Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > The Back Room - Come in for SUPPER > Modbox Go to subcategory:
Author Content
MothandRust
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Date Posted:11/12/2008 7:22 AMCopy HTML

RDP: it would be far easier to stay where its familiar and comfortable but, as we are here to please God and not 'man' -the pastors and even lifelong friends in my case, we must up and follow Jesus and not be... Ephesians 4:14:That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive"
11 Dec 08, 10:20
Didaktikon: RDP. Often the deception isn't intentional, it's simply due to ignorance (and in some cases, stupidity). Ian
11 Dec 08, 10:20
RDP: -not that its always intentional -but really, only God knows the hearts, and whether intentional or not, what matters is what is RIGHT.
11 Dec 08, 10:20
RDP: ha Ian -you beat me to it.
11 Dec 08, 10:22
Didaktikon: RDP. I'd suggest that there will always be error, no matter which church one affiliates with. The issues are: (1) how much error one is aware of, (2) how much error one is prepared to accommodate, and (3) the nature of the errors. Ian
11 Dec 08, 10:24
RDP: I was more referring though to what I saw on Sunday at the Edge... "I just saw a vision on Light Square" etc man rather than my dear old ex-pastors, who many I do believe, believe what they do in earnest -they too are simply victims of a 'lie' -not necessarily an intentional one - passed down from one generation to the next (like you said or someone did ignorance breeds ignorance)
11 Dec 08, 10:27
Didaktikon: RDP. My opinions of the "Edge" are well documented here. Suffice it to say, for a group of pastors who apparently "hear from God" all the time, they were fooled by a con emanating from within their own ranks. Apparently God only cares about the "grand vision", and not the issue of abuse of trust :/ Ian
11 Dec 08, 10:29
RDP: In RF addressing 1.,2., and 3... 1&2. Until recently, we have tolerated a huge amount of detected error but went on in hope anyway until.. 3. the nature of the more fundamental errors, with regards to the core of the doctrine.. once detected could not be ignored, or tolerated.
11 Dec 08, 10:30
RDP: Ian. re the Edge: agreed.
11 Dec 08, 10:31
RDP: Its one thing to forgive, but fooled once: shame on you, fooled twice, shame on me.
11 Dec 08, 10:34
Didaktikon: RDP. Forgiveness is a "given". However, one doesn't need to knowingly be party to ongoing error. One must decide for oneself, just what one is prepared to accept. Having spent years researching and considering the matter of Pentecostalism, I decided there was simply far too much "leaven" in the mix for me. Consequently, I won't support (or "wink") something that I consider to be profoundly in error. Ian
11 Dec 08, 10:35
Didaktikon: RDP. A very few here will say, "not so"; but none have offered a single response that addresses the core issues. All that you will find is the "one body" defence. Ian
11 Dec 08, 10:36
Didaktikon: RDP. And that is no credible defence at all. It is little more than an excuse for continuing to support error. Ian
11 Dec 08, 10:36
Didaktikon: RDP. Whether actively or passively. Ian
11 Dec 08, 10:38
Didaktikon: RDP. Consider sin as analogous: there are sins of COMMISSION, and sins of OMISSION. Both, however, describes what is sin. So too the "passive" versus "active" argument. Ian
11 Dec 08, 11:09
RDP: Ian. My 'wink' was in reference to understanding why you didnt want to tell me about your non 'Adiaphora' comments rather than referring to the Pente crowd being "good/safe" (just in case that was misunderstood)
11 Dec 08, 11:14
Didaktikon: RDP. It wasn't. Ian
11 Dec 08, 11:36
RDP: so, and this is confusing due to "Revival fog", if Forgiveness is a given what about Rev 22:18,19 In particular And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. %D�nd also, to him who know to do good and does it not, it is sin .. somewhere else in Bible.. is it therefore "not sin" to preach tongues is required to be saved if one believes it is correct -ie. most in RF ?
11 Dec 08, 12:01
RDP: James 4:17 Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin" (NKJV)
11 Dec 08, 12:06
Didaktikon: RDP. The forgiveness of which I spoke was that from us to them. Ian
11 Dec 08, 12:07
Didaktikon: RDP. As for the whole "preaching tongues" nonsense of the Revivalists, I'd suggest you quickly browse through Galatians 1:6-9. Ian
11 Dec 08, 13:26
RDP: funnily enough, i have used this one recently in explaining departure from RF
11 Dec 08, 13:29
Didaktikon: RDP. That being the case, I'm surprised you needed to ask the question. Ian
11 Dec 08, 13:43
RDP: well, as I'm not a Theologian, and from a revival background of unintentionally quoting scripture out of context was interested to see if you concurred. :)
11 Dec 08, 13:47
RDP: again, only just emerging out of the "revival fog"
11 Dec 08, 13:47
RDP: my very foundations have had to be totally re-examined
11 Dec 08, 13:54
Didaktikon: RDP. Indeed. Kudos to you for recognising as much. And to restate my earlier advice: steer clear of the Pentes! Ian
11 Dec 08, 13:56
urchin: RDP:"Please don't take it personally Urch." Hi RDP, it's OK, I don't! But looks like you'd better 'steer clear' of me - I'm obviously a loopy pente LOL Urch
11 Dec 08, 14:03
Didaktikon: Urch. Well, you certainly DO associate with said loopy Pentes. I guess it must be that your tolerance threshold for spiritual error far exceeds my own :glad: Ian
11 Dec 08, 14:03
urchin: Just for the record - I don't totally disagree with what you say regarding pentecostal churches Ian. I see things that I disagree with in some of these churches but I also see that God moves in the lives of those who love Him and live for Him - regardless of where they fellowship, be it Catholic, Pente, Anglican, Baptist etc etc. Urching
11 Dec 08, 14:06
urchin: I have a very high 'tolerance' for people searching for a relationship with God (as I said) regardless of which church they attend. It isn't 'church' that defines our relationship with God
11 Dec 08, 14:07
Didaktikon: Urch. Yes, such appears to be your 'mantra'. However, Scripture is explicitly clear that we are not to accommodate spiritual error when we become aware of it. Heresy, by definition, begins from within the Church rather than from without. Ian
11 Dec 08, 14:08
Didaktikon: Urch. Consider, why leave the RCI/RF to simply embrace the same error, packaged slightly differently, eh? Ian
11 Dec 08, 14:09
Didaktikon: Urch. And btw, I think you'll find that eccesiology is much, much more important WRT acceptance orrejection by God than you credit it being. Just a thought. Ian
11 Dec 08, 14:11
Didaktikon: Urch. personally, I don't think you've thought through the question, "what IS the Church" adequately. Ian
11 Dec 08, 14:33
urchin: Sorry, got busy
11 Dec 08, 14:51
urchin: Ian, could you please expand on your statement "I think you'll find that eccesiology is much, much more important WRT acceptance orrejection by God than you credit it being". I don't understand this concept of being 'accepted or rejected by God' - are you suggesting that our very salvation is dependant on which church we attend, and if so, where does grace come into it?
11 Dec 08, 14:57
Didaktikon: Urch. What I suggested was that you don't have a particularly good grasp of ecclesiology, and its implications; consequently, you view salvation largely in terms of the individual. I would suggest that Scripture informs us quite differently. As an aside, evangelicals are weakest in their doctrine of the Church, whilst Pentecostals don't even have a doctrine of the Church! Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:03
RDP: Ian in reference to your comment to Urch: 'you view salvation largely in terms of the individual. I would suggest that Scripture informs us quite differently' but didn't you say a while back last week or something, that there are Christians within "unchristian churches" such as RF?
11 Dec 08, 15:04
Didaktikon: RDP. I did. So? Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:06
RDP: Well then I'm confused. How can salvation not be viewd in terms of the individual in that case?
11 Dec 08, 15:07
urchin: A 'doctrine of the church"? Sorry to be so thick (ha ha) but by a 'doctine' do you mean a definition of the church?
11 Dec 08, 15:08
Didaktikon: RDP. You ARE confused. You've confused the concept of the individual in company with the community. Westerners seem to emphasise the salvation of the individual, the entire biblical culture mitigates against this, emphasising instead the salvation and trsnaformation of the community. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:08
Didaktikon: Urch. 'No', I mean a doctrine of the Church, i.e. ecclesiology. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:10
Didaktikon: Urch. I keep forgetting, given where and with who you fellowship, that you're not likely to have been exposed to much in the way of theological teaching. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:12
Didaktikon: Urch. In a nutshell, ecclesiology deals with the Christian understanding of (1) what IS the Church, (2) what is the PURPOSE of the Church, (3) what is the ROLE of the church in mediating grace, et cetera. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:12
RDP: Yes, fair enough but within a church there may be those individuals who unwittingly believe a lie and those who promote a lie (deceivers) (not necessarily RF, but quite possibly 'pentes'). So, then maybe some are Christians and some are unchristiansie. like how one will be left in the field and one will go to be with the Lord?
11 Dec 08, 15:13
RDP: so then when you talk about salvation of the community of a church this then overlooks the 'good' and 'bad' individuals. How is it fair to judge them as a whole?
11 Dec 08, 15:14
Didaktikon: RDP. The issue, as with most things, boils down to intent. Scripture speaks at length about the communion of believers, the very word often translated "fellowship" properly means "participation". The question then becomes, what do we CHOOSE to "participate" in? To what do we willingly become "unequally yoked" to, as it were? Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:15
Didaktikon: RDP. I commend a close reading of Paul's letters to you. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:17
Didaktikon: RDP. These are issues of considerable importance, but about which most Pente's and Revivalists remain blissfully unaware. Chock it down to theological naivety and woeful teaching. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:19
urchin: Well Ian, I obviously WANT deeper theological teaching - if that's what it takes to develop an even deeper relationship with my saviour.
11 Dec 08, 15:20
RDP: So, if I am to understand correctly, even if one is simply a 'victim' of a false doctrine, in that they do not realise it is one, they are still considered party to it, according to the Bible, because of their communion with the rest, and passive state in not pursuing the truth of the matter but rather blindly following and accepting a 'man's' doctrine. ?.
11 Dec 08, 15:20
Didaktikon: Urch. You should also consider the horizontal aspect of salvation as well: it's not all about the vertical relationship that you have with Jesus Christ. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:22
Didaktikon: RDP. Pretty much, although I might qualify matters somewhat differently. When Luke recorded the incident involving Ananias and Sapphira, he was making an oblique reference to the events involving Achan and the Israelites. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:22
Didaktikon: Urch. If you WANT deeper theological teaching, then you might have to part company with the theological lightweights. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:24
urchin: Ian, the horizontal aspect of 'salvation' being?
11 Dec 08, 15:24
Didaktikon: Urch. I briefly mentioned this is one of my essays at "PleaseConsider", the one dealing with (surprise, surprise) "Salvation". Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:31
urchin: Well, I guess I can always 'tap into' the theological heavyweight alias I AN?
11 Dec 08, 15:33
Didaktikon: Urch. I suppose you'll have to. There aren't any in your immediate church circle. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:34
RDP: are you referring in particular to Josh 7 v 24 "Then all Israel stoned him, [Achan] and after they had stoned *the rest*, they burned them" in that story? as in they were all punished for Achan's 'crime' of hiding the 'goods'?
11 Dec 08, 15:34
Didaktikon: RDP. Are you aware of any other Achans? Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:35
RDP: nope.
11 Dec 08, 15:35
Didaktikon: RDP. Then he must be the one. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:40
Didaktikon: Well that's enough from me for one day. Shalom. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:41
urchin: catchya
11 Dec 08, 15:42
RDP: However, what about the parable in Luke 12 that Jesus gives about the 2 servants: 'If servants are not ready or willing to do what their master wants them to do, they will be beaten hard. 48But servants who don't know what their master wants them to do will not be beaten so hard for doing wrong."
11 Dec 08, 15:42
RDP: I have to wait until tomorrow??
11 Dec 08, 15:42
Didaktikon: RDP. Did you not notice that they were STILL beaten? Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:43
RDP: yes. so then that makes me wonder about all the levels of heaven and hell the Catholics talk about -surely not?
11 Dec 08, 15:43
Didaktikon: RDP. Besides that excuse won't fly. We HAVE the Bible, so there remains no excuse for ignorance. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:45
RDP: My concern lies still with those who unwittingly believe a lie rather than an excuse for myself.
11 Dec 08, 15:46
Didaktikon: RDP. If they have access to the truth (God's Word), then they are without excuse. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:46
RDP: Hence your calling here?
11 Dec 08, 15:47
Didaktikon: RDP. Hence my ministry here. Ian
11 Dec 08, 15:47
RDP: Wow. That's cool.
11 Dec 08, 15:47
Didaktikon: RDP. Some don't think so. Ian
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.