Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Revival Doctrines we 'USED TO BELIEVE' Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Ex_Member
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Date Posted:15/04/2008 12:58 AMCopy HTML


Quote from Chat Box:-
"Here's the thing;  on some fronts the RF actually got things almost correct"

Hi Ian,

Will you please explain in detail your above remarks so that I can ascertain where the RF actually got things 
almost correct.  I, and those in RF (many read this forum) will then have the benefit of a clear knowledge of
such.   I don't see that many correct areas myself.  It would not be a good thing, however,  to appear to be
merely fault finding for the sake of it, or to be suffering severe and chronic ODD.

God Bless

Epi


Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:15/04/2008 10:52 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Episkopeo (14/04/2008 18:58:53)


Quote from Chat Box:-
"Here's the thing; on some fronts the RF actually got things almost correct"

Hi Ian,

Will you please explain in detail your above remarks so that I can ascertain where the RF actually got things
almost correct. I, and those in RF (many read this forum) will then have the benefit of a clear knowledge of
such. I don't see that many correct areas myself. It would not be a good thing, however, to appear to be
merely fault finding for the sake of it, or to be suffering severe and chronic ODD.

God Bless

Epi


Good morning, Miss Bish.

The context of that particular statement had to do with the RF's position on Pentecostalism, a position that I (more or less) agree with. Other than that, there's not much that they believe which I actually support.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
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:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:15/04/2008 11:00 PMCopy HTML

Reply to brolga (14/04/2008 23:56:39)

Ian

Further to Epis', I am a bit at a loss with your comment "supportive of tongues" recently in the shout box. I personally had come to the conclusion, tongues for today can only used as a "Mantra" when in private prayer. Would you expand a little for us.

Might get a few tongues wagging.Laughing


Thanks


brolga

Mantra: noun 1 (originally in Hinduism and Buddhism) a word or sound repeated to aid concentration in meditation. (Oxford Dictionary)

Good morning, Ralph.

Well then, your conclusion is incorrect. There's nothing wrong with the whole "tongues" and "interpretation" bit; Paul certainly allows this, although he doesn't encourage the same. Then, of course, there is the private use of "tongues" in personal prayer. It too finds its place in the broader scheme of things.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:16/04/2008 12:54 AMCopy HTML

Reply to brolga (15/04/2008 18:48:21)

Ian,

With all the reading, studying, researching, performing and experiencing this particular crap of tongues bit, I am no further in understanding the significance, other than the Pentecost phenomenon, to what it all achieves, other than confusion:aggrieved:, from the start.
It now begs the question. (Knowing that the Revivalist version is the "pits") Does it really matter whether we have this "Gift" or not, or that we need it for prayer or anything else, for today?


:tired:brolga



Hi, Ralph.

Possession of "tongues", the "least" of all the gifts, biblically-speaking is of no temporal or eternal consequence whatsoever. In other words, it's so inconsequential a matter that it doesn't have very much bearing on very much at all.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:18/04/2008 10:28 AMCopy HTML

I've been cleaning and organising the forums and found the following replies from Ian very interesting concerning the questions asked here recently. I trust he doesn't mind me repeating them here:

Ian - Communication (properly defined) involves the conscious act of exchanging information/data. When one of the parties engaged in the act has no idea of what is being said/transmitted, then it's quite reasonable to suggest that communication has ceased. So people who assume that babbling in 'tongues' is the highest form of prayer to/with God are quite mistaken, and are without biblical support for their view. Prayer as such is described consistently in the NT, involves active engagement between a supplicant and God. Prayer in 'tongues' is passive engagement at best. In stating as much I would also aver that the use of 'tongues', for those who have been gifted with this ability, certainly has its place. However, I believe that Revivalists tend to'oversell' the benefits, and so impoverish their prayer lives by giving preference to this form over the many other forms that involve more in the way of active engagement. Of course there's also the very real question of whether every Revivalist actually has an 'authentic' tongue to begin with.

RF member - "Too be quite honest this is probably the most spiritual conversation I have had. Just out of curiosity what church do you asociate with and what is your thoughts on tonges?"

Ian - I live in country Victoria, and for the past 6 years I was in communion with a local non-denominational community church (about 80 people: a mix of Baptists, Brethren, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists and the odd Pentecostal). But earlier this year our family began to fellowship with the local Baptists (about 600-700 people), mainly due to them providing a far greater range of church-based social activities/interractions for our two teenaged daughters than was possible and available at our former church. However I don't wear the Baptist label, and nor do I necessarily subscribe to several of their theological distinctives. We certainly agree on the fundamentals, but there's sufficient room to manouever with respect to the incidentals. Further, I also try to maintain a 'whole-of-church' perspective, and my own ministry and Christian involvement spans across a range of denominational and non-denominational contexts (for example, I lecture in biblical studies and exegetical theology for an evangelical theological college based in Sydney, and I've recently been approached to do the same at an Assemblies of God Bible college as well).

Now, as for my thoughts on 'tongues', in general they're positive. For example, I believe I exercise an authentic form of the gift myself, from time-to-time (about 5% of my prayer time). Where you and I would likely differ in our opinions of the subject can be briefly summarised as follows:

1. Revivalists would teach that 'tongues' is the automatic and mandatory sign of having received the Holy Spirit. In other words, you fellows view the phenomena as the upper case 'G' gift OF the Holy Spirit, given to the individual to effect salvation. My reading of the Greek NT clearly demonstrates to me that this is a mistaken position, that the gift of the Holy Spirit in salvation is the Spirit himself. My own understanding (which is also the historic Christian position held since the 1st century, BTW) is that 'tongues' is a lower case 'g' gift given BY the Holy Spirit to an individual, and then principally for the benefit of the Church.

2. Second, although related to the first point, Revivalists teach that the phenomena described by Luke in the book of Acts is the same as that described by Paul in 1st Corinthians. Again, I disagree, noting the marked differences between the two expressions in form, function, purpose and substance. I would also point out that the Revivalist experience of 'receiving the Holy Spirit' shares nothing at all in common with what Luke describes as happening to the 12 apostles in Acts 2, Cornelius and his household in Acts 10, or the 12 followers of the Baptist in Acts 19. They just don't match up in either the generalities or the details.

3. Next Revivalists teach that 'tongues' is a gift that must be possessed by every Christian in order to be considered Christian. I disagree fundamentally with this position, as I see it having no basis whatsoever in what Scripture teaches. Consequently, I propose that you fellows are guilty of reading Scripture through your experience, rather than your experience through Scripture. Further, my own rather considerable pastoral experience of former Revivalists reinforces this. There have been many who have confided to me that they 'made-up' their 'tongue' in order to be accepted. Such have included houseleaders and others of longstanding, all of whom had frequently exercised their 'gift' publicly, and have had it 'interpreted'. This fact calls into question the validity of not only the ?tongue', but also the supposed ?interpretation'.

In summary, I fully accept the biblical reality of 'tongues', in it's proper place, but I seriously doubt that it's the place promoted by your fellowship. Every biblical reference that Revivalists have put forward to demonstrate the supposed validity of their views on this subject, can be clearly and decisively shown to be teaching something quite different. So the gravest charge that I would make of Revivalists is that they have subordinated Scripture to experience as the principle measure of assessing 'truth'. In effect, the Bible ranks second to one's 'experience' in the various Revivalist assemblies.

Ian - "I never suggest/promote or otherwise recommend specific churches to people (although I do caution people against specific churches); however, I frequently find myself recommending certain 'traits' to look for...Ian"

Point one: well respected within the local community (i.e. if they have a bad 'rep' in their own 'plot', then such should be taken as a warning sign).

Point two: active within the local community (no-one should think too much of a church that distances itself from those who exist in close proximity).

Point three: interested in the needs, goals and aspirations of the local community (should be self-evident).Point four: led/managed/guided by a plural and inclusive leadership (which includes women).

Point five: at least some of the members of the leadership should be theologically trained.

Point six: the church must be accepting of diversity, and must have good relationships with other churches.Point seven: not overly 'lopsided' in its theological 'interests' (i.e. not unbalanced when it comes to 'loopy' stuff).

Point eight: the church must support and promote individual responsibility, balanced with corporate accountability.

Point nine: it must be a praying church.Point ten: it must be 'missions' focussed.

Point eleven: the church must embrace, love, care for and focus towards the 'lost', the 'marginalised' and the 'dispossessed'.

Point twelve: the church must not think too highly of itself. These are the broad-brush basic.

These points all relate to the 'character' of the church. Of course, there are other mattersto consider, those that relate to orthodoxy (positions on Christ and the Trinity, Scripture, justification, etc), but they are often harder to determine at first blush. Further, if points five and six are adequately addressed, the risks are substantially reduced.
Yirmeyahu_29_11 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Lurker
  • Score:220
  • Posts:11
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:28/05/2007 11:28 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:21/04/2008 5:26 AMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

It is very interesting to read what you have written in the forum.

How would a Christian know he/she has received the Holy Spirit if he/she did not speak in tongues?

Is it based on the fruit of the Spirit he/she bears that he/she actually has the Holy Spirit in him/her?
Beholding Your beauty
Is all that I long for
To worship You Jesus
Is my sole desire
For this very heart
You have shaped for Your pleasure
Purposed to lift Your Name higher
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:21/04/2008 10:55 PMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

It is very interesting to read what you have written in the forum.

How would a Christian know he/she has received the Holy Spirit if he/she did not speak in tongues?

Is it based on the fruit of the Spirit he/she bears that he/she actually has the Holy Spirit in him/her?


Good morning, Jeremiah.

First, I'm glad that you've found my musings interesting. But I do wonder, have you found them helpful?

Now, to answer your direct questions. To begin with the simple fact that one is a Christian indicates that s/he has received God's Spirit Wink Speaking in "tongues", or any "spiritual manifestation" for that matter, is no sure indication of regeneration (note, for example, the thrust of Matthew 7:21-23). There is also the very real possibility that the vast majority of Revivalist "tongues" are little more than a naturally acquired, "learned" (or "coached") experience.

But I think your 2nd question hits the nail on the head, so to speak (see Luke 6:43-46 as a noteworthy adjunct parallel text).

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Yirmeyahu_29_11 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Lurker
  • Score:220
  • Posts:11
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:28/05/2007 11:28 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:22/04/2008 2:35 AMCopy HTML

Thanks Ian for your reply.

Yes, i do find your notes helpful.

I cannot quite understand what you were trying to explain to my first question.  So speaking in tongues is just a gift to whomever asked God for it and not a seal from God to prove that we have received the Holy Spirit and therefore is saved?

I visited a few churches before.  One was a Baptist church, one was an Anglican church, and a few were Spirit filled pentecostal churches.  I felt the difference between the Spirit filled pentecostal churches (which speak in tongues) and those non-pentecostal churches (which don't speak in tongues) in a way which i cannot and do not know how to explain to you.  But of course those Spirit filled pentecostal churches did not very much emphasized that a person must be filled by the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues then that person is saved.  They believe that a person will naturally speak / pray in tongues when that person is baptized in the Holy Spirit. 

When i visited the churches who do not believe in praying in tongues, ie Anglican and Baptist, etc, I did not sense or feel the power and the moving of the Holy Spirit in those churches..... why is that so when they also believed they have received the Holy Spirit once they received Jesus as their Saviour into their life?  Why don't they also believe what the New Testament said about baptizing in the Holy Spirit?

I have a friend who attends a church which don't believe in praying in tongues so when she was praying in her own language one day, there's this foreign language in her mind but she dare not speak that foreign language out as she's afraid that might be from the devil therefore she dare not pray in tongues even when God put a foreign language in her mind to pray.... 

I know that in the Bible, Apostle Paul urged us to pray in the Holy Spirit as it is the perfect prayer and the Holy Spirit in us searches our hearts and helps us to bring forth our limited english or any of our native languages prayers to God by tongues.

What if a person has been a Christian for a long time, like me for example, did not bear any fruit of the Holy Spirit, how would i know i have the Holy Spirit in me if i don't speak in tongues which came out naturally out of my mouth?  Is it by believing that i'm saved by faith and then work on bearing the fruits of the Holy Spirit in me with God's help?

My best friend has attended a Baptist church many years ago and he heard about the Tongues from a friend of the same church who gave him a book about Tonugues being a beautiful language to God to read.  He then received this language in his head and spoke forth a few foreign words slowly in his own quiet time with God after a year or two.  He felt the difference in him.  He has never felt so happy spiritually before.  His brother also, received tongues a year or two later with a desire of wanting to receive it.  His brother is still with a Baptist church.

I had been with a few Spirit filled pentecostal churches after RFA but i'm thinking of settling in a Baptist church but i'm afraid that they are not "Spirit filled" as they don't "pray in tongues" and i'm also afraid that i may go to a "wrong" church which don't follow all what Apostle Paul had written in the New Testament (NT).  For example if the married couples are to follow what Apostle Paul had written in the NT that how a marriage should work in the NT then it will worked for them ideally, does it mean that the churches have to follow what Apostle Paul said how a church should be operated in the NT?  Not all churches in this modern day now operating as what the Apostle Paul had written in the NT.  When RF tried to operate like what Apostla Paul had said for a church to operate in the gifts of tongues and prophecy when the Christians come together, they had done one thing "right" but have forgotten about other things what Apostle Paul had said about the forgiveness, compassion, love and grace of God and among the brothers and sisters.

Why do most churches now don't take Holy Communion on every Sundays?  Some churches take once a month, once fortnightly, once every six months or once a year.  Why do churches like Baptist, Anglican, etc do not take Holy Communion or recognise the gift of tongues which Apostle Paul talked about?  Is taking Holy Communion together as a church important?  Can i take Holy Communion myself everyday if the church i go to do not take Holy Communion at all?  Should i stop praying in tongues totally if the church i go to don't practice praying in tongues? Or should i look for a church that prays in tongues, takes Holy Communion every Sunday, believes in mission work, does outreach, etc?

What's your view, Ian?

Beholding Your beauty
Is all that I long for
To worship You Jesus
Is my sole desire
For this very heart
You have shaped for Your pleasure
Purposed to lift Your Name higher
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:22/04/2008 3:55 AMCopy HTML

G'day, Jeremiah.

Thanks for the feedback. What I'll do in my response is address each of your points in turn; this way I'll be able to systematically give you my understanding across all the issues that you raised, rather than simply some of them.

I cannot quite understand what you were trying to explain to my first question. So speaking in tongues is just a gift to whomever asked God for it and not a seal from God to prove that we have received the Holy Spirit and therefore is saved?

That's correct. "Tongues" is nothing more than a very minor gift; it isn't a/the seal of God's Spirit, nor is it any sort of indication that a person is saved to begin with. Further, modern "Pentecostal tongues" aren't really evidence of anything; many are actually little more than a learned response, and the majority appear to be simple gibberish spoken over and over. Hardly the sort of thing one should be hinging one's eternity on!

I visited a few churches before. One was a Baptist church, one was an Anglican church, and a few were Spirit filled pentecostal churches. I felt the difference between the Spirit filled pentecostal churches (which speak in tongues) and those non-pentecostal churches (which don't speak in tongues) in a way which i cannot and do not know how to explain to you. But of course those Spirit filled pentecostal churches did not very much emphasized that a person must be filled by the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues then that person is saved. They believe that a person will naturally speak / pray in tongues when that person is baptized in the Holy Spirit.

Sure, but understand that your experience of other churches was thoroughly subjective, and the results you encountered were based on what you expected to find. Second, you need to realise that the term "Spirit-filled" is a nonsense, one coined by Pentecostals in the 1950s to differentiate their supposedly higher level of spirituality from the common garden pot variety they believed ordinary Christianity represented. In other words, it's a "pride" term, nothing more. Now when I visit Pentecostal churches, what I often encounter is little more than an amazing degree of subjective naivety, spiritual immaturity, Scriptural ignorance and gross experientialism (and that's generally before the preacher even stands up and opens his/her mouth!) Laughing And I'm "Spirit-filled" according to your definition! I hope you can see that it's really an issue of one's experience and understanding (or mis-understanding if you will) rather than of spiritual discernment and/or maturity.

When i visited the churches who do not believe in praying in tongues, ie Anglican and Baptist, etc, I did not sense or feel the power and the moving of the Holy Spirit in those churches..... why is that so when they also believed they have received the Holy Spirit once they received Jesus as their Saviour into their life? Why don't they also believe what the New Testament said about baptizing in the Holy Spirit?

As I intimated earlier, your "feelings" aren't an accurate indication of reality (they're simply emotional responses to what you've been conditioned to believe). Second, the reason most orthodox Protestant churches don't teach or believe in the supposed "baptism of the Holy Spirit" after the Pentecostal plan, is due to the fact that what Scripture presents on the matter, and what Pentecostals both assume and teach on the matter, are poles removed Undecided

I have a friend who attends a church which don't believe in praying in tongues so when she was praying in her own language one day, there's this foreign language in her mind but she dare not speak that foreign language out as she's afraid that might be from the devil therefore she dare not pray in tongues even when God put a foreign language in her mind to pray....

Interesting. I've never come across anyone who claimed to be able to pray in "tongues" in his or her mind! (which would be to directly contradict Paul's teaching, it seems to me). "Tongues" has always been an outwardly expressed thing, and never an internalised or inwards matter.

I know that in the Bible, Apostle Paul urged us to pray in the Holy Spirit as it is the perfect prayer and the Holy Spirit in us searches our hearts and helps us to bring forth our limited english or any of our native languages prayers to God by tongues.

I hope you'll excuse me when I say, "rubbish"!
Undecided

What if a person has been a Christian for a long time, like me for example, did not bear any fruit of the Holy Spirit, how would i know i have the Holy Spirit in me if i don't speak in tongues which came out naturally out of my mouth? Is it by believing that i'm saved by faith and then work on bearing the fruits of the Holy Spirit in me with God's help?

If you reckon you've been a Christian for a long time, but give no evidence of the maturation of spiritual fruit in your life, then the simple fact of the matter would be this: you're not a Christian to begin with!

My best friend has attended a Baptist church many years ago and he heard about the Tongues from a friend of the same church who gave him a book about Tonugues being a beautiful language to God to read. He then received this language in his head and spoke forth a few foreign words slowly in his own quiet time with God after a year or two. He felt the difference in him. He has never felt so happy spiritually before. His brother also, received tongues a year or two later with a desire of wanting to receive it. His brother is still with a Baptist church.

Sure, but see my previous comments about the whole "tongues in your head" nonsense Wink

I had been with a few Spirit filled pentecostal churches after RFA but i'm thinking of settling in a Baptist church but i'm afraid that they are not "Spirit filled" as they don't "pray in tongues" and i'm also afraid that i may go to a "wrong" church which don't follow all what Apostle Paul had written in the New Testament (NT). For example if the married couples are to follow what Apostle Paul had written in the NT that how a marriage should work in the NT then it will worked for them ideally, does it mean that the churches have to follow what Apostle Paul said how a church should be operated in the NT? Not all churches in this modern day now operating as what the Apostle Paul had written in the NT. When RF tried to operate like what Apostla Paul had said for a church to operate in the gifts of tongues and prophecy when the Christians come together, they had done one thing "right" but have forgotten about other things what Apostle Paul had said about the forgiveness, compassion, love and grace of God and among the brothers and sisters.

I'd suggest this: ifyou're keen to find a church that more accurately reflects Paul's teachings, then the best thing that you could do (I would think) would be to flee from both Revivalism and Pentecostalism in general! I reckon you've been fooled into thinking that Paul's instruction to the Corinthian church was intended as a positive! Well, it wasn't.

Why do most churches now don't take Holy Communion on every Sundays? Some churches take once a month, once fortnightly, once every six months or once a year. Why do churches like Baptist, Anglican, etc do not take Holy Communion or recognise the gift of tongues which Apostle Paul talked about? Is taking Holy Communion together as a church important? Can i take Holy Communion myself everyday if the church i go to do not take Holy Communion at all? Should i stop praying in tongues totally if the church i go to don't practice praying in tongues? Or should i look for a church that prays in tongues, takes Holy Communion every Sunday, believes in mission work, does outreach, etc?

For starters, where in Scripture does it state that churches were supposed to take Communion weekly? I'd be really interested if you could find even one passage for me, because I've never been able to Innocent Now, and with respect to you taking "communion" by yourself, sorry, but think about what the word "communion" actually infers, and further, what the rite implies: it's a corporate thing, always was, always will be. In other words, in a Christian group context. Next, can I ask a personal question? Do you pray normally as much as (or perhaps even more than) you do in "tongues"? If not, why not? Third, why all the emphasis on, and concern with, "tongues" in any case? The apostle Paul didn't give the matter anywhere near the same degree of emphasis that you have shown thus far, or that Pentecostals give to the gift more generally. In fact, the impression that Paul presents is that an over-emphasis (perhaps fascination) with "tongues" is a sure sign of spiritual immaturity, and not the reverse!

Now my responses are probably not what you were hoping that I'd say! But I sincerely try to teach (in balance) what Scripture presents: I always have, and I always will
Wink

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Yirmeyahu_29_11 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Lurker
  • Score:220
  • Posts:11
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:28/05/2007 11:28 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:23/04/2008 4:31 AMCopy HTML

Thanks Ian for your honest reply  Smile

You asked me "Do you pray normally as much as (or perhaps even more than) you do in "tongues"? If not, why not?"
 
Well, I tried to pray more in english but find it hard sometimes as i have limited words to express and the words are not "well-flowed" when i prayed.  I am also very concsious in what i prayed in english if i was asked to pray aloud in a small group or one on one for another person at church.  I just can't find the the "right" words when i prayed in english for others as i have been praying in tongues for many years.

You said "If you reckon you've been a Christian for a long time, but give no evidence of the maturation of spiritual fruit in your life, then the simple fact of the matter would be this: you're not a Christian to begin with!"

That's true.  I think i did bear some fruits of the Spirit when i was with RF but after a few rejections from the pastor of RF when i asked him when i can go back and some members from RF, i became "evil" and "lose" all the fruits of the Spirit in me.  I became a very angry, impatient, non-gentle, non-long suffering, non-kindness, etc person for the past 10 years.....  I was all but behaving like a Christian....  I do whatever i want and have no control over my flesh and therefore i hurt many people who cared for me in my life..... When i had said or done something that was not right, my best friend would always asked me, "Are you a Christian?"  Then i was speechless........

Sometimes i felt like i'm a hypocrite.... I can be a nice person at other churches but deep down in my heart, i question about their (the church members) sincerity, their innocence, their purity in heart for God, their commitment to the church and God, is it for real or just "shows".....?  I have doubts in real, sincere Christians at other churches and i wish i do not have those thoughts when i had them.  I never had these kind of thoughts when i was with RF.

I only recollect myself recently to examine my walk with God and the fruits of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the NT though i have been to other churches after RFA for the past 10 years.  I started to ask myself what is my purpose on earth, what am i doing here, what's God's will and God's destiny for my life? 

Its really good to read your article here at the forum and helped me to see the basic foundation of a church which i should look out for.  Whenever i listened to Christian songs, this picture of Jesus will always appear in my head and i can see his grace, his smile, his gentleness and his patience, and it always clam my heart and my soul and reminds me to be like him and to imitate him as i grow in my Christian walk with him.

As for the Holy Communion, i've heard testimonies of individual people who took Holy Communion on their own or for someone's sickness or diseases, they were healed.  A teenage boy who was born with brain unequal size (one big, one small) gave his life to Jesus when he attended a church the first time.  After listening to faith preachings and the teachings of taking Holy Communion from his church's pastor, he decided to listen to a particular sermon on healing in a CD over and over again for many days and at the same time, took Holy Communion on his own 3 times a day together with his medicines.  About three months later prior to flying off to Switzerland in a few days time to have a major operation to his brain, he went to his doctor for checkup and the result came out that his brain has grown to equal, normal size, was healthy, and the function to his right arm was normal and that he joined the badminton team later and had won to represent his country for badminton tournaments.  He had been dreaming to be a badminton player for his country ever since he was a little boy but due to his brain size and the abnormal functions from the brain to his right arm, he could not do it.  It was a miracle and a dream restored to him indeed.

I also have heard of a member from that same church had holy communion on his own and on behalf of his mum when his mum was unconscious in the hospital near to death bed.  And after he took it for a few days, his mum came around and gave her life to Jesus and is attending the same church now. 

Look, I am not saying that nobody from that church died and no funeral held.  Its all between these people and God and their faith in Christ.  Its also all in God's timing how long we are going to live on this earth for.  Maybe most would be happy to die to be with Jesus than to dwell in this evil place or to continue to fight with incurable diseases.  Unless God has a purpose and a reason for them to live, to live to declare His love and His miracle to others- Christians and non-Christians, then the death would be timely as God don't make mistake.

What's your view, Ian?
Beholding Your beauty
Is all that I long for
To worship You Jesus
Is my sole desire
For this very heart
You have shaped for Your pleasure
Purposed to lift Your Name higher
Yirmeyahu_29_11 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Lurker
  • Score:220
  • Posts:11
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:28/05/2007 11:28 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:28/04/2008 4:23 AMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

Remember you've asked me to find you the scriptures that church should take holy communion weekly??

Well, i do not have the scripture i know of in the NT that a church should take holy communion weekly but i remember reading that when Jesus broke the bread and passed the cup to his disciples, he told them to take and eat the bread and the wine often in remembrance of him and to show the Lord's death till he comes.

So why are there some churches not practising in taking holy communion if Jesus had comanded his disciples to do so and also in the book of Acts, the disciples met with the believers everyday to pray and to take holy communion?

Why aren't the christians nowsaday don't meet everyday like the olden day saints??

Are the church leaders suppose to follow strictly what the bible mentioned or the bible is just a book contains many letters written by apostle paul to different churches at that time to exhort them, to bring them closer to God, so that we, who are in the modern day now, would learn and benefit from it by reading them?

Are the letters contained in the NT relevant to the christians in this modern day?

Which are the letters written by apostle paul would benefit us and that we should read and meditate them daily?

Many RF churches picked out the context from the NT and used them on their members and said that those are the words from God and we have to obey them.  For example, a RF group i know of stated that women should stay at home once she gives birth because there's a verse in the NT says that women should be a home maker.......  But what about Proverbs 31?  The woman in that chapter worked with her own hand and was a blessed mother with many children.

Can you please help me to understand since you've studied the bible?


Regards.
Beholding Your beauty
Is all that I long for
To worship You Jesus
Is my sole desire
For this very heart
You have shaped for Your pleasure
Purposed to lift Your Name higher
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:28/04/2008 1:00 PMCopy HTML

Well said Brolga and I thoroughly agree. Yirmeyahu, the best thing for you to do right now is to read through the whole N T and pray as you go that God will guide you through it. It is by revelation, i.e. God revealing Himself to us through His word, that our 'spiritual eyes' are opened and we can see the glory of God.

You ask "Which are the letters written by apostle paul would benefit us and that we should read and meditate them daily?"  My response is ' ALL of them' and sometimes we need to read again and again. I've found that I can read through eg 1 & 2 Corinthians one week and it's great but if I read it again several months later, there is something there that I didn't quite 'see' or understand before. The Holy Spirit illuminates scripture and highlights certain things we need to see at that particular time. I always start off reading the Word with prayer first, asking the Holy Spirit to illuminate the words and to let the words go deep within me. I would like to encourage you to do the same.

God bless, 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.
Yirmeyahu_29_11 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Lurker
  • Score:220
  • Posts:11
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:28/05/2007 11:28 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:29/04/2008 12:45 AMCopy HTML

Thank you Brolga and Sea Urchin for your helpful replies, i appreciate that.

I know what you both meant when it comes to reading God's word at different times would receive a different meaning and light to them.  I, too, have different versions bibles at home and sometimes i would looked up for different translations for the verses i read.

May i simply ask both of you how did you get over with RF and how long does it take for you to get over with them and move forward and not looking back?  Have you both wanted to go back because you missed the friends and the church activities there instead of following God's peace in your heart where He wants you to settle in a different church?

I'm facing this situation, again, right now..... on and off.... over the past couple of years ..... thinking of going back to RF or just settled in the church i'm going to now..... maybe the pastor in RF doesn't want me back at all......  That's why i got so confused with all the churches' different practices and got into what i mentioned in my above reply to Ian about my "mission, purpose, destiny" on earth mood. 

Life is really too short to look back at the past all the time and not move forward from it.  My best friend also got quite sick of me talking about RF, my good times in RF and the rejection i received from RF for the past 2 years though i have not been attending RF for the past 10 years, ha ha.......  He wished that i could just leave my past with RF totally and move forward and let God fulfils His purpose in my life for me.

I know that get over with the past totally can be for a while or forever depending how much i want to let go therefore i sincerely hope that you both can share with me your life experiences after RF.  Thank you.


Regards.
Beholding Your beauty
Is all that I long for
To worship You Jesus
Is my sole desire
For this very heart
You have shaped for Your pleasure
Purposed to lift Your Name higher
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:29/04/2008 9:05 AMCopy HTML

Hi Y,,,,,,, I have been out for around 10 years now and in general am very happy with where i am at in my walk and relationship with God.

I generally find that most people that have not experienced the rev ctrs etc have really no idea of what we are talking about and think we have come from outer space when we talk about it>

I also have some fond memories of times and people from my rcf/rci days and have in general have no bitterness in my heart to this group and people, my prayers are for those still involved and that they see that there is much more to God than what we have been led to believe in the "system"

So how long b4 you get over it,,,,,,,, some are quick some still working through it we are all at variouse points of our journey and it is a good journey i can assure you some times harder than others but worth it in the end.

Going back to there  ahhhhhh NO not for me anyway, i think once you have tasted the freedom that is in  christ you would be unwise to return.

People like me and urchin still have a bit to do with revers and are here to help those that we can in our own way, others like Ian are good for really challanging specific doctrines of the revivalist and to assist you there way  i can recomend the please consider site as have others.

Anyway may your journey be one that is of growth and renewal in your relationsship with God
e5
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:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:29/04/2008 10:22 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Jeremiah.

Remember you've asked me to find you the scriptures that church should take holy communion weekly?? Well, i do not have the scripture i know of in the NT that a church should take holy communion weekly but i remember reading that when Jesus broke the bread and passed the cup to his disciples, he told them to take and eat the bread and the wine often in remembrance of him and to show the Lord's death till he comes.

Sure, but that says nothing about taking Communion weekly, does it? The fact remains that there isn't a single Scripture that mandates how often Christians should take the Eucharist. What Scripture does mandate; however, is the continuance of the rite, nothing more.

So why are there some churches not practising in taking holy communion if Jesus had comanded his disciples to do so and also in the book of Acts, the disciples met with the believers everyday to pray and to take holy communion?

To begin with, I suppose you'd have to ask them, and not me. As far as I know, the only orthodox Christian denomination that doesn't take Communion (after one form or another) is the Salvation Army. They ceased the practice for two reasons, one theological, one practical. But first the practical: because Communion (quite rightly) involves the use of alcoholic wine, and given the number of recovering alcoholics in their ministry, it was felt that to offer Communion would be to "tempt some people beyond that which they could bear". WRT the theological reason, the SA understands the physical ordinances (Communion and baptism) to be, more or less redundant observances during the age of the Spirit.

Concerning your second point, Acts 2:46 states that the first Christians met in the Temple courts daily, and then by common consent. It would be wrong to assume that we must do the same today. Consider, where would we all gather together, and why would we gather at such a place to begin with? Further, would there exist common consent for us to do so? I doubt it! The original church had very good reasons for doing as they first did, but their doing so certainly wasn't intended as an observance in perpetuity! Second, the "breaking of bread from house to house" had less to do with the ordinance of Communion then it did with the mutual meeting of needs through shared meals. In short, you've read more into this passage than actually exists Wink

Why aren't the christians nowsaday don't meet everyday like the olden day saints??

And why should we? To do so would be to pander more to form than to function.

Are the church leaders suppose to follow strictly what the bible mentioned or the bible is just a book contains many letters written by apostle paul to different churches at that time to exhort them, to bring them closer to God, so that we, who are in the modern day now, would learn and benefit from it by reading them?

For starters, Paul wasn't the sole conrtibutor to the Bible (not even to the NT postion of the same). Secondly, I'm known to harp on about context for a reason: one simply doesn't naively replicate what one finds in Scripture as if that was all to be done! One needs to understand the range of contexts that underpin a given matter, so as to find the principles which are applicable to us, today. Otherwise we'd all be walking around in sandals and prayer shawls, speaking Hebrew and eating locusts and wild honey! Laughing

Are the letters contained in the NT relevant to the christians in this modern day? Which are the letters written by apostle paul would benefit us and that we should read and meditate them daily?

'Yes', and why limit yourself only to the letters that Paul wrote? I reckon we, as Christians, should meditate on books such as Numbers, just as much as we would on (say) Romans. But that's just me.

Many RF churches picked out the context from the NT and used them on their members and said that those are the words from God and we have to obey them. For example, a RF group i know of stated that women should stay at home once she gives birth because there's a verse in the NT says that women should be a home maker....... But what about Proverbs 31? The woman in that chapter worked with her own hand and was a blessed mother with many children.

Everyone is guilty to a greater or lesser degree of taking things out of context and building belief systems around "jots" and "tittles". You've demonstarted that you're just as guilty in your approach to Communion, for example Wink

I hope this has helped.

Blessings,

Ian


email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:30/04/2008 12:32 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Yirmeyahu_29_11 (21/04/2008 20:35:47)
Sometimes i felt  like i'm a hypocrite.... I can be a  nice person at other churches but deep down in my heart, i question about their (the church members) sincerity, their innocence, their purity in heart for God, their commitment to the church and God,  is it for real or just "shows".....?  I have doubts  in real, sincere Christians at other churches and i wish i do not have those thoughts when i had them.  I never had these kind of thoughts when i was with RF

anyone mentioned that its good to 'doubt'  - its 'normal' and perhaps as a result of thinking for yourself rather than the comfort of toeing the party line.
Its not possible for the brain to remain stagnant or should I say  to hold a thought endlessly without pause.

"hypocrite' ? why not re name that ? Everyone is entitled to change their minds - even fundamentalists such the Salvos cherry pick there way through the bible and create their own dogma...according to what is practical or useful to their particular needs.

I don't believe the bible 'mandates' anything  - that is a fundamentalists view.

I bid you ..
toodles!


Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:30/04/2008 12:45 AMCopy HTML

In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince people that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from. Christianity has nothing to offer a happy person living in a natural, intelligible universe. If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action. In the eyes of Christianity, woman(man) is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.

WRONG !

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:30/04/2008 1:07 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest (29/04/2008 18:45:25)

In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince people that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from. Christianity has nothing to offer a happy person living in a natural, intelligible universe. If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action. In the eyes of Christianity, woman(man) is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.

WRONG !



Wrong? Does that mean there is a 'right'?

One only version of what is 'right'? or can there be many..many 'right's'?

Don't be so silly!
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:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:30/04/2008 1:08 AMCopy HTML

Good morning, Guest.

In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife; but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince people that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from.

I don't think you properly understand what Christianity is on about, or what it intended theologically by the term "salvation".

Christianity has nothing to offer a happy person living in a natural, intelligible universe.

Possibly. But I suppose there might be millions of happy Christian people who would likely disagree with you. Just a thought.

If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action.

Nope.

In the eyes of Christianity, woman(man) is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of hell.

Nope. The message of Christianity actually did much more to liberate women (and men), and engender (boom, boom) within them a sense of their inate worth and dignity, than you have credited it with. Your gripe seems to be with any number of fallible (and inculturated) interpretations of Christianity, rather than with the source faith itself.

Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.

You think Christianity seeks to destroy "reason"? Could you please elaborate for me what you mean by this comment?

WRONG !

Absolutely! Wink

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:30/04/2008 1:20 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon (29/04/2008 19:08:00)


Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.

You think Christianity seeks to destroy "reason"? Could you please elaborate for me what you mean by this comment?

WRONG !

Absolutely! Wink

Blessings,

Ian



Interesting defense reaction from you both.. "absolutely wrong' ? Goodness me! And you ask for examples of 'reason'. ?


Perhaps you'd like to critic the entire works of George H. Smith and not just one quote that appears on the signature piece of my Aimoo post.
Like I said to the last poster


Wrong? Does that mean there is a 'right'? - absolute 'truth'?

One only version of what is 'right'? or can there be many..many 'right's'?

Don't be so silly!

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:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:30/04/2008 1:36 AMCopy HTML

Polish Princess,
Long time, no sneer. So how's that Qld ganja? Still good? Wink

But to move forwards, I think you misunderstood the thrust of my previous post: my response was anything but a defensive reaction. Iactually like to have people tease out what they mean, simply because I've discovered that a good many of them don't actually know what they mean, to begin with.

Further, I couldn't be bothered critiquing Smith's work; I think it would be a far more productive use of my time critiquing your understanding of the issues that he raises Innocent So how about it? Are you up to having your philosophies and opinions put through the "wringer" of good old fashioned, informed and "reasoned" debate? We could start with your naive existentialist leanings on the subject of objective truth, if you'd like.

Cheerio,

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

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:30/04/2008 10:59 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon (29/04/2008 19:36:30)
Polish Princess,
Long time, no sneer. So how's that Qld ganja? Still good? Wink

But to move forwards, I think you misunderstood the thrust of my previous post: my response was anything but a defensive reaction. Iactually like to have people tease out what they mean, simply because I've discovered that a good many of them don't actually know what they mean, to begin with.

Further, I couldn't be bothered critiquing Smith's work; I think it would be a far more productive use of my time critiquing your understanding of the issues that he raises Innocent So how about it? Are you up to having your philosophies and opinions put through the "wringer" of good old fashioned, informed and "reasoned" debate? We could start with your naive existentialist leanings on the subject of objective truth, if you'd like.

Cheerio,

Ian


(Message edited by Didaktikon on 29/04/2008 21:28:56)

Ooo...you are so cute & charming - 'polish princess' .. I'm flattered you remember me still.

Defence - I take it you're not so happy with that situation and would like to do a belated ' turn  around ' by 'challenging' me to some kind of cyber duel? How cute.

'Truth' ...lets see? Lets start here...what do you mean in this sentence ?  quotes...

"Iactually like to have people tease out what they mean, simply because I've discovered that a good many of them don't actually know what they mean, to begin with."


Perhaps we could shift to another thread ..I'd hate to disrupt this conversation anymore than I already have.

I bid you..
toodles!
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Are RF correct in some areas?

Date Posted:10/01/2009 2:51 PMCopy HTML

The case against George Smith

In exchange for obedience, Christianity promises salvation in an afterlife;

We believe that the Father sent the Son for us, who voluntarily gave His life.. We do not deny the testimony concerning His Son. It is our will to do his commandments and this is not out of obligatory fear. The obedience is something that naturally comes when our hearts are focussed on God because the Holy Spirit strengthens us against the sinful desires of the flesh. Who defines sinful desires? The God of creation!

but in order to elicit obedience through this promise, Christianity must convince people that they need salvation, that there is something to be saved from.

We have God's Word and in the book of Genesis we are shown what happened and why we need to be saved. There is no need for 'convincing' because the narrative is there for you to folllow quite clearly. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Christianity has nothing to offer a happy person living in a natural, intelligible universe.

Define natural! What does intelligible mean without a source of intelligence ;) Christianity offers an eternal promise! The quasi pagan evolutionary theories, which are already disproved, offer nothing but death in every sense of the word.

If Christianity is to gain a motivational foothold, it must declare war on earthly pleasure and happiness, and this, historically, has been its precise course of action.

True happiness is with God because He is love. You cannot be truly happy without love, therefore without God, there is no true happiness. The happiness inferred above seems to be of the outward manifestation of the sins of the flesh and not real happiness.

In the eyes of Christianity, woman(man) is sinful and helpless in the face of God, and is potential fuel for the flames of hell. Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation.

Rubbish regarding the happiness, (see my response before). Also, define reason! On what is this reason founded? Once again, God is Wisdom! The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise and they are futile and that basically sums up all the red writing I quoted in the above passage. It is interesting that when all the lofty wording and long phrases are broken down; what seems intelligent to the ignorant, is actually very empty in substance and thought.

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