents, which is also primary given that the family forms t

Ian,

I have spent a couple of hours reading over your 'opinion' and explaination on the scriptual questions the many have asked..

I particularily was interested in your response to 'GLAD'. RE: " honur thy Mother and Father" - I am balancing on the fence b/w GRC and Frredom & recently had this told to me.

That the Father is the Lord and the Mother is the "Church' in particular the GRC. I found your explaination inspiring and thoughtful. I will be spending some time tonight reading Exodus 20:12-17.

Great stuff Ian. Nice to know there is some people out there that dont force scriptural MIs-interuptation on people but have the heart to share free knowledge and love !    

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:18/09/2007 2:36 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Never too Late

Hi, 'NTL'.

You're very welcome. The most important thing to keep in mind about properly interpreting Scripture is this: a passage simply can't mean today, what it didn't (or couldn't) mean for it's original audience. This stresses the importance of context, something which is completely overlooked by Revivalists who play very "fast-and-loose" with Scripture.

The Decalogue is a perfect example. The 'Ten Words/Commandments' were given to order Hebrew society under Moses under God. When you realise that the first 'bunch' of them relate to proper relations with God, and the second 'division' to proper relations with society; then it's clear that the commandment to honour one's parents simply can't bet twisted to mean what Noel is attempting to promote. He's simply engaged in 'scare-mongering' to satisfy personal ends, and he will have to give an account to God, one day

God bless,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Never too Late Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5370
  • Posts:246
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/06/2007 2:26 PM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:18/09/2007 2:49 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Reply to : Never too LateHi, 'NTL'.You're very welcome. The most important thing to keep in mind about properly interpreting Scripture is this: a passage simplycan'tmean today, what it didn't (or couldn't) mean for it'soriginal audience. This stresses the importance ofcontext, something which is completely overlooked by Revivalists who play very "fast-and-loose" with Scripture.The Decalogue is a perfect example. The 'Ten Words/Commandments' were given to order Hebrew society under Moses under God. When you realise that the first 'bunch' of them relate to proper relations with God, and the second 'division' to proper relations with society; then it's clear that the commandment to honour one's parentssimply can'tbet twisted to mean what Noel is attempting to promote. He's simply engaged in 'scare-mongering' to satisfy persona

I just find it hard that for an organisation that promotes the importantance of living by Gods word and continually reads of the scripture that man MUST not interpret scripture for himself that Noel and his pastors interpret them on a daily basis to suit themselves. Twisting the Lord word to suit there evil works. 

BI- KAR-RUMBA !!! I cant belive I wasted som much time listening and believing!

Glad-to be out Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:Posterior Maximus
  • Score:15160
  • Posts:701
  • From:Faroe_islands
  • Register:07/04/2006 8:57 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:19/09/2007 7:28 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon  Am reading the autobiography of John Shelby Spong at the moment. Something that we (GRC) always took as a forgone conclusion to answer SO much was disputed by him, and I must admit I only think of it in small ways with regard to my life, but not the bigger world picture. I am wondering if I should re-think the entire principle.

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS GOD'S WILL.? If there is, what context do we put it in, all encompassing, ----? 

Cheers,

Glad


Hi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,Ian


"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:19/09/2007 8:35 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Glad-to be out

'Morning, 'Glad'.

Am reading the autobiography of John Shelby Spong at the moment.

Ah, yes. Spong, the heretic who masquerades as a bishop!

Something that we (GRC) always took as a forgone conclusion to answer SO much was disputed by him, and I must admit I only think of it in small ways with regard to my life, but not the bigger world picture. I am wondering if I should re-think the entire principle.

I'm sorry, 'Glad', but I'm not really sure what it is that you're stating (or asking?)

IS THERE SUCH A THING AS GOD'S WILL.? If there is, what context do we put it in, all encompassing, ----?

Well, I'd hate to think this entire Creation is being managed by an all-powerful being who doesn't know what he wants!

To be serious, God's will seems to be something along the lines of redeeming the whole of Creation back to himself.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:19/09/2007 8:44 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Fremde

Hi, Fremde.

Jesus said "But he answered and said unto them that told him, Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Galatians 12:48-50)

Well, first, that verse ain't from Galatians, it's Matthew 12:48-50! But have a look at the context of the passage. Jesus was sitting with his disciples, teaching them about the Kingdom of Heaven. His immediate family comes on the scene, and attempts to draw him away, using the Jewish principle of 'family first'. Jesus responds by indicating that his disciples, those who were predisposed to doing the will of his Father, were equal to his family in his estimation. What we read is the application of a fairly standard Rabbinical teaching method.

Nice try

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Glad-to be out Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:Posterior Maximus
  • Score:15160
  • Posts:701
  • From:Faroe_islands
  • Register:07/04/2006 8:57 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:19/09/2007 9:25 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon   OK, I know that I rabbit on a bit. When you deal with an exGRCer who doesn't have much knowledge of sripture( apart from the GRC twisted variety) , but a love towards Jesus. I guess you have to put yourself back in the first year of your training or even earlier!!! lol

When Hollin's wife died, horribly from cancer, with possibly no medical intervention at all, just the prayers of the faithful, "it was God's will" to free him up to travel to the far flung assemblies and "minister" to the "saints". (these italics signify sarcasm)

When the little girl in Bendigo was struck by lightening and died, "it was God's will".

When someone lost a baby at birth. "God's will", and so on.

The Lord's Prayer, says "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven" .

In the crises of life, is it God's will, or just fate.

Cheers,

Glad

ps Is God actually a being? HHmmm Maybe I should just get back to doing the dishes!!!!!!!!


Reply to : Glad-to be out'Morning, 'Glad'.Am reading the autobiography of John Shelby Spong at the moment.Ah, yes. Spong, the heretic who masquerades as a bishop!Something that we (GRC) always took as a forgone conclusion to answer SO much was disputed by him, and I must admit I only think of it in small ways with regard to my life, but not the bigger world picture. I am wondering if I should re-think the entire principle.I'm sorry, 'Glad', but I'm not really sure what it is that you're stating (or asking?)IS THERE SUCH A THING AS GOD'S WILL.? If there is, what context do we put it in, all encompassing, ----?Well, I'd hate to think this entire Creation is being managed by an all-powerful being whodoesn't


"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:19/09/2007 9:50 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Glad-to be out

'Glad',

When Hollin's wife died, "it was God's will" to free him up to travel to the far flung assemblies and "minister" to the "saints". (these italics signify sarcasm)

Oh, that's the nature of the issue you were hinting at.

When the little girl in Bendigo was struck by lightening and died, "it was God's will". When someone lost a baby at birth. "God's will", and so on.

Sure. The technical term for theological discussions of this sort ('defences' for God's sense of justice when bad things happen to good people) is 'theodicy'. Relatively easy to say, relatively difficult to defend Personally, whenever I'm confronted by the reality of suffering in the lives of others, then, pastorally, I always return to the book of Job. What I find there isn't the answer to the question, "why do good things happen to bad people, and bad things to the good", but reassurance that God is not dispassionately isolated from, or unaware of, such events. Scripture uniformly presents the image that God remains, by his very nature, 'good', 'loving', and 'just'. Scripture also uniformly presents that, in the fullness of time, all tears will pass away, and all things will be renewed. However, we aren't privy to the details of God's plans and purposes, nor does he seek out our counsel with respect to such matters.

In short, the existence of evil in the world doesn't discredit (in my opinion) the reality of God. To the contrary, the existence of good in spite of the reality of evil confirms, to me, that God 'is'.

The Lord's Prayer, says "Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven".

The above is actually an imperative, and one from the perspective of the person praying. It isn't a negative 'acceptance of misery' sort of thing, a: "...oh, okay, your will be done, Lord...". 'Nope', this is a confident, "...your will be done, Lord!" It's a positive statement about what life will be like when lived fully under God's rule

In the crises of life, is it God's will, or just fate.

If God is God, then there is simply no such thing as 'fate'. You see, 'fate' implies impersonal and random action, action having no true purpose whatsoever, never-mind any thought of a 'higher-purpose'. In the end, all we can do is trust in God's goodness and justice, and take his promises on faith, often in spite of our present circumstances. This is also what stands at the heart of those psalms known as 'laments'.

As Job so famously worshipped, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord!" (Job 1:21)

Blessings,

Ian

P.S. In response to your postscript, 'yes', God most certainly is a being
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:19/09/2007 10:05 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : brolga

Hi, Ralph.

In the context of this also, Revivalists (mainly Hollins) use the verses of 'hating your mother , father etc.,' (Luke14:26)to justify their rejection completely of families and threaten their members they will be excommunicated if they make contact with those outside of their church. What I read is, Jesus is stating as "by comparison of his love for me" that to following Him, not literally hating etc.

Absolutely! Jesus was Jewish. In both Aramaic and Hebrew, comparisons are often made via appeal to 'opposites'. To love fully meant to 'love'. To not love as completely meant to 'hate'. The basic problem for us is linguistic more so than hermeneutical; we English speakers automatically view 'polarity' languages in terms of 'either/or'

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Glad-to be out Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:Posterior Maximus
  • Score:15160
  • Posts:701
  • From:Faroe_islands
  • Register:07/04/2006 8:57 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:19/09/2007 10:18 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon  Thank you for taking the time to answer Ian.

Couple of  "extras" , tsunamis, earthquakes, floods - GRC end time prophecy fulfillmemt - will of God - or natural disasters linked to climate change. 

If you believe that tragedies such as the death of newborns and the lightening strikes etc. are the "will of God", and not just tragic "life" events,  accidents if you will, doesn't this inhibit the grieving process because your loved one has been taken by an all knowing, kindly being and is forever in their care.

I believe that they will be with the Lord, but having trouble "seeing" that the Lord was "in" on the event. Hope you can understand the difference.

I know that believing it to be the will of God, will give comfort, but isn't that perhaps causing people to not progress through the stages of grieving smoothly. ( I am a great fan of Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross)

Cheers,

Glad


Reply to : Glad-to be out'Glad',When Hollin's wife died, "it was God's will" to free him up to travel to the far flung assemblies and "minister" to the "saints". (these italics signify sarcasm)Oh,that'sthe nature of the issue you were hinting at.When the little girl in Bendigo was struck by lightening and died, "it was God's will". When someone lost a baby at birth. "God's will", and so on.Sure. The technical term for theological discussions of this sort ('defences' for God's sense of justice when bad things happen to good people) is 'theodicy'. Relatively easy to say, relatively difficult to defendPersonally, whenever I'm confronted by the reality of suffering in the lives of others, then, pastorally, I always return to the book
"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:19/09/2007 10:43 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Glad-to be out

'Glad', once more.

Couple of "extras" , tsunamis, earthquakes, floods - GRC end time prophecy fulfillmemt or natural disasters linked to climate change.

Biblically, the earth also 'suffers' under the effects of sin. It's for this reason that redemption includes re-Creation.

If you "believe" that tragedies such as the death of newborns and the lightening strikes etc. are the will of God, and not just tragic "life" events, doesn't this inhibit the grieving process because your loved one has been taken by an all knowing, kindly being and is forever in their care.

I wouldn't think so as grief will still occur given that separation from loved ones due to death is always painful. The difference is, perhaps, more 'qualitative' than it is 'quantitative' (see 1 Thessalonians 4:13). Due to this, and what we look forward to, our grief should be temporary and tempered by hope

I know that this will give comfort, but isn't that perhaps failing to promulgate the phase of denial when grieving.

Obviously I can't speak for how others have grieved, but what you're suggesting above certainly hasn't been my own experience.

Blessings,

Ian

P.S. 'Glad', could you please not keep changing your posts when I'm in the process of responding to them? I'm finding it very difficult keeping up with you when you do!
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Glad-to be out Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:Posterior Maximus
  • Score:15160
  • Posts:701
  • From:Faroe_islands
  • Register:07/04/2006 8:57 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:19/09/2007 10:50 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : brolga  Don't forget the other scripture for tearing families apart. Where the followers of Jesus were told to go into the villages and preach the Word and if any didn't accept then they were to shake the dust from their feet and move on.

Hollins equated "unsaved" relatives who wouldn't accept his warped version of EVERYTHING as that very dust. The "saved" family members were to literally shake off the "unsaved" family members and have no more contact with them!!!!

Isn't it great to be out of that place??!!

Cheers,

Glad


Another one that is favourite for Revs to split up families,is when Jesus said He came not to grant peace but to divide. (Luke 12:51-53)Ian, In the light of this;(Part of your responce towater baptism)During the first and second centuries, when a Jew or a Greek submitted to being baptised, and thereby identifying with Jesus Christ and his Church, then he or she was effectively cut-off, root-and-branch (including children) from the safety of his or her former social community (Synagogue or Polis). Christian baptism was 'counter-cultural', and led to the complete severing of community and familial ties, and from protection u
"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:20/09/2007 12:00 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : brolga

Hello, Ralph.

I haven't quite my head around this; Concerning the operation of "gifts" (tongues inclusive) in Corinthians. Completely leaving the Revivalist and Pentecostal groups line of thinking out of the subject; Are the same gifts operated in the church, for today ? If so, what congregation are you likely to witness them?

The question itself demonstrates something of a dilemma You see, what many people fail to adequately grasp is that Paul's extended discussion on 'spiritual gifts' in 1 Corinthians wasn't intended as a "blue-print" on the "how-to's" of a church service (contra the Revivalist misunderstanding), but as a pastoral corrective that was directed towards a specific situation involving specific gross error! And as I demonstrate in my essay at the 'PleaseConsider' site, the various NT "lists" of "gifts" were intended to be indicative of the way in which God equips the Church, rather than as exhaustive "shopping lists" of supposedly 'spiritual' activities that somehow must be evident in every church, every service.

You might care to try the following as a personal exercise: re-read 1 Corinthians 12 through 14 for yourself. Which "gifts" do you believe fall into the category of the "better/best gifts", the ones that Paul directs believers (or the Corinthian believers, at least) to actively "seek"? Once you've compiled your list, then you will be in a position to ascertain which churches (or 'types' of churches) are likely to evidence the same with consistent frequency.

It was just such an activity as this, which I undertook myself, that effectively led me from Pentecostal/Charismatic-type churches towards more biblically-inclined and biblically-grounded fellowships

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:23/09/2007 9:54 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : brolga

Good morning, Ralph.

Q. 1Cor.13: v10. What is Paul referring to here? Is it meaning, when perfect "love" comes?

'Nope'. Christ. For an extended explanation, see my article on 'Spiritual Gifts' at www.pleaseconsider.info

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:26/09/2007 8:15 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : brolga

Ralph,

RE: My "bigotry" against the Roman Catholic Church.

You are bigoted against the Roman Catholic Church, Ralph, so I do wonder that you place the word in inverted commas

The Roman Catholic Church has been the main tool used by Revivalists and others, to link the prophesies to and also say they are the modern day Pharisees, anti-Christ, etc., To the unwary, their teaching is very convincing and feasible especially when they use coloured slides and power point discussions and apply it to scripture and history to prove their point. My question is; What do you apply to scripture to the contrary? in other words who/what does the bible apply it to?

To the ignorant and/or un-thinking their teaching may seem convincing and feasible (especially to those who accord 'Powerpoint' presentations canonical status). Just stop and reflect for a moment on the credibility of Revivalist teaching in toto, and of their use of (and application of) Scripture to defend their mutiplied novelties. British-Israel. Salvation by 'tongues'. Bible Numerics. Pyramidology. Have you never stopped and noticed that what sets Revivalists apart doctrinally from Christians is their philosophy of "Anything 'quirky' but nothing 'concrete'"?!

In all fairness I expect the answer is not straight forward as I probably need to know more history. But lets look at one item. Revelation 17: This clearly identifies Rome, Revivalist say it is the Catholic Church, but can we say that it ( the Church) evolved out of Rome to this day? Why?

Ralph. I've mentioned several times here one very basic principle of responsible biblical interpretation: a passage can't mean something for us today, that it didn't (or couldn't) mean for its original audience. So ask yourself the obvious question: "who did John write his Revelation for?" The secondary question then become readily apparent: "what was the purpose of him writing to them?" I think that when you start to consider some intelligent questions for yourself, then it will become immediately obvious to you how 'dumb' (the politest word I could think of) your line of reasoning, above, really is

I don't really want to see it the Revivalist way, but it is hard not to when no alternative is presented. If you know what I'm getting at.

'No alternative', huh? I would suggest that you try suspending judgment for the moment (given that you're very clearly uninformed on the subject), and engage in a little first-hand research so as to become better informed. Visit a theological library. Buy a commentary on Revelation. 'Google' for all you're worth, and exercise the intellect a little more.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #25
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:26/09/2007 9:22 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

I've mentioned several times here one very basic principle of responsible biblical interpretation: a passage can't mean something for us today, that it didn't (or couldn't) mean for its original audience. So ask yourself the obvious question: "who did John write his Revelation for?"

Hi Ian,

I'm still chewing on other 'meat' ... but ...

Do you subscribe to what I understand to be the traditional view that Revelation was written by the Apostle John  during the reign of Domitian, around 96 AD? The date seems vital for understanding who the original audience was, and the traditional date would (as far as I see) remove one of the major schools of interpretation from contention.

FWIW I find the arguments for the traditional date way more convincing than those for pre-70AD, though I've only read papers on the web from the various schools.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #26
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:26/09/2007 10:04 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : RF_on_the_edge

'morning, RFOTE.

I'm still chewing on other 'meat' ... but ... Do you subscribe to what I understand to be the traditional view that Revelation was written by the Apostle John during the reign of Domitian, around 96 AD?

The 'traditional' view has the scholarly consensus, although I also think there's much to be said for the arguments put forward for an earlier date by Dr JAT Robinson is his work, "Redating the New Testament" (which is well worth buying of you can find a copy [BTW, Tyndale stocks this text]).

The date seems vital for understanding who the original audience was, and the traditional date would (as far as I see) remove one of the major schools of interpretation from contention.

Well, the 'praeterist' position might be a little more robust than you credit it being

FWIW I find the arguments for the traditional date way more convincing than those for pre-70AD, though I've only read papers on the web from the various schools.

Okay. Bear in mind though, that the 'praeterist', 'historicist', 'futurist' and 'idealist' positions on Revelation are all artificial constructs that actually impose meaning on the sense of the text, and all would have been thoroughly meaningless to the original recipients of John's Revelation in any case

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #27
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:26/09/2007 10:48 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

The date seems vital for understanding who the original audience was, and the traditional date would (as far as I see) remove one of the major schools of interpretation from contention.

Well, the 'praeterist' position might be a little more robust than you credit it being

Okay .... something else to review  

FWIW I find the arguments for the traditional date way more convincing than those for pre-70AD, though I've only read papers on the web from the various schools.

Okay. Bear in mind though, that the 'praeterist', 'historicist', 'futurist' and 'idealist' positions on Revelation are all artificial constructs that actually impose meaning on the sense of the text, and all would have been thoroughly meaningless to the original recipients of John's Revelation in any case

So back to your original point of needing to understand the meaning for the original recipients! Another one for my 'to do' list.

 

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #28
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:26/09/2007 11:03 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : RF_on_the_edge

RFOTE,

Ain't theology grand!

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #29
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:27/09/2007 6:02 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : brolga

Reply to : earth5Reply to : brolgaReply to : earth5Reply to : DidaktikonHi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,IanHey Ian, having a chat last night with a friend and we started talking about pre adamic man, , just wondering what your views/scriptures are for or against this??God BlessE5Earth,the Revivalist view on that one is that there was creation man on the sixth day of ceation and Adam came later, on the seventh. One was created out of nothing and the other(Adam) was formed out of dust. To back up pre-adam man, Cain was banished to the land of Nod, 60 miles away, and took

thanks again Brogla,

My point in this post is that Ian has asked us to come up with rever doctrine that needs to be clarified, after my discussion with my friend, i thought that this may also be one that can be discussed are they right or wrong re this.

Anyway bro have a great day of to the airport in 10 mins so must get going be blessed

e5

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #30
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:27/09/2007 8:07 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : brolga

Hi, Ralph.

That might get the man going hey!

Oh, I knew exactly what E5 was asking, I was simply waiting to see if he did

Anyway, the first few chapters of Genesis are Hebrew poetry; what we find in relation to Creation recorded in chapters one and two is simply parallelism: there was one Creation, and there was one Adam.

Blessings,

Ian

P.S. 'Oops'. Upon reflection I should also have added that the first few chapters of Genesis are Hebrew religious poetry. The intent isn't necessarily to describe the 'process' of origins, rather than the 'Processor' of the same (i.e. God). Understanding this goes a loooong way to properly appreciating the purpose, scope, and intended meaning of Genesis chapters 1 through 11
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #31
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:05/10/2007 3:05 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Oh, I knew exactly what E5 was asking, I was simply waiting to see if he did

DIDA, your know bro I know we dont see eye to eye a lot however when asked a serious question do you think that it is your christian responsability to answer or to use it as another reason to attack.

You came on here asking for questions that needed clarification and yet when done by me I get put down thanks bro really appreciate it.

Re your explanation to my question, im sorry bro but still dont get it sorry preety thick, you need to make it simple for this wee fellow

e5

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #32
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:06/10/2007 7:00 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : earth5

E5,

DIDA, your know bro I know we dont see eye to eye a lot however when asked a serious question do you think that it is your christian responsability to answer or to use it as another reason to attack.

My responsibility?! My Christian responsibility to answer questions, whether serious or otherwise? Big guy, I choose when to respond, and how to respond to people's comments and/or questions framed on this forum, and to be perfectly Frank, some of them simply aren't worth either the time or the effort at the keyboard

You came on here asking for questions that needed clarification and yet when done by me I get put down thanks bro really appreciate it.

You're welcome (and you're equally welcome to continue 'leading' with the chin!)

Re your explanation to my question, im sorry bro but still dont get it sorry preety thick, you need to make it simple for this wee fellow

I've answered the question, quite plainly in fact. I'd suggest that you go back and 'review'.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
worriedmum Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #33
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3440
  • Posts:142
  • From:Australia
  • Register:17/08/2007 9:04 PM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:06/10/2007 9:36 PMCopy HTML

Chapter two follows chapter one, ipso facto chapter two must introduce something new!

Ha-ha-ha!

Is there somethiing new or any corections? The ch 2 says ch 1 was wrong. Corrections in ch 2: God did not blessed humans to multiply! They did not  deserve this blessing because they disobeyed God and now they have to dig Earth and bear children in pain. Eve was not made from the dust as Adam, but from his rib. Hmm...  She must be really divine then! What the .... she has to be a man's property then? Compare to that, It looks like Aboriginals in the Adamic time have not tried this fruit of knowledge. Strangely enough, they still bear children in pain but did not have to dig the Earth in the same sense as the white man. May be Aboriginals are related to pre-Adamic men? Oh, I am so confused! I 'll be stuck in the first 2 chapters forever and never have faith again!

Should not we just regard the whole Bible (as well as the first 11 chapters) as Jewish poetry and forget about it? I mean, isn't it Ian's advice, anyway?

If you attribute all your problems in life to God, and everything what you achieve in life to prayers, then you deprive yourself of a merit and deny yourself a chance of finding true causes of your problems and improving your present life and lives of the people around you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discover true Bible http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
Glawrey Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #34
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:280
  • Posts:14
  • From:Australia
  • Register:04/10/2007 8:10 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 7:56 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Hi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,Ian

Hi Ian. just going through a process of trying to understand the leadership questions re the NT church.

Is a Bishop (episcopas) different from an elder or is he an elder with a higher ? responsibility to ie to see over (oversee) or beyond. The leader with vision ?

Which leadership roles would exclude women. Mainly referring to Eh 4 and elders and bishops.

Looking forward to your reply.  

 

 

Glawrey Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #35
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:280
  • Posts:14
  • From:Australia
  • Register:04/10/2007 8:10 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 8:27 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Hi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,Ian

Ian, while Im at it I was wondering what your thoughts are re two writers that I have found helpful over recent times. The 1st one is Frank Damazio and in particular his book ' The Making of a Leader'. The other author is Gregory Boyd and his book ' Repenting of Religion'. Both of these authors have strong theological training which is something I have now come to value as opposed to rubbishing  under the RF banner.

Many thanks and look forward to your response.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #36
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 8:43 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Glawrey

Good morning, Glawrey.

Hi Ian. just going through a process of trying to understand the leadership questions re the NT church.

Sure.

Is a Bishop (episcopas) different from an elder or is he an elder with a higher ? responsibility to ie to see over (oversee) or beyond. The leader with vision ?

The terms 'Elder' and 'bishop' are used, more or less, interchangeably in Paul's writings (and always in the plural, thereby denoting what is nowadays referred to as a collegial episcopate). The former term refers to their 'dignity', that latter to their 'role' (and it's episkopos, by the way)

Which leadership roles would exclude women. Mainly referring to Eh 4 and elders and bishops.

Tough question. It might be helpful to think of matters this way: according to the criteria that Paul lists for certain formal leadership roles within the Church, the men must be married. The inference is that married men would enjoy not only the support of their wives, but also the 'balanced' perspective that women bring to issues. And further, with respect to leadership within the Church from a holistic NT perspective, we find at least one woman served as an apsotle, we note that women led churches, and we find Paul using very specific 'ministry' language when referring to other notable women.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #37
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 9:00 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Glawrey

Glawrey, once again.

Ian, while Im at it I was wondering what your thoughts are re two writers that I have found helpful over recent times.

Sure.

The 1st one is Frank Damazio and in particular his book ' The Making of a Leader'.

Frank Damazio isn't one of my preferred authors. A little too many 'dodgy' views on certain issues for my liking

The other author is Gregory Boyd and his book ' Repenting of Religion'.

Greg Boyd, on the other hand, always repays careful reading

Both of these authors have strong theological training which is something I have now come to value as opposed to rubbishing under the RF banner.

Too true. The RF rubbishes theological training because none of their leaders have any! Consequently, theologically ignorant men keeping the rank-and-file theologically ignorant through ignorant theology. Very sad

Many thanks and look forward to your response.

You're welcome, and I hope what I've very briefly shared is of use.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Glawrey Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #38
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:280
  • Posts:14
  • From:Australia
  • Register:04/10/2007 8:10 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 9:10 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Reply to : GlawreyGood morning, Glawrey.Hi Ian. just going through a process of trying to understand the leadership questions re the NT church.Sure.Is a Bishop (episcopas) different from an elder or is he an elder with a higher ? responsibility to ie to see over (oversee) or beyond. The leader with vision ?The terms 'Elder' and 'bishop' are used, more or less, interchangeably in Paul's writings (and always in theplural, thereby denoting what is nowadays referred to as a collegial episcopate). The former term refers to their 'dignity', that latter to their 'role' (and it'sepiskopos, by the way)Which leadership roles would exclude women. Mainly referring to Eh 4 and elders and bishops.Tough questi

Thanks for your reply.

Would we then take it that a married women should not take up the role of elder/bishop because it might indicate that that particular marital relationship is in itself out of order ie women ruling over the man and perhaps not being under his covering and would thereby exclude her from eldership. All a bit hyperthetical I know but just struggling with new non RF concepts at the moment.

Also re Eph 4 leadership which I understand to be separate again from elder/bishop question, is it resonable to draw the conclusion that these positions are not gender specific.

Episkopas. Ta. Would a reasonable interpretation be 'epic vision'. 

 

Glawrey Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #39
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:280
  • Posts:14
  • From:Australia
  • Register:04/10/2007 8:10 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 9:14 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Reply to : GlawreyGlawrey, once again.Ian, while Im at it I was wondering what your thoughts are re two writers that I have found helpful over recent times.Sure.The 1st one is Frank Damazio and in particular his book ' The Making of a Leader'.Frank Damazioisn'tone of my preferred authors. A little too many 'dodgy' views on certain issues for my likingThe other author is Gregory Boyd and his book ' Repenting of Religion'.Greg Boyd, on the other hand,alwaysrepays careful readingBoth of these authors have strong theological training which is something I have now come to value as opposed to rubbis

Ian, just a quick thuought on what you might consider as "dodgy, views" in regard to Frank Damazio.

Thanks for your time. I'm enjoying your replies.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #40
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 9:59 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Glawrey

Glawrey,

Thanks for your reply.

You're welcome.

Would we then take it that a married women should not take up the role of elder/bishop because it might indicate that that particular marital relationship is in itself out of order ie women ruling over the man and perhaps not being under his covering and would thereby exclude her from eldership. All a bit hyperthetical I know but just struggling with new non RF concepts at the moment.

'Nope'. I think you've got completely the wrong idea about the biblical position on the marriage relationship. For starters, neither party 'rules' the other; secondarily, the wife isn't under the 'covering' of her husband. She relates to Jesus Christ directly.

Also re Eph 4 leadership which I understand to be separate again from elder/bishop question, is it resonable to draw the conclusion that these positions are not gender specific.

'Yep'.

Episkopas. Ta.

You've spelled it incorrectly, again

Would a reasonable interpretation be 'epic vision'.

'Nope'. 'Guardian' or 'overseer' would be preferable.

Ian, just a quick thuought on what you might consider as "dodgy, views" in regard to Frank Damazio.

Where to begin? He's into the new 'apostolic' leadership for starters; his teaching on clergy-laity relations is grossly 'skewed' as a result. Next, his position on tithing is thoroughly unbiblical, as is his teaching on spiritual gifts and the 'Pentecostal' phenomena more generally.

Thanks for your time. I'm enjoying your replies.

s'okay.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
worriedmum Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #41
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3440
  • Posts:142
  • From:Australia
  • Register:17/08/2007 9:04 PM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 11:21 AMCopy HTML

Ian , back to your quote, question for  you. Please.

Biblically, the earth also 'suffers' under the effects of sin

An orthodox bible says :all creatures, not creation. They bear in pain. And that is true. But Why do animals have to pay for the human sin? Especially when they were blessed to multiply in the first ch. Are we abolishing ch 1 alltogether?

King James version says ALL creation, so it is not just the earth but the whole universe. And that is weird. Because the whole universe does not have to pay for the human sin! Does God  think otherwise? Do you?

brolga :Give it up worried mum, and I thought I was ignorant

We are all ignorant  in one way or the other. I am ignorant in the bible, Ian in science. It is not a sin to be ignorant, a sin is not to want to learn.

If you attribute all your problems in life to God, and everything what you achieve in life to prayers, then you deprive yourself of a merit and deny yourself a chance of finding true causes of your problems and improving your present life and lives of the people around you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discover true Bible http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #42
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 11:47 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : worriedmum

'Mum', *sigh*.

Ian , back to your quote, question for you. Please. Biblically, the earth also 'suffers' under the effects of sin. An orthodox bible says :all creatures, not creation. They bear in pain. And that is true. But Why do animals have to pay for the human sin? Especially when they were blessed to multiply in the first ch. Are we abolishing ch 1 alltogether?

Four things that you would do well to consider. First, you're attempting to pass judgment on an issue about which you are completely uninformed, and you're attempting to 'reason' from a presuppositional base that hasn't even been established as valid. Second, the animal kingdom has been paying for the effects of human sin from the moment that God clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins (see Genesis 3:21) Third, now the reason that animals (and vegetables, and rocks, and...) suffer the effects of sin is simple: sin is alien to the Creation which God called 'good'; consequently, it has a corrupting influence and effect over the whole 'shebang'. Fourth, your argument seems to be based around what you think one or another of the English translations might suggest. Sorry, but I don't base my exegetical work on translated versions; consequently, I don't go 'shopping' for English words such as 'ALL'

King James version says ALL creation, so it is not just the earth but the whole universe.

See my comment, immediately above

And that is weird. Because the whole universe does not have to pay for the human sin! Does God think otherwise? Do you?

So the concept that Creation itself is affected by sin is 'weird' to you, huh? Why?

brolga :Give it up worried mum, and I thought I was ignorant

We are all ignorant in one way or the other. I am ignorant in the bible, Ian in science.

Oh! Ha, ha, ha, ha

It is not a sin to be ignorant, a sin is not to want to learn.

Please let me know when you do come here, prepared to learn, m'kay?

Cheerio,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
franks ghost Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #43
  • Rank:Poster Venti I
  • Score:6310
  • Posts:302
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:04/02/2007 9:55 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 1:52 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Glawrey

Reply to : DidaktikonHi, all.I was wondering if there was a particular Revivalist doctrine (or even Christian doctrine, for that matter), which you might not have your head 'around' fully, and which you may care to have a closer look at with me?If so, please let me know.Blessings,IanHi Ian. just going through a process of trying to understand the leadership questions re the NT church.Is a Bishop (episcopas) different from an elder or is he an elder with a higher ? responsibility to ie to see over (oversee)or beyond. Theleaderwith vision ?Which leadership roles would exclude women. Mainly referring to Eh 4 and elders and bishops.Looking forward to your reply.

Sorry to butt in here Glawrey, I was exploring Frank Viola via google and I found an article worth checking out on the topic. Just type in.

Frank Viola- 'Rethinking the Five Fold Ministry'               (which is really only 4).   It's just an essay. 10 Pages or so.      

So I hope this is of interest to you, I think i'ts relevant.

it is the glory of God to conceal a matter but the honour of kings to search it out.
franks ghost Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #44
  • Rank:Poster Venti I
  • Score:6310
  • Posts:302
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:04/02/2007 9:55 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 2:03 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon
Didi, can a non-scholar handle Fee?
it is the glory of God to conceal a matter but the honour of kings to search it out.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #45
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 2:13 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : franks ghost

Frankie,

Didi, can a non-scholal handle Fee?

Sure, certainly those of his books which are aimed at 'average' Christians ("How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth", "How to Read the Bible Book by Book", "Paul, the Spirit and the People of God", "Gospel and Spirit", and "Listening to the Spirit in the Text"). Some of his writings require considerable facility in Greek ("New Testament Exegesis", "God's Empowering Presence" and "Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study", along with certain compilations of his journal articles (mainly on text-critical issues) including, "To What End Exegesis?").

Fee has been a prolific commentary writer in recent decades, with his labours centering on the Pauline writings (1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians [x2] and the Pastorals). All his commentaries are accessible to thinking readers.

My advice would be to 'shuck' most of the rubbish you're currently reading, and spend some time listening to Fee. You could do worse (in fact, you have been)

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #46
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 2:17 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : franks ghost

Frank,

Frank Viola- 'Rethinking the Five Fold Ministry' (which is really only 4).

Don't be so sure, 'boy-o'. Whilst some argue to the contrary, the flow of Paul's Greek actually favours a separation between the gifts of 'pastor' and 'teacher'

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
franks ghost Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #47
  • Rank:Poster Venti I
  • Score:6310
  • Posts:302
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:04/02/2007 9:55 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 8:48 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Reply to : franks ghostFrankie,Didi, can a non-scholal handle Fee?Sure, certainly those of his books which are aimed at 'average' Christians ("How to Read the Bible for All it's Worth", "How to Read the Bible Book by Book", "Paul, the Spirit and the People of God", "Gospel and Spirit", and "Listening to the Spirit in the Text"). Some of his writings requireconsiderablefacility in Greek ("New Testament Exegesis", "God's Empowering Presence" and "Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study", along with certain compilations of his journal articles (mainly on text-critical issues) including, "To What End Exegesis?").Fee has been a prolific commentary writer in recent decades, with his labours centering on the Pauline writings (1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians [x2] and the Pastorals). All his commentaries are accessible to

Ok , I went and bought 'Paul the Spirit and the People of God' today at about 3.00 pm. We had a backout with the storms tonight and now when I logged on I see your response.

Thanks, I'll hook in. Ps I am still quite taken by Viola- I guess he answers many of the very relevant questions for me in the current cultural environ.

it is the glory of God to conceal a matter but the honour of kings to search it out.
franks ghost Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #48
  • Rank:Poster Venti I
  • Score:6310
  • Posts:302
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:04/02/2007 9:55 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:07/10/2007 8:56 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Reply to : franks ghostFrank,Frank Viola- 'Rethinking the Five Fold Ministry' (which is really only 4).Don't be so sure, 'boy-o'. Whilst some argue to the contrary, the flow of Paul's Greek actuallyfavoursa separationbetweenthe gifts of 'pastor' and 'teacher'Blessings,Ian

You know Didi, I'm just pleased right now that I know that there even is a differing opinion out there on the subject. Know what I mean.

I am loving re-reading the word.

I'm sure I'll keep you posted.

Blessings

Ghosty

it is the glory of God to conceal a matter but the honour of kings to search it out.
worriedmum Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #49
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3440
  • Posts:142
  • From:Australia
  • Register:17/08/2007 9:04 PM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:08/10/2007 4:16 PMCopy HTML

Definitely, Ian,

I can see you do not take the bible literally? You just give an interpretation to the best of your knowledge. The knowledge you have is coming from  somewhere. God did not come to you in your dream to teach his word, people came to you or you went to people, or read books recommended to you by people. You listened to someone's interpretation.  Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate that you try to combat Revivalist teaching, however you cannot see another persons' point of view. An atheist like me is your best enemy, you are buried in your scriptures and you cannot see the light outside of your window. The best you can do is to accuse me of not willing to learn. What does it mean to be willing to learn, isn it there any other knowledge available about the world apart from the bible? You dismiss the majority of this knowledge because it contradicts the scriptures. You accuse me, a person who stidied various sciences at a university level, of being ignorant. I am not an expert in the bible and I do not claim to be an expert, however you claim to be an expert of everything, because you know the bible and it the truth. How is it the truth if it is simply your (or someone elses) interpretation?

 

The same bible, which we know have been interpreted by Catholics, Orthodox and fundamentalist differently, and these interpretations have been changing throughout the history of Christianity. Some fundamentalists in USA still believe that the Earth is flat, because the bible says so! I hope you don't have these beliefs? I listen what people and you say about a need for a teacher. Well, at the moment I am learning from you, you are not learning from me. (Yes, of course, you know everything already and you don't need to learn, I remember that) What you are teaching is contradicting everything what I learned during  40 years of my life! I am willing to learn from you but all I can hear is "You are ignorant"

 

So please educate me! The concept that Creation itself is affected by sin is 'weird' to you, huh? Why? It is weird because it seems to me you believe that the universe has to suffer (what is suffering?) because of the desire of humans for the knowledge, especially women's desire which was prohibited by god. Is it why you never read any other books, except the theological, because god prohibited the knowledge? Moreover, you say that you don't base your exegetical work on translated versions. May I ask you in which language do you read the bible? Which language of the bible do you call original, not translated? I guess, you answer may be : oh, you are ignorant. Well, I am, I want to know and I am asking you, but it seems to me that you simply don't know a lot of stuff, which is why you don't answer. May be you do know but simply cannot connect the dots in your head. May I ask you why the Dead Sea scrolls, the earliest recorded Hebrew Scriptures, which allegedly may have been used by Jesus to teach, are not available to the public? About 40% of them are not available to the public, and those that are available do not contain any of the New Testament scriptures. May I ask you in which language did Jesus speak? In the language of God? Is there any evidence that the bible we are reading today is what Jesus told us?  I believe there is not.  This is why this religion is so ineffective to ensuring our immortality or cure illnesses. It does not matter, how you practice your beliefs, whether you pray with your hands up or down, whether you pray in Latin or English, whether you pray alone or in a church, all there is to it is a prayer. It may give you hope, but it does not do the job.(If it did, we would not need the doctors.)  What is important, what comes with the religion as a package: an efficient tool to control the minds of the people. Religion is a powerful tool and with it you convince the people that by doing certain things people insure yourself a place in heaven when they die. .The fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim) are dangerous because they use religion to kill people. The Revivalist reaching is damaging because they use christianity to abuse people. This is all about power, control, and dominance.

 

There are a lot of people who come here in search of a good place to worship, or simply wanting to leave Revivalist church, but they are deterred by your "brutally honest" way of communicating the message, by your way of not answering the questions (Yes, because you don't know everything) and bugging them off as ignorant. They do get disappointed by this treatment, all they can see in you is a bitter person, unchristian, arrogant, this is exactly what has been told in RF centres, and people go to RF looking for love. And until you understand this, no, understanding is not the right word, comprehend the whole idea about religion, what role it plays in the world, and how it is being used to manipulate, to control people, and look at yourself from a side, your work will not be effective; you will do more harm than good.  It is not important how we practice our religion, what is important is the effects of it.  And you want to do good by teaching us here, I hope, you did not come here to satisfy your hunger for power.

 

If you attribute all your problems in life to God, and everything what you achieve in life to prayers, then you deprive yourself of a merit and deny yourself a chance of finding true causes of your problems and improving your present life and lives of the people around you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discover true Bible http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #50
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:08/10/2007 7:39 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : worriedmum

Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate that you try to combat Revivalist teaching,

 

Yeah... can we let him do that please? For Pete's sake. Read the first post on this thread... forget trying to debunk Ian; it's not the point here. It just isn't. So stop. Now. Thanks. I'm not saying he shouldn't be questioned, but this forum is concerned with discussing Revival churches and their doctrines. Ian is invited here to do that and therefore there is a bias here, so deal with it.

 

You accuse me, a person who stidied various sciences at a university level, of being ignorant. I am not an expert in the bible and I do not claim to be an expert, however you claim to be an expert of everything, because you know the bible and it the truth. How is it the truth if it is simply your (or someone elses) interpretation?

 

Oh we're all ignorant to various things on various levels. I'm sure you have a good grasp on many topics, but this forum (and particularly this thread and room within it) focuses on Revivalism. Some people actually are well studied in a large manner of subjects. I envy such people and respectfully tip my hat in kudos when they share it.

 

The same bible, which we know have been interpreted by Catholics, Orthodox and fundamentalist differently, and these interpretations have been changing throughout the history of Christianity. Some fundamentalists in USA still believe that the Earth is flat, because the bible says so! I hope you don't have these beliefs?

 

Science is real. Religion is faith... and the twain can meet. Flat Earthers and the like are faithful but pathetically ignorant in their faith.

 

I listen what people and you say about a need for a teacher. Well, at the moment I am learning from you, you are not learning from me.

 

Honestly, the theologians from Ian's camp are not on the hunt for teachers who aren't as well read as they are.

 

(Yes, of course, you know everything already and you don't need to learn, I remember that) What you are teaching is contradicting everything what I learned during  40 years of my life!

 

Yeah, that's fun hey?! You seem really passionate with your long and well considered following paragraph, but... meh.

 

 The Revivalist reaching is damaging because they use christianity to abuse people. This is all about power, control, and dominance.

 

Ya got that right. They really do think they have all 'dat' with all the answers but then, so does pretty much everyone.  I hate that about people. Yeah abusive is right... At least Ian holds a view of the bible that weighs up the whole book in context with key elements.

 

There are a lot of people who come here in search of a good place to worship, or simply wanting to leave Revivalist church, but they are deterred by your "brutally honest" way of communicating the message,

 

They are being deterred? Yeah, probably some.

 

They do get disappointed by this treatment, all they can see in you is a bitter person, unchristian, arrogant, this is exactly what has been told in RF centres, and people go to RF looking for love.

 

What I do like about people, and the factor that unites us all, is that we are all human.

[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.