FWW, I was told  Barry is now fellowshipping with RF Geelong. Won't suprise me the musical duo follow suite. Sad, very sad indeed.

In the same way that Christ forgave the repentant adulterous women. God knows our weaknesses which is why we are covered by Christ's righteousness. The old testament proved it was virtually impossible for human kind to follow the letter of the law. Doesn't mean we don't try and put our best foot forward but at least we are covered when we stuff up.

Anyway, who are you to cast the first stone. Just look at your own pathetic f***ed up life. Didn't one of your best friends do the same? Bet you don't treat him like dirt you hypocrite.
 

Actually referring to the father, don’t know of any other situation. Bottom line is; leave things alone so that they can get on with their personal lives. Not any of our business and really, what does it achieve? Enough said.

Just because he never confessed his sin to you or the Pastor is of no consequence. There is only one he needed to confess to and that is God. The parties concerned privately put themselves out of fellowship and was no one elses business except their own. It was only when meddling self righteous assembly members and the oversight got involved after the fact that things went from bad to worse for their respective families

The way I see it, this person has confessed his sin and repented of the error of his way. I believe the marriage was salvaged and doing fine.

Just because he never confessed his sin to you or the Pastor  is of no consequence. There is only one he needed to confess to and that is God.

Just to clarify; I didn’t say it was of any consequence whether he confessed to me or anyone else (though the person I was referring to did confess to his 'Pastor" in letter form and that was passed on to everyone else in that assembly). 

I was directing that to the marriage situation as Ian said: “Scripture presents the idea that confessing one's sins to those directly wronged by them is a necessary step in the process of repentance and restoration”. But let’s not overlook scripture also says confess your sins to each other....James 5:16, especially when it comes to prayer for sickness.

Although to be fair Ralph I do think that some explanation had to be given to the assembly as to why their star elder had suddenly disappeared from view. Imagine the rumours if nothing had been said. However I do agree that there were comments made that night about other individuals who had erred and did not have a prominent role in the church which were totally unnecessary.

Again you seem to miss or not address my main point Ian. Surely you can acknowledge that if one is (unwittingly) negatively impacting on many who come here and their enjoyment and use of the forum, (even if that is their fault for not knowing how to deal with your personality or even if you don't think we contribute any meaningful discussion), then perhaps it is prudent to not be so involved in their postings particularly when you know your involment is likely to cause negative upset. I know this may seem grossly unfair to you but it would help heaps at our end. Thank you.

So Ian are you saying that even if a poll showed the majority of ex GRCers who come here did not appreciate your involvement, you would still totally ignore how it was negatively affecting them (from their point of view) and stubbornly continue to interfere in their business despite them?

If that's not an example of stand over tactics bullying then what is?

Sorry to say ian loves the power he has here, he is just as evil as hollins adisson and co. and just as delusional.
How can a christian continue a career in the army knowing he may be placed in a position to kill another human being.
The man is just one of the many who claim authority and will receive a just reward when HE IS judged.
The sad thing is some leave these cults and turn feral(drugs fornication etc)others like the self righteous nobs here fill their lives with theological pursuits and think they think they have the right to shove THEIR interpretations down our throats.JUST LIKE hollins and co.,AND are NO better off as those who have become feral.

Aha! My young South Australian friend!

Well here you go again Ian, revealing details about the poster that I am sure were not authorised by them

 I've claimed no authority other than that which has been properly delegated to me. But unlike you I have more than simply personal opinions to share about what the Bible teaches.

What authority delegated them to you? As far as I can tell they are still just your opinions about Scripture based on others opinions written in ancient text.

And as stated before we are not interested in what you think Scripture properly teaches. Many of us who have just come out of an abusive situation are quick to recognise similar abusive controlling behaviour with your slide rule type analysis of scripture and pig headed insistence of it being correct. You thinking you know what scripture properly teaches does not of its self make it so.

SPEAKING PERSONALLY:  In another post I asked you to prove to me your claim that all scripture is from God himself and therefore must be followed. A reasonable enough question I would have thought particularly if you are going to shove your view down our throat as if it is correct and must be obeyed. The best you could give me was a smug cop out that the rules of debate demand that it is in fact I who has to prove to you that they aren't of God, even though I am not the one making the claim. 

This is the reason I question your hard line so called authority. Obviously until you are able to first prove to me that all scripture is of God there is absolutely no point proceeding any further with your dogmatic views because at best they are just your opinion about what God requires (as wonderful as your opinion may be). Until then we may as well be discussing your well studied opinion of Shakespeare for what it would be worth.

PS: Ian, if you are ever able to get past your debating rule book I would still be very interested for you to prove to me how one can reasonably know that scripture is from God himself and not just a wonderful historical collection of experiences and thoughts on what people down through the ages think God is and requires.

================
Aha! My young South Australian friend! Well here you go again Ian, revealing details about the poster that I am sure were not authorised by them. Please review an earlier post wherein I discussed my approach to those whose actions are malicious and/or slanderous (i.e. #34). As it is I revealed only the state in which our correspondent resides; I could've revealed more had I wished to ;)

This post didn't come across to me as being particularly slanderous, more frustration. I thought s/he was bringing up a valid observation about your behaviour. Oh well, I guess some of us are just a little more thin skinned than others.

=================


My authority is the Christian Church. I've been called by her to teach Scripture

Not sure what you meant by 'called'. Were you approached by some Christian organisation or did you get a warm fuzzy feeling that it was the right thing to do?

============================

For interest's sake is there any particular reason that you didn't comment on the second part of my statement? You know? The bit where I stated, 'And, again unlike you, I have complete assurance of my eternal hope and future'. Mine was a fairly significant claim to be making, don't you think?

I did not comment on this point as it something that we both share in common (as I guess so do all the Muslim suicide bombers... although their end sounds even better what with all those virgins waiting for them)

=================

I harbor grave doubts that you're the authorised spokesperson for all former GRC-ers on the matter, that is the first person plural pronoun 'we' that you trot out with great regularity. To use your own argument: 'what authority delegated you?'

First of all I am not claiming to be the authorised spokesperson for God nor am I trotting out my opinion on Scripture as if I am. Secondly, it is correct that no one has appointed me, but having spoken to quite a number ex GRCers I do know what many think of your behaviour in this forum ie It is not just me.

==============================

And yet you were completely unable to identify incorrect biblical interpretation and teaching when a Revivalist

Right back at you. And obviously neither did you when you were a Revivalist. Why do you think I left Goose?

======================

You thinking you know what scripture properly teaches does not of its self make it so. Indeed. But teaching what the historic Christian Church has taught from the beginning makes it so, and having the appropriate skills necessary to exegete Scripture properly also makes it so.

I suppose the quack doctors of centuries ago used the very same type of argument to support their reasons for using totally inappropriate and bogus means and methods for treating their patients. "We are using the same authentic methods taught from the beginning. I have studied this and the training I have received is recognised by most of the other quack doctors. So accept what I say because I am right and know better than you". And no doubt from time to time someone did get better, despite their methods, and became a convert of Ian :o)

I mean there may be some merit in your argument if the original source of Scripture is directly coming from who it claims it is (God himself) and its translation through the centuries is 100% correct and true (see next point) as opposed to you just studying and learning someone elses observations and opinions of God 

=====================

In another post I asked you to prove to me your claim that all scripture is from God himself and therefore must be followed. A reasonable enough question I would have thought particularly if you are going to shove your view down our throat as if it is correct and must be obeyed. The best you could give me was a smug cop out that the rules of debate demand that it is in fact I who has to prove to you that they aren't of God, even though I am not the one making the claim. As I recall that wasn't quite what I said at all. The answer, however, is simple enough. Jesus Christ said that Scripture is God's Word. Ultimately, then, this is a question of first principles and intrinsic (rather than extrinsic) authority :)  As it is I've addressed the subject of your apparent interest in considerable detail over several threads scattered across this forum. Seek out these discussions, as there's little to be gained from me rehearsing the matter afresh, again (and again, and again and ... )

Obviously if you had answered the question properly or honestly in the first place without constantly ducking and weaving and bogging the discussion down with complicated procedures and archaic language then we wouldn't be continuing to have this conversation. 

Paradoxically you then treat us like complete idiots when you trot out a meaningless statement like: The way we can know for sure whether a particular text is from God himself or not is...  if someone prominent is reported as having said it is 2000 years ago  ("Jesus Christ said that Scripture is God's Word"). I may have been stupid enough to swallow that without question back in the GRC but not anymore.

It is a very simple question which deserves a simple but valid honest answer. I mean if it all just comes back to Faith or if we are just talking about a historical concept of God then just be honest and say so. I may bring it up again in a more appropriate spot.