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

---

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... 

Reply to : Didaktikon & Glad

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

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)

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

---

---

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 !    

---

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!

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

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

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

---

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

---

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.

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.

 

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?

---

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.  

---

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.

---

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'. 

---

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.

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.

---

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.

Didi, can a non-scholar handle Fee?

---

---

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.

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.

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.

Dear worriedmum, I have tried not to get too involved with your posts in the past, but I would like to respond to some of your 'ideas' and offer my viewpoint to you for what it is worth.

wm: You accuse me, a person who stidied various sciences at a university level, of being ignorant.

urch: I realise that you are directing this to Ian and I'm sure he'll respond - but I am certainly no judge of whether you are 'ignorant' or not, but if you have university qualifications in the field of science then you must have studied (not stidied) to achieve this therefore you must be an intelligent person. However, intelligence does not necessarily give a person common sense. Nor does it teach a person a lot of things like faith, trust, hope etc

 wm: Some fundamentalists in USA still believe that the Earth is flat, because the bible says so!

urch: Does it really?

wm: 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? 

urch: I wasn't aware that women's desire for knowledge was prohibited by God and indeed that God prohibited knowledge at all! What a bizarre thought! I have an incredible desire (thirst, hunger) for knowledge & I don't think that God is ' displeased '  with this.

wm: 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.) 

urch: my prayers HAVE been answered on many occasions, regardless of hands up or down or what language I pray in.

I HAVE experienced miracles and healings and whether you believe me or not does not detract from what I have received from God. If you had ever experienced a healing from cancer, maybe you would then understand although there are those who 'see but still don't believe' anway.

wm: 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.

 urch: You will probably struggle with this thought but you need to try to understand the difference between 'religion' and 'relationship'.  Religion is not what God desires - He desires relationship with us. Man has tried to reach God through religion but we can really only reach Him through relationship with Him. The RF have no concept of this at all which is why they are a religious and legalistic organisation even though they don't recognise it in themselves.

 wm:. 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.

urch:   Do you really truly understand/comprehend the 'whole idea about religion' and the 'role it plays in the world' ? I wouldn't have thought that your study of science would have touched on religion at all.

It is not 'religion'  that manipulates and controls people - it is PEOPLE that seek to manipulate and control other people, sometimes (in fact, quite often) in the name of 'religion'.

You say it is not important how we practice our religion it is the effects of it that matters - isn't the effect the result of what we practice?  Scripture tells quite clearly ' you shall know them by their fruits' - good fruits from good roots, bad fruits from bad roots.

Please understand wm, that I am not looking for any arguments with you, but I would so love it if you could open your mind a little more and try to understand what I am attempting (maybe not very well!) to say - I do not have the years of study or the knowledge of scripture that Ian and others have, but I have found (since leaving RF) that the grace of God is awesome.  I am humbled, honoured and so very blessed to have found a personal relationship with Jesus Christ - He is my friend, my guide, my helper, my redeemer, my saviour and so much more.  I know that I will not convince you to believe anything I say and that's OK cos we're all different. However, it takes a measure of faith which is something that you either have or are prepared to seek - or you are not.  It is all about choice worriedmum.

Kindest regards, urchin

WM & Didi,

O' thanks. This has to be yet another (but somewhat longer and plainly laid out example) of how the thought process works.

WM congratulations for taking the time to articulate, I do hope that you work back over the text to have a look at the Questions you ask and the reponses you recieve.

If this were me (Ghost) as a narrow minded revivalist thinker [debating with you], fortified with a splash of reading here and there, throw in a half finished tertiary education, add a dash of utube, mix a bit of Google add a few popularly written books from uneducated authors, a dash of praying in tongues, maybe even a few gathered News Paper Articles. Then WM you'd have someone to really WORRY about.

Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I'd be saying this, but keep gutsing it out. BUT make sure you review you questions and sourses, you would normally have to pay for an education like this one.

Congratulations for the courage and the time you are dedicating.

Ghost

---

---

Reply to : brolgaBrolga,A little while ago I asked you, in 1 Corinthians 13:10 "that which is perfect has come" was it referring to love or completion in the context of the chapter on temporary gifts... Your answer was; it was referring to Jesus when he returns. (that is Revivalist thoughts also)Indeed.The nouns; Lord, Christ and Jesus are all in the 'masculine'- "that which is perfect" is in the 'neuter', so it cannot be referring to Jesus.(?)Well now, given that youdon'tpersonally understand Greek, you probablyshouldn'ttry to engage in Greek exegesis (or 'second-guess' the results of the same)To begin with, the words 'Lord', 'Christ' and 'Jesus'don'tappear in the passage under review, so they have no bearing o

---

Hi, thankyou Ian,

Once again, an expansion of the answer to my original question makes it all the clearer to me.

However the reason I brought that up again was because, when I was making enquires at the Reformed Theological College here in Geelong, about taking a course, I spoke to a Rev. John Cremarty, who claimed to have 36 years in theology studies, and this was one of the very brief discussions I had with him concerning the Greek language and doctrine. What I put in my post to you was what he quoted was the answer. Also on the tongues, he said, the reason that languages were given at Pentecost was so that the Disciples could go into other regions and preach the Gospel and the people would be able to understand what was being said. (That not what conclusion I had come to from your essays.)

What I am finding as I go on exploring things 'deep and wide' is that there are so many different views and interpretations of scripture, that it is making one start to wonder who does really know the truth?  

brolga. 

PS. Tyndale College next!