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
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #51
  • 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:08/10/2007 9:12 PMCopy HTML

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

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.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #52
  • 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:09/10/2007 8:57 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : worriedmum

Good morning, 'mum'.

I can see you do not take the bible literally?

Actually, I read it 'literarilly' before I approach it '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.

I've listened to many people's interpretations, actually, and yet continue to.

Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate that you try to combat Revivalist teaching, however you cannot see another persons' point of view.

Au contraire. I simply have very little time (or patience) for points of view which fail to grapple with the biblical material in an informed and relevant way.

An atheist like me is your best enemy, you are buried in your scriptures and you cannot see the light outside of your window.

So you believe yourself to be my enemy? Anyway, I have considerable respect for any and all people (atheists included) who have reached conclusions on matters that are based on rigorous and informed research and personal reflection. You've done neither, hence I find it very difficult to respect either you or your views

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.

First, demonstrating that one is 'willing to learn' can be as simple as accurately reflecting, and then responding to, the actual position of one's dialogue partner. You've proven here, time and again, that you're incapable of doing this, and not simply with respect to my posts. In some respects you're as bad as the 'garden-patch' Revivalist: you read what you want to see, rather than what's actually written. Second, I don't dismiss knowledge because it 'contradicts' Scripture at all. What I do, is to question the implied (and often unstated) epistemology of the person who make the various claims. Information, data, itself is neutral. The implications of said information, however, are not

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.

To be honest, I've seen absolutely nothing in the way of rational, informed and logical argumentation from you, that in any way gives evidence of you having received the intellectual benefits that derive from a university education. Nothing. Second, I'm on the record, here in fact, as admitting to being far from omniscient!

How is it the truth if it is simply your (or someone elses) interpretation?

Let's deal with the current issues, before tackling something as involved as epistemology, m'kay?

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.

So? Knowledge and the quest for understanding is neither monolithic, exhaustive nor homogenous, especially with respect to the biblical data! But the basics, the 'fundamentals' if you will, have been uniformly agreed to since the very beginning. Of interest to me, philosophically, is that your statement above clearly indicates that you have very little concept about the ways in which culture, time and circumstance affect cognition. Now you've claimed something of a tertiary background in science? Well, then, are the fundamentals of Newtonian physics 'wrong', simply because science has embraced Quantum physics in more recent times? Think about it

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

Sorry, m'dear, but the Bible nowhere 'says' that the Earth is flat.

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.

You've provided neither reason nor incentive to

(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"

The fact is that you are ignorant of the subject matter that's been discussed here! You've nary a clue about Christian theology, philosophy, logic and so forth, yet you believe it your right to having your manifest 'opinions' considered worthy of merit and/or serious discussion. And you take offense when they're patently shown not to be.

So please educate me!

I can't 'force' you to think. I can't 'force' you to reason. And I can't 'force' you to learn. The choice for doing so remains with you.

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.

Sorry?!

Is it why you never read any other books, except the theological, because god prohibited the knowledge?

From whence sprung this assumption? I read several hundred books and journals each and every year, with subject matter as diverse as: theology, philosophy, literature and culture (and even the odd work on science). My interests are far broader than you credit them being.

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?

Hebrew and Greek (with a little Latin thrown in, from time-to-time).

Which language of the bible do you call original, not translated?

Hebrew and Greek.

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.

If thinking as much helps you to sleep at night, then pray, continue doing so

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.

Sorry, 'mum', but that's absolute nonsense. The entire 'Dead Sea scrolls' corpora (both religious and profane), has been available to the general public since the mid 1990s. One might even purchase them in 'Penguin' paperback, should one wish to

May I ask you in which language did Jesus speak? In the language of God?

'Nope'. The human languages of Aramaic and Greek.

Is there any evidence that the bible we are reading today is what Jesus told us?

'Yep', plenty.

I believe there is not.

Yes, but clearly you don't know any better.

This is why this religion is so ineffective to ensuring our immortality or cure illnesses.

Huh?

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.)

Really? You believe that 'religion' and 'prayer' exists to substitute for medicine?! That's an 'interesting' position to take

What is important, what comes with the religion as a package: an efficient tool to control the minds of the people.

Or to liberate them.

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.

All you've demonstrated is that certain groups can 'twist' particular religious ideals so as to suit their own purposes. You've nowhere demonstrated that such is the function, the ideology or the very basis of the religious ideals, themselves.

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.

Are you speaking for 'them', or for yourself? If the former, well, I think you might be overstating your case a bit. If the latter, then I can only wonder at what point you entertained the thought of opening your mind?

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.

More presumption?

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 seems that I've done plenty of good, thus far

It is not important how we practice our religion, what is important is the effects of it.

Actually, what's of first importance is what we believe. Practice follows belief, it doesn't precede it. You've demonstrated this universal truth, well enough.

And you want to do good by teaching us here, I hope, you did not come here to satisfy your hunger for power.

Hungry for 'power', am I?

Cheerio,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
franks ghost Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #53
  • 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:09/10/2007 9:30 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

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


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 #54
  • 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:09/10/2007 11:16 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : franks ghost

Frankie,

...you would normally have to pay for an education like this one.

Do you think I should charge for my services here? If so, by a flat rate, or along more of a sliding scale based on effort?

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #55
  • 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:21/10/2007 8:12 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : brolga

Brolga,

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 you don't personally understand Greek, you probably shouldn't try to engage in Greek exegesis (or 'second-guess' the results of the same) To begin with, the words 'Lord', 'Christ' and 'Jesus' don't appear in the passage under review, so they have no bearing on the grammar of what does appear. Second, it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the meaning of 'to teleion' ('the perfect'), that the afore-mentioned words are 'masculine', and the latter are 'neuter'. Greek, in common with many highly inflected languages, uses grammatical gender rather than natural gender. And, finally, of course, there remains the fact that 'the perfect' refers to the Parousia, which is not strictly Jesus Christ, but the return of Jesus Christ

As far as three of the gifts, i.e. tongues, prophecy and knowledge passing away, can we relate that, the knowing in part at that time, the scriptures weren't completed and those gifts served the purpose until the 'canon' of scripture was fulfilled in it's written form and now there is no more use for those gifts? What does remain faith, hope and love.

'Nope'.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #56
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:21/10/2007 11:04 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

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!

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #57
  • 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:21/10/2007 11:33 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : brolga

Hi again, Brolga.

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

Cool.

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.

No doubt, but I too, was trained in the Reformed tradition John's (oh, and it's Cromarty, by the way) position isn't new, but neither is it sustainable from what the text actually states. What he advocated was more of a received understanding within the Reformed tradition than a dispassionate exegesis of the respective biblical texts. And, so that you know, the position itself has been questioned, and shown wanting, by Reformed scholars the world over.

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.)

Again, there's nothing new in this explanation. But, again, it doesn't derive from what the biblical texts actually state (at best it's a theological inference); further, it stands against the scholarly consensus: Reformed and non-Reformed alike.

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?

What you need to learn to do, is to trace an argument to its roots. Presuppositions based more on denominational policy than strictly exegetical conclusions are often what you'll find. Which is why it's critical that more 'average' Christians become theologically sophisticated.

Blessings,

Ian

P.S. Perhaps you should have considered Tyndale College first!
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #58
  • 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:21/10/2007 3:40 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : brolga

Ralph,

Ian, thanks again. Already made arrangements for next year with Tyndale. I have to be recognised with a church group yet, otherwise all go.

Well you should be in Christian fellowship somewhere, but with respects to undertaking Tyndale's studies, I'm confident that were you to give Ward a call and explain your ecclesial background, and your reasons for wishing to undertake theological studies, that he would be more than welcoming of your application.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #59
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:22/10/2007 10:59 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 a small detail I would like made clear. Over the years in RCI/RF I have heard it said many times that the Gospels are really part of the Old Testament and shouldn't be included in the New Testament, even though they are, in all bibles. According to a lot of those in RF, who have authority given them by the Holy Spirit, the New Testament actually began at Pentecost.

What are your thoughts on this?

Another question is regarding the laying on of hands. New people with hardly any understanding told now they can lay hands on relatives, friends and their children to receive the Holy Spirit. As it is a transferring of power shouldn't it be taken very seriously and not to be used willynilly? I might be sounding a bit over anxious, but I would hope those even in ministry would be responsible enough to "examine themselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves" (2 Cor.13:5) before laying hands on anyone.

Would appreciate your thoughts on this also. Thanks.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #60
  • 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:22/10/2007 11:23 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Episkopeo

Hi, 'I Bish'; long time, no hear.

Just a small detail I would like made clear. Over the years in RCI/RF I have heard it said many times that the Gospels are really part of the Old Testament and shouldn't be included in the New Testament, even though they are, in all bibles. According to a lot of those in RF, who have authority given them by the Holy Spirit, the New Testament actually began at Pentecost. What are your thoughts on this?

Such a claim is nonsense The four gospels lead the NT because, well, they encapsulate all that the NT is and purports to be. The current era, our NT age, didn't begin with Pentecost. It began with the baptism and subsequent ministry of Jesus as Christ. And the fulcrum around which the age pivots wasn't Pentecost either, but Calvary. An open reading of the four gospels presents one with a veritable cornucopia of present tense imperatives, and present tense statements about people being declared righteous and, therefore, saved. Note carefully: not future tense, mind you, but present tense from the perspective of Jesus as he spoke. Finally, of course, those in the RF that you speak of above don't derive whatever authority it is that they may possess from the Holy Spirit. To the contrary, their authority stems only from the pronouncements of equally fallible men

Another question is regarding the laying on of hands. New people with hardly any understanding told now they can lay hands on relatives, friends and their children to receive the Holy Spirit. As it is a transferring of power shouldn't it be taken very seriously and not to be used willynilly?

Well, the only people that the NT speaks of as having the authority to impart God's Spirit, are Jesus and his apostles.

I might be sounding a bit over anxious, but I would hope those even in ministry would be responsible enough to "examine themselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves" (2 Cor.13:5) before laying hands on anyone.

Sure. I hope the above has helped.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #61
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:22/10/2007 2:37 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Episkopeo



Reply to : Didaktikon[]Yes, certainly has helped. Have questioned them in RF a lot, but have let much slip by. I use Episkopeo as "to look/examine" not so much Bishop. Correct me on that one if you wish.There is another query. I know it will seem like the "old, old story" but it's tongues again. Apart from Pentecost, when like a wind fanning a fire, the word went out to a large number, what exactly is the purpose of tongues?Is it the inclusion of the Gentiles into the church, a sign to unbelievers when used and interpreted and/or a prayer language?A rather basic question, but when receiving the Holy Spirit as evidenced by tongues is excluded, surely they need not even be present after the first apostles.Thanks again. God Bless.





I'm making a correction here. I should have said (when receiving the Holy Spirit as evidenced by tongues as salvation is excluded.)
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #62
  • 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:22/10/2007 2:47 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Episkopeo

Hey again, "I Bish".

Yes, certainly has helped. Have questioned them in RF a lot, but have let much slip by. I use Episkopeo as "to look/examine" not so much Bishop. Correct me on that one if you wish.

I know, but I call you "I Bish" tongue-in-cheek, given that you've chosen a verb as your nom-de-plume rather than a noun

There is another query. I know it will seem like the "old, old story" but it's tongues again. Apart from Pentecost, when like a wind fanning a fire, the word went out to a large number, what exactly is the purpose of tongues?

It depends. On whether you're considering the 'sign of languages' that we find in Acts, or the altogether different 'gift of tongues' that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians. If you meant the former, the purpose was to demonstrate the inclusion of different people groups into the Community of the Redeemed which was formerly national Israel; if the latter, well, that's a whole new post! There is, of course, a third possibility I should consider. If by your query you intended the 'Revivalist tongue', well the purpose of such is quite simple: to foster division, promote separation and inculcate a wholly undeserved sense of superiority and pride

Is it the inclusion of the Gentiles into the church, a sign to unbelievers when used and interpreted and/or a prayer language?

Please see above.

A rather basic question, but when receiving the Holy Spirit as evidenced by tongues is excluded, surely they need not even be present after the first apostles.

'Yep'

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #63
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:22/10/2007 6:03 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Reply to : EpiskopeoHey again, "I Bish".Yes, certainly has helped. Have questioned them in RF a lot, but have let much slip by. I use Episkopeo as "to look/examine" not so much Bishop. Correct me on that one if you wish.I know, but I call you "I Bish" tongue-in-cheek, given that you've chosen averbas your nom-de-plume rather than anounThere is another query. I know it will seem like the "old, old story" but it's tongues again. Apart from Pentecost, when like a wind fanning a fire, the word went out to a large number, what exactly is the purpose of tongues?It depends. On whether you're considering the 'sign of languages' that we find in Acts, or the altogetherdifferent'gift of tongues' that Paul describes in 1 Co

A rather basic question, but when receiving the Holy Spirit as evidenced by tongues is excluded, surely they need not even be present after the first apostles.

'Yep'

'sigh' old num-nut brolga here.

Ian, do you mean 'Yep' they need not even be present after the first apostles, or 'Yep'  they are?

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #64
  • 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:23/10/2007 7:47 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : brolga

Ralph, good morning.

Ian, do you mean 'Yep' they need not even be present after the first apostles, or 'Yep' they are?

What I meant was there was no requirement for the Acts 'sign of languages' being present after the passing of the first apostles. According to Paul the valid (Corinthian), but remarkably insignificant, gift of 'tongues'; however, will continue until the Parousia. So too, I've no doubt, will the mostly invalid Revivalist version

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #65
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:23/10/2007 10:26 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Reply to : brolgaRalph, good morning.Ian, do you mean 'Yep' they need not even be present after the first apostles, or 'Yep' they are?What I meant was there wasnorequirement for the Acts 'sign of languages' being presentafterthe passing of the first apostles. According to Paul the valid (Corinthian), but remarkably insignificant, gift of 'tongues'; however, will continue until the Parousia. So too, I've no doubt, will the mostlyinvalidRevivalist version Blessings,Ian

Thanks once again.

FWW. I have just finished listening to a talk I had recorded whilst in RCI Bellarine some five years ago. It is by "Pastor" John Andrews and is a "salvation" message. It really covers the host of what Revivalist teaching and doctrine stands for, and what we speak out against now, in the light of biblical truth.  He talks about how other churches have compromised the Gospel, even to the point "they need to be shot". In the thirty minute talk, tongues was mentioned 48 times and he stated that God was the "God of  Tongues"

It is a very convincing talk and for any new to this, would be easily mislead into believing the great lie, as many have and still do, but it does give one the insight of the spiritual abuse that is taking place when one has gained a little knowlege of Biblical truth.

brolga 

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #66
  • 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:23/10/2007 10:38 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : brolga

Hi, Ralph.

Thanks once again.

You're welcome.

FWW. I have just finished listening to a talk I had recorded whilst in RCI Bellarine some five years ago. It is by "Pastor" John Andrews and is a "salvation" message. It really covers the host of what Revivalist teaching and doctrine stands for, and what we speak out against now, in the light of biblical truth. He talks about how other churches have compromised the Gospel, even to the point "they need to be shot". In the thirty minute talk, tongues was mentioned 48 times and he stated that God was the "God of Tongues"

Scary, isn't it? I think I've mentioned as much before here, but I've long been in the habit of taking a prepared 'tick-and-flick' checklist when I attend Revivalist services. 'Tongues' always gets the most mention, 'Jesus' is always near the bottom, whilst 'grace' always comes last--often with no ticks against this word at all Speaks volumes about what's really important to Revivalists [isgusted;]

It is a very convincing talk and for any new to this, would be easily mislead into believing the great lie, as many have and still do, but it does give one the insight of the spiritual abuse that is taking place when one has gained a little knowlege of Biblical truth.

Anyone can trawl through and 'proof-text' Scripture. Sadly, biblical illiteracy in the wider community (never mind the Christian one!) is mostly to blame for any ready acceptance that the Revivalist 'message' receives.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #67
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:23/10/2007 11:21 AMCopy HTML


It's amazing what slips into talks not noticed by most. I have asked people immediately after a meeting what the talk was on and they can't even remember the theme let alone the specific content. Almost all the talks would go unchallenged. A pity for the church.

About 2 years ago in a talk a Perth pastor stated that other churches worshiped a different god, a different gospel. How's that for utter nonsense?

It's not my intention to be critical just for the sake of it, but Revival churches need to take a good hard look at themselves.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #68
  • 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:23/10/2007 11:37 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Episkopeo

Hi, bloke.

It's amazing what slips into talks not noticed by most. I have asked people immediately after a meeting what the talk was on and they can't even remember the theme let alone the specific content. Almost all the talks would go unchallenged. A pity for the church.

Obviously very 'nourishing' fare, from a spiritual perspective, hey?

About 2 years ago in a talk a Perth pastor stated that other churches worshiped a different god, a different gospel. How's that for utter nonsense?

The really sad thing is that your Perth pastor's statement is actually true! The Revivalist God doesn't match the biblical one (who is Triune); further, the Revivalist 'gospel' certainly isn't a message about the grace of God being made available through the ministry of Jesus as Christ, which is appropriated by faith

It's not my intention to be critical just for the sake of it, but Revival churches need to take a good hard look at themselves.

Yes, and hopefully (my fingers are still crossed) that having done so, the various Revivalist groups might eventually become Christian.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #69
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:23/10/2007 12:40 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon
Hi,
I asked their views on the Trinity years ago but was never given an adequate answer. I think the answer was something like "it's up to you entirely how you view the Trinity" and they didn't give a church stand on it.

God Bless, Epi.

By the way, I'm not a bloke.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #70
  • 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:23/10/2007 12:45 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Episkopeo

'Epi',

By the way, I'm not a bloke.

Oops, mea culpa!

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
woodfortrees Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #71
  • Rank:Newbie
  • Score:520
  • Posts:26
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:29/09/2007 10:05 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:25/10/2007 8:28 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon


Hello Didaktikon,

Your contributions here are appreciated, thanks.   Interest in class action still remains amongst members of the GRC forum, I am wondering what your thoughts would be in regards to this.

I found the following definition of religious intolerance after 'googling' "class action against religious organisations", (admittedly this is from Wikip.  ..raising an eyebrow)

Religious intolerance is either intolerance motivated by one's own religious beliefs or intolerance against another's religious beliefs                 practices. It manifests both at a cultural level, but may also be a formal part of the dogma of particular religious groups.

The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs incorrect does not in itself constitute intolerance. There are many cases throughout history of established religions tolerating other practices. Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (a society, a religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds...

Do you may have information regarding the 'rules'  that dictate how religious groups can go on preaching when it is obvious that they use mind-control techniques.   Does pursuing a class action over claims of mind control and manipulation then place 'us' in the category of being religion-intolerant, and what are the implications? 

Somewhat new to the forum, should this be in another thread? 

wft.

 

 

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #72
  • 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:25/10/2007 8:54 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : woodfortrees

Good morning, 'Wood'.

Your contributions here are appreciated, thanks.

Thanks for the support.

Interest in class action still remains amongst members of the GRC forum, I am wondering what your thoughts would be in regards to this.

Well, to be honest, I think such an action would likely prove to be both a waste of time and of money

Do you have information/thoughts regarding the 'rules' that dictate how religious groups can go on preaching when it is obvious that they use mind-control techniques.

Sure. In a 'nutshell', the Australian Constitution protects the right of individuals and groups to exercise religious freedom, and the freedom to express their beliefs. This extends to include the rights of the GRC to peddle their nonsense. Where the GRC might come unstuck, legally, would relate to their 'business' dealings: fundraising, the payment of taxes, etc. A case may even be made with respect to the possibility of financial 'extortion' through 'tithes', etc. But I'm not a lawyer, so I really couldn't say.

Does pursuing a class action over claims of mind control and manipulation then place 'us' in the category of being religion-intolerant, and what are the implications?

I seriously doubt that you would be able to pursue a class action on the grounds of 'mind-control' and/or 'manipulation'. You see, precisely the same claim could be made against the education system, so I can't see the legal powers-that-be opening what would quickly become a Pandora's Box of litigation.

Somewhat new to the forum, should this be in another thread?

Probably

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
woodfortrees Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #73
  • Rank:Newbie
  • Score:520
  • Posts:26
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:29/09/2007 10:05 AM

Re:An open invitation (Doctrinal Questions Answered)

Date Posted:25/10/2007 2:21 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Reply to : Sure. In a 'nutshell', the Australian Constitution protects the right of individuals and groups to exercise religious freedom, and the freedom to express their beliefs.

Thank you, 

'religious freedom', sounds rather ironic.  

RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.