Okay laughing-boy, let's hope you don't use your same old nasty tactics, huh? To list a few.

I promise not to create pretend user-names to agree with my arguments. Will you?

I promise not to create a whole other forum called "Tony Barton the Heretic". Will you?

I promise not to call into question and judge 'your' salvation. Will you?

I promise not to attack you personally and respect you as a decent fellow human. Will I get as much courtesy? I hope so.

Commendation for a job well done:

 Hi all: I just wanted to commend Ian and drew for a job well done. When I started my studies on their work I really didn’t expect very much. Over the years I have found myself debating one on one with many an Orthodox preacher. I figured Ian to be a Baptist or maybe a Methodist. But after reading through the great amount of work both he and Drew have put into “Please Consider” I am truly impressed.

The straight out reading of the scriptures are crystal clear. Acts 2:38 couldn’t capture this any better. The whole purpose of Jesus coming into this sinful world was to make available the opportunity for men and women to be filled from head to toe with the Holy Ghost. The way that Ian especially was able to masterfully explain away the scriptures is a credit to his great skill as a Theologian.

I mean think about it. To be able to take statements as clear as “Repent, and be baptized every one of you” and make it an optional extra. BRILLIANT!

To take a room where the Bible goes to the trouble of giving an actual number (~120) and convince people there were actually only 12 to negate their need to seek for the Spirit.. BRILLIANT!

To systematically take every affirmative statement throughout the Book of Acts, toss it up in the air like a pizza (with enough SPIN) and present it as the exact opposite. BRILLIANT!

I am truly thankful, I am actually having to really think (Work the problem, so to speak!)

Think about this for a moment.

Imagine if you were Satan and you wanted to stop people from receiving the Holy Ghost. What would you do?

Especially given that People are always going to seek God, it’s innate.

1)      “Like a needle in the hay stack”

It’s simple really; in legal jargon they call it a snow job. Here’s how it works.

By law if there is a document that is requested by your opponent you must hand it over. So what you do is give them 20,000 pages more than they need. It makes it almost impossible for them to find the one they need. That is the first ploy that Satan has used.

2)      Rat poison

If you give a rat poison they will not eat it. So what you do is give the rat 99% nutritious food and 1% arsenic. That’s the second thing Satan does he makes sure his people are  giving  (preaching) good food as long as it has enough poison in it to kill them.

Now the $64,000 question

The Baptists would say that they are right and the Catholics are giving poison. Ian would say that orthodox is right and Revivalist are giving poison. Moslems would say we all are giving people poison. WHO IS RIGHT?

 Well this brings me to my favourite.

3)      The weakest link

Jesus came to give us the Holy Ghost. Now this is a totally supernatural experience where God’s Spirit and your Spirit became one Spirit thus making unity. Ephesians 2:16 “to make in himself of twain one new man” Now what is Satan’s strategy? Well he doesn’t mind if you go to church, he doesn’t mind if you pray, he doesn’t even mind that much if you get baptised in water. But the number one target for Satan is to stop you from receiving the Holy Ghost.

But how can he stop you from receiving the Holy Ghost if you are going to seek it?

Eureka!!! I have it! Get people to think that they already have it.

I mean you are not going to seek something you already believe you have are you?

But how are we going to do that?

Eureka!!! Re-define the terms of reference in the Bible. Keep driving to the lesser. In other words get people so driven to convince others that they don’t need to seek God for the infilling of the Holy Ghost (because they already have it DAH!) and then they can praise and sing to their hearts content and Satan wins.

Now that’s a strategy. Shhhhh Don’t let Satan know or we are all in some trouble.

Now I don’t want to come off as an alarmist but the clearest identifier of those who are found to be actually working (unknowingly) for Satan is that they drive to the lesser or to people not being filled as opposed to people being filled in like manner to those in the early church.

These same people call me a liar, a hypocrite a false witness etc. So what should you think about me and they? Well have a read of this and consider as if your life depended on it Brothers and sisters.

2Co 11:12  But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we. 2Co 11:13  For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 2Co 11:14  And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 2Co 11:15  Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Now I wasn’t being sarcastic when I said “after reading through the great amount of work both he and Drew have put into “Please Consider” I am truly impressed.” (ok maybe a little) I am going through his work and the more I do the more insipid and deceptively clever I find it to be. It has taken centuries no doubt to perfect this false gospel (and it shows) but at the end of the day. My God answers by Fire (signs, wonders and miracles) if this is not the case for you then all I can say is something’s broke and it isn’t God.

Please Consider!

Luke 7:35

Reply to Luke 7:35

I mean think about it. To be able to take statements as clear as “Repent, and be baptized every one of you” and make it an optional extra. BRILLIANT!

So Luke, can you explain to me why so many people who were filled with the holy spirit in the revival centres never became more christlike, never cared one iota about love or the people they were supposed to be "Helping in their joy". Why was it that the assembly was always rife with bitching, gossiping and sucking up to the in group? Tell me what being filled with the holy spirit actually DID for these people?

Good morning, Tony.

Sad to see that not too much has changed with your posting style, although it was pleasing to note that you didn't go overboard with the colours, and that you managed to keep yourself below the magical 10,000 word count! Anyway, enough for my attempt at "sarcasm-in-kind", time now to address your attempted "exegeses" (I'm not sure if there's too much that I can add given that John, Thommo and Epi got in before me).

I mean think about it. To be able to take statements as clear as “Repent, and be baptized every one of you” and make it an optional extra. BRILLIANT! Excepting for the fact that I've nowhere and at no time made Acts 2:38 into an optional extra. I'm actually on record stating it to be a very clear command (i.e. an "imperative"), one that if followed would result in a covenant promise being fulfilled. What I have done, however, is point out the important issues relating to context: describing what the passage says, and to whom it says what it says. But unlike you I didn't read Acts 2:38 through an imposed/artificial pre-understanding.

To take a room where the Bible goes to the trouble of giving an actual number (~120) and convince people there were actually only 12 to negate their need to seek for the Spirit.. BRILLIANT! Two requests, if I may? First, could you please indicate for me where the passage says 120 people were in a "room"? Second, could you please indicate for me where the passage says that they needed to seek for the Spirit?

To systematically take every affirmative statement throughout the Book of Acts, toss it up in the air like a pizza (with enough SPIN) and present it as the exact opposite. BRILLIANT! Or perhaps, to simply affirm every affirmative statement by explicating them in such a way as to identify their individual meanings(in context), and then without the need to resorting to Revivalist "spin"?

Imagine if you were Satan and you wanted to stop people from receiving the Holy Ghost. What would you do? I don't know. Perhaps I'd attempt to confuse the simple gospel of grace to such an extent that I'd be able to convince people that a natural and coached "experience", one undertaken in a completely contrived setting, was somehow "supernatural" and "definitive"?

Jesus came to give us the Holy Ghost. Now this is a totally supernatural experience where God’s Spirit and your Spirit became one Spirit thus making unity. Ephesians 2:16 “to make in himself of twain one new man” Now what is Satan’s strategy? Well he doesn’t mind if you go to church, he doesn’t mind if you pray, he doesn’t even mind that much if you get baptised in water. But the number one target for Satan is to stop you from receiving the Holy Ghost. Interesting. I was under the distinct impression that Jesus came to effect atonement? Anyway, were you actually suggesting by "...God’s Spirit and your Spirit became one Spirit thus making unity..." that God's incorruptible nature (i.e. his Spirit) combines with our corruptible one (i.e. our spirit), the end result being a single, unified spirit? If you are, then I'd suggest that you try a little theological reflection and recant before I lower the boom for all to see on this particular heresy.

But how can he stop you from receiving the Holy Ghost if you are going to seek it? Two things. First, please delete "it" and insert "him". Second, to repeat myself, where in Scripture are we admonished to "seek" for the Holy Spirit?

Eureka!!! I have it! Get people to think that they already have it. "It"?

I mean you are not going to seek something you already believe you have are you? Speaking for myself, I'm not going  to "seek" after anything that Scripture doesn't tell me to seek. Why would I?!

Eureka!!! Re-define the terms of reference in the Bible. Keep driving to the lesser. In other words get people so driven to convince others that they don’t need to seek God for the infilling of the Holy Ghost (because they already have it DAH!) and then they can praise and sing to their hearts content and Satan wins. Again, "it"?! Re-defining the terms? Are you being self-reflective? Or are you supposedly referring to me?

Now I don’t want to come off as an alarmist but the clearest identifier of those who are found to be actually working (unknowingly) for Satan is that they drive to the lesser or to people not being filled as opposed to people being filled in like manner to those in the early church. Sure. But I've pointed out to you that you've been doing this for years, so I don't think you can really claim the "unknowingly" defence. Oh! Were you talking about me?

These same people call me a liar, a hypocrite a false witness etc. So what should you think about me and they? Well have a read of this and consider as if your life depended on it Brothers and sisters. I thought you were called a liar because you were caught out in your lies? And a hypocrite because your actions exposed your hypocrisy? And a false witness because you continue to bear false witness?

Now I wasn’t being sarcastic when I said “after reading through the great amount of work both he and Drew have put into “Please Consider” I am truly impressed.” (ok maybe a little) I am going through his work and the more I do the more insipid and deceptively clever I find it to be. I'd suggest that you seek to demonstrate grounds to support your claim before assuming the laurel wreath, my friend ;)

It has taken centuries no doubt to perfect this false gospel (and it shows) but at the end of the day. Centuries? Not really. Let's see, 2009 minus 1958 (actually, 1962 but I'll save this point for later) equals 51 years.

My God answers by Fire (signs, wonders and miracles) if this is not the case for you then all I can say is something’s broke and it isn’t God. Actually, you might want to have a quick look at how "fire" is near universally portrayed in Scripture. I'll give you a 'leg-up' to get you on your way: it ain't your parlor trick idea regarding Revivalist "miracles".

Please Consider! And that's the best advice you've given to date!

Ian

Moth,

Hmmm, interesting. Normally Mr Barton would've flooded the thread with his multiplied responses by now. Perhaps he's actually gone back to Scripture looking for passages that he believes support his contentions? I can but live in hope!

Would any of his "disciples" care to enter the conversation? Chartie? Sabs? Pooh? Up for a little scriptural discussion?

Blessings,

Ian

Mothster,

For comic relief I went back today and reviewed Tony's the Isaiah and the rest piece. Whilst it was a little tedious/demoralising having to re-read his lengthy drivel afresh, doing so reinforced several things for me. First, "Luke's" standard practice has been to altogether ignore any and all points which either didn't fit his paradigm, or that demolished the logic of his argument. The only time that he did actually address a difficulty, was when he believed he could salvage something substantive by "spiritualising" the respective biblical texts. In other words, the "real" meaning was to be "spiritually discerned" by "spiritual" people. I'm very much hoping that he'll have the intestinal fortitude to do otherwise this time, and so will demonstrate the moral integrity needed to face up to the many biblical challenges to his position. Sadly, from what I've seen to be the case at those many sites of his propounding the "Revivalist" gospel, I shan't be holding my breath in expectation!

As for "Chartdoctor" and "Pilinut" providing support to "Luke", well, it would have to be "moral" support at best. Brian's very rare efforts at biblical exegesis/Revivalist apologetics over the years have been consistently underwhelming; whilst Sabs has demonstrated time and again that there simply isn't a biblical defence for her brand of the Revivalist heresy. Or if there is, then she certainly can't sustain it in any sort of debate.

By the way, I think I found out why Tony no longer fellowships with the RF. And an interesting tale into the human psyche it makes.

Blessings,

Ian

Hi there just a quick couple of comments ( <10,000 words)Just for you Ian (Sorry about the colours)

1)      Ian said “Two things. First, please delete "it" and insert "him". Second, to repeat myself: where in Scripture are we admonished to "seek" for the Holy Spirit?”

Answer 1) Sorry about that “it” reference. (I must remember to proof read!!)

Answer 1a) Seeking for the Holy Ghost

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASK: G154 αἰτέω  aiteō 

Of uncertain derivation; to ask (in generally): - ask, beg, call for, crave, desire, require. Compare G4441.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEEK: G2212 ζητέω zēteō

Of uncertain affinity; to seek (literally or figuratively); specifically (by Hebraism) to worship (God), or (in a bad sense) to plot (against life): - be (go) about, desire, endeavour, enquire (for), require, (X will) seek (after, for, means). Compare G4441.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that both ASK & SEEK are compared to G4441.

G4441  πυνθάνομαι   punthanomai

Middle voice prolonged from πύθω puthō, a primary word, (which occurs only as an alternate in certain tenses); to question, that is, ascertain by inquiry (as a matter of information merely; and thus differing from G2065, which properly means a request as a favor; and from G154, which is strictly a demand of something due; as well as from G2212, which implies a search for something hidden; and from G1189, which involves the idea of urgent need); by implication to learn (by casual intelligence): - ask, demand, enquire, understand.

The reference you seek (excuse the pun) is below Ian

Luke 11:5  And he said unto them, Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto him at midnight, and say unto him, Friend, lend me three loaves; Luke 11:6  For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him? Luke 11:7  And he from within shall answer and say, Trouble me not: the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give thee. Luke 11:8  I say unto you, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity he will rise and give him as many as he needeth.

Luke 11:9  And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Luke 11:10  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Luke 11:11  If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Luke 11:12  Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? Luke 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Further we read in Acts….Act 17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

2)      Why I left the revival Fellowship (I have nothing to hide)

No controversy I’m afraid, I simply had noticed that several people had recently left our fellowship and were going nowhere. As such I could not continue going along and turn a blind eye to my brothers need for fellowship. I hadn’t initially intended taking any drastic measures like leaving however I read a scripture that changed my mind.

Pro 3:26  For the LORD shall be thy confidence, and shall keep thy foot from being taken. Pro 3:27  Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hand to do it. Pro 3:28  Say not unto thy neighbour, Go, and come again, and to morrow I will give; when thou hast it by thee.

I simply had to act and as such I formally left the RF and assisted those who were having difficulty by way of fellowship and ministry.
I fully, completely, absolutely believe the Revival Fellowship doctrine is the right one. However the circumstances required this unorthodox action. My hope is that this will be a short term situation and we can come back under the RF umbrella so to speak.

One thing I would like answered is this:

Now I notice that there is a huge difference between RCI, GRC and RF but they are all lumped together on this site. I think that this is unwise and inaccurate. I know that there are some here who attest to the same kinds of behaviour in the RF as has been cited in the GRC and RCI. But this has not been my experience. I have however witness ISOLATED misbehaviour that has been corrected in time but certainly not the type mentioned here on this site.

Now I am not saying that you guys are liars but I can only respond to those matters that I am exposed to. Surely this is reasonable.

Anyhow enough said. I am spending a couple of days just reflecting over the scriptures especially Mat 7:3  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Mat 7:4  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?Mat 7:5  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Mat 7:6  Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

For now I just want to complete my analysis of the entire “Please Consider” website so that I can with a good conscience say that I “see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.”

This Shouldn’t take too long.

God Bless

Luke 7:35

Good morning, Tony.

1)  Ian said “Two things. First, please delete "it" and insert "him". Second, to repeat myself: where in Scripture are we admonished to "seek" for the Holy Spirit? Answer 1) Sorry about that “it” reference. (I must remember to proof read!!) I wonder if it's simply a case of poor proofreading? Or whether what's actually at stake is a deficient understanding of the nature of God vis the person of the Holy Spirit? I wonder because try as I might, I couldn't find a single reference in any of your previous posts of you using a masculine personal pronoun in reference to the Spirit of God.

Answer 1a) Seeking for the Holy Ghost. I've excised all your "wanna-be" "Strong's" Greek definitions and verbiage. You don't have any personal facility in the biblical languages, in spite of false claims made by you in the past to the contrary, and I just get unduly cranky watching you try to manipulate a language that you simply don't understand. Anyway, what I'll do at this point in our debate, is provide you with a brief lesson in exegesis. I'll do this to demonstrate what can be achieved by someone who actually knows how the Greek language functions.

To begin with I'll start by pointing out to you that the context for Luke 11:5ff is to be found in vv. 1-4 (the Lord's prayer). And what is the thrust of this version of the Lord's prayer? "Seeking for the daily forgiveness of sins", first from God, and then from each other. Why? Because keeping "short accounts" with God and our fellows makes it possible for us to (1) approach the Father to meet our daily needs with a clear conscience; and more importantly, (2) it provides the situation wherein God's Kingdom becomes a present reality on earth. Jesus then took the general truths contained in the prayer, and translated them into specific truths via his use of the concrete teaching example that followed. Consider this to be point one, the literary C-O-N-T-E-X-T. Next, what you've altogether failed to understand is that αἰτέω and ζητέω are not simple synonyms. Even your "Strong's" definitions made this plain when it used contrastative language such as "generally" versus "specifically". Didn't you notice? Point two, lexical C-O-N-T-E-X-T.

Further, understand that words don't function as "codes"; meaning results from the way words are used in combination with other words. Consider this to be point three, syntactical C-O-N-T-E-X-T. The entire "man in bed when a friend comes knocking" story is an extended metaphor: it contrasts the situation of the Jews to that of the disciples. More specifically, with how the two groups responded to the arrival of the "visitor" -- Jesus! The Jews believed the Mosaic Law to be completely sufficient; consequently, they weren't in any hurry to get up. Jesus' disciples, on the other hand, came to realise that Moses pointed towards the Messiah -- the eschatological giver of the Spirit. So it was left to the disciples to "harry" the complacent Israel until the latter acted in their own best interests and woke up. This accords perfectly with Acts 2:38, in that the gift of the eschatological Spirit was a covenant promise made by Yahweh to his nation Israel. And this was explained to them by Christ's apostles! I develop this theme in some detail in my "Tongues and the Temple" essay. Consider this to be point four, theological C-O-N-T-E-X-T.

But what of your contention that vv. 9 through 13 teaches that an individual needs to somehow "seek" for the Holy Spirit? In short, such a position is nothing more than an egregious example of eisegesis: the reading into a passage of what one hopes to find. To begin with, the pericope itself is informed by the complex of ideas that builds from the "model prayer" -- the irruption of the Kingdom of God into the world via the arrival of God's Messiah. Second, the three Greek present imperatives (translated, "ask", "seek" and "knock" into English) directly related to what Jesus taught in the previously mentioned story/metaphor: don't give in! Keep at those recalcitrant Jews! Wake them up! Third, the entire pericope also points towards Jesus being the eschatalogical giver of the Spirit to Israel corporately (God being the Father, corporate Israel being the son). And the fulfillment of this metaphor is found in the actual events of Pentecost itself, when the promised Spirit was poured out upon covenant Israel corporately! (I'm also betting that you didn't even notice that the pronouns translated "you" in English were Greek plurals!)

Finally there isn't a single example in the entire book of Acts of anyone "seeking" for God's Spirit, which isn't in any way surprising. A proper appreciation of what Jesus taught in Luke 11 makes the very notion absolutely ridiculous. Of course, we also mustn't forget Luke wrote both the Gospel and the Acts, and that he did so as an intentional author!

In short, Jesus taught his core group of disciples that it would be their job to lead covenant Israel out of their "sleepy stupor"; that it would require constant haranguing on their part to do so; but that it was necessary that they did so, as God would then fulfill his covenant promise of providing his Spirit to Israel corporately. All of this gels perfectly with what I've explained in much greater detail in my "large" Acts essay, but none of this fits with your thoroughly individualistic Revivalist nonsense.

2)  Why I left the revival Fellowship (I have nothing to hide). No controversy I’m afraid, I simply had noticed that several people had recently left our fellowship and were going nowhere. As such I could not continue going along and turn a blind eye to my brothers need for fellowship. I hadn’t initially intended taking any drastic measures like leaving however I read a scripture that changed my mind. Sure, but appreciate that I've heard differently. In any case, you've admitted that you've "flipped-and-flopped" in and out of Revivalism several times over the years. Did you always leave for the same reason? And did you always return for the same reason? If not, then why not?

I simply had to act and as such I formally left the RF and assisted those who were having difficulty by way of fellowship and ministry. I fully, completely, absolutely believe the Revival Fellowship doctrine is the right one. However the circumstances required this unorthodox action. My hope is that this will be a short term situation and we can come back under the RF umbrella so to speak. Ah, you simply had to act! So you believe yourself capable of ministering to recent RF departees, but the formal Oversight is incapable? Also, as for your actions being "unorthodox", as you call it, I'd suggest that they're actually more akin to being schismatic. And this seems to be precisely how you are perceived within the RF. But I also know that you already know this.

In my process of reflection I am forced to consider my discussions on-line. When I do this I try to mentally look at things from the other person’s perspective (in this case Ian and Moth). Having done this I feel I owe both Ian and Moth an apology. Some of my comments of late have been unnecessarily hostile sounding. This conduct is inexcusable and I am deeply sorry for any offence. Indeed. Such being the case, I imagine that you are now going to go back to your various "counter-Ian" sites, and completely reword all of your posts there? So as to remove "offense", and all that.

I'd like you to feel free to post any other bits-n-pieces that you believe support your heresies. But I'd also like to see you respond to rebuttals first.

Ian

Good morning, Spangler.

I Suppose I'll accept Tony's apology when I see the "fruit" of such repentance: concrete changes made at his multiplied vanity sites. Doing so would demonstrate a modicum of sincerity on his part, methinks.

Blessings,

Ian

Batmothman,

I doubt you'd be surprised, but over the years I've heard pretty much your story repeated on the lips of scores of former Revivalists. The amount of people who consciously make up their "tongue" (to be contrasted with the 99.95% of Revivalists who subconsciously make it up) just to fit in to the group expectation, can often be quite provoking, especially to people who mistakenly believe that what they speak are the equivalents of what we find recorded in Acts!

And what happens when you extrapolate such nonsense to the very same people having their "tongues" "interpreted" in Revivalist meetings? Well, one doesn't need to be a genius to reach the obvious conclusion. Several years ago I visited a large Revivalist assembly and began to praise God in Hebrew. A very, very well known and senior Revivalist pastor then provided the "interpretation", replete with "thees" and "thous". Suffice it to say that what he spruiked wasn't what I spruiked!

Blessings,

Ian

Attention Ian:

1) I would just like to apologise for one more thing.

It seems I was a little vague earlier when I said sorry for the apparent hostility that I displayed.

What I said was “In my process of reflection I am forced to consider my discussions on-line. When I do this I try to mentally look at things from the other person’s perspective (in this case Ian and Moth) Having done this I feel I owe both Ian and Moth an apology. Some of my comments of late have been unnecessarily hostile sounding. This conduct is inexcusable and I am deeply sorry for any offence.”

Now it seems that you have mistaken this for repentance. Hence your comments to Spangler: “I guess I'll accept "Luke's" apology when I see the "fruit" of such repentance”

Repentance suggests that I have had a “Change of Mind” which I most certainly have not. I continue to maintain that your doctrine “Has a form of Godliness but denies the POWER thereof” and as such those who listen to you are making the mistake of their lives. I was simply apologising for the TONE of the comments that I felt were too hostile.

2) Your explanation of the verses in Luke 11 is perfectly legitimate as applied to that local context. However once again you are demonstrating your “Tunnel Vision” in your application of scriptural/spiritual directives.

Where we read in Luke 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Clearly shows that there was 1) A requirement to ASK (Seek) for the Holy Ghost which as yet had not been poured out. You can you can dance around these and other comments as much as like however all this does is exemplify your capacity to “Deny the POWER thereof” as already stated. PS Your comments made in your post (Date Posted:21/07/2009 17:55:50) in no way deal with the wider application of Jesus’ massage in Luke 11.

In short whenever I or anyone brings up any scripture that contradict your RELIGIOUS position you simple prescribe an assigned meaning to the text that you have constructed from the text in an entirely Religious, academic, naturalistic explanation of why you have not had confirmation from God that your doctrine is true.
In short; in the absence of God’s authority you have formulated your own bases on your learning. “Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” Read Romans 10:1-5

A Question for ALL:

How can someone who is very intelligent and well schooled and is able to extrapolate the Greek text very well be so continually wrong in their APPLICATION of the text?

Perhaps this story from Acts 16 may help.

Act 16:16  And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

Spirit of Divination = Πυìθων = a Python

Act 16:17  The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation.

Act 16:18  And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.

Act 16:19  And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the marketplace unto the rulers,

Act 16:20  And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city,

Act 16:21  And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans.

So what an I getting at?

Serpents in the Bible are symbolic of “Opposition to God and God’s people. See Mark 16:18 & Luke 10:19. However Pythons do not kill it’s prey with venom (words) they kill them by wrapping themselves around their prey and squeezing the BREATH (symbolic of the Holy Ghost) out of their prey.

Pythons do not break the bones (Symbolic of Structure or form) of their prey either. They simply contract until their prey dies slowly due to a lack of breath.

Conclusion: This story is a prophecy about how the Church was going to fall into apostasy due to a deviation from the Holy Ghost and Fire ministry. Resulting ultimately into this shell of the original. i.e. 2Ti 3:5  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2Ti 3:6  For of this sort are they which creep into houses (and websites like this), and lead captive silly (gentle, innocent) women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 2Ti 3:7  Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Ian would be almost heaving as he reads this, he is totally blind to the meaning of scripture.

Ian’s type of blindness is spoken of in 2^nd Corinthians chapter 3:

2Co 3:3  Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 2Co 3:4  And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:2Co 3:5  Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 2Co 3:6  Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Ian and other Theologians are wonderful in their understanding of the “INK” but just not capable of comprehending the “SPIRIT”

Pauls goes on to say…2Co 3:12  Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 2Co 3:13  And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

2Co 3:14  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; (in Ian's case New Testament as well)  which veil is done away in Christ.

2Co 3:15  But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. 2Co 3:16  Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.

Similarly when Ian, or anyone for that matter who is not Spiritual but carnal reads these scriptures they are simply Blind to what it says.

No doubt Ian will reply to this post with a beautifully written, eloquent explanation (ridicule) of all of my so called delusions, just as surely as the Pharisees did in Jesus time.

No different to the thousands of Educated Mormons, JWs, Adventists, Catholic, Islamic and Hindu experts in Language and customs. Compare Acts16:21  And teach (Religious) customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans. (Orthodox, catholic, protestant, AOG etc etc.)

All I say is that I can do nothing but declare the things I have both seen and heard and declare the wonderful, miracles that my God has performed in my life and continues to perform. If you find yourself following people with “enticing words of man's wisdom” then you need to re-think where you are going.

As for me...1Co 2:4  And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 1Co 2:5  That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 1Co 2:6  Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught: 1Co 2:7  But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

God Bless all you innocent people on this site.

Please, please be careful!

Luke 7:35

Tony,

Let me begin by pointing out that my comments regarding your "apology" had to do with your tone, and not with your content.

2) Your explanation of the verses in Luke 11 is perfectly legitimate as applied to that local context. However once again you are demonstrating your “Tunnel Vision” in your application of scriptural/spiritual directives. Please reassure me that you're not going to go down the same line as 18 months ago?! The "...yes you're correct in what you state BUT..." line of argumentation? Followed up as it was with the standard excuse: "spiritual meaning can only be discerned by spiritual people"?

Where we read in Luke 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him? Clearly shows that there was 1) A requirement to ASK (Seek) for the Holy Ghost which as yet had not been poured out. You can you can dance around these and other comments as much as like however all this does is exemplify your capacity to “Deny the POWER thereof” as already stated. PS Your comments made in your post (Date Posted:21/07/2009 17:55:50) in no way deal with the wider application of Jesus’ massage in Luke 11. *Groan*. You had to go and do it, didn't you?

I'd ask that you go back and re-read my rebuttal of your argument. The context of Luke 11 had to do with the role that Jesus' core group of disciples were to play in bringing the covenant people of Israel (i.e. the Jews, not the British) to the point where they would inherit the promised Holy Spirit. The "asking" itself finds its referent in the fact of the long-promised Spirit. It points backwards to Moses' who petitioned God that all Israel would be a nation of prophets, and a light to the Gentiles. And, of course, I pointed you to my "Tongues in the Temple" essay, where I developed this theme in greater detail. Of course, if you honestly believe that the statement refers to individual believers, rather than as the context demands to Israel corporately, then perhaps you could explain why Luke chose to use plural pronouns rather than singular pronouns?

In short whenever I or anyone brings up any scripture that contradict your RELIGIOUS position you simple prescribe an assigned meaning to the text that you have constructed from the text in an entirely Religious, academic, naturalistic explanation of why you have not had confirmation from God that your doctrine is true. In short; in the absence of God’s authority you have formulated your own bases on your learning. “Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” Read Romans 10:1-5. Well that's rather interesting. You see God clearly chose to provide his special revelation to a specific people group, at specific points in recorded history, making use of specific cultural contexts, and in specific human languages. But you reckon that being aware of such specificity is actually a hindrance to proper understanding?! That doesn't make sense. Your preferred approach divests Scripture of any objective meaning, thereby making meaning itself a totally arbitrary construct!

By the way, I have read Romans 10:1-5. It doesn't support your inference by the way (funny enough).

A Question for ALL: How can someone who is very intelligent and well schooled and is able to extrapolate the Greek text very well be so continually wrong in their APPLICATION of the text? Let's see, shall we?

Perhaps this story from Acts 16 may help. Act 16:16  And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: Spirit of Divination = Πυìθων = a Python. Righto! Clearly I'm a demonised deceiver (Πυìθων isn't a reference to the snake we know as a "python", by the way. Google "lexical anachronism" and "lexical fallacy". In your case we have the "double whammy": a lexical fallacy which is also anachronistic.

So what an I getting at? Serpents in the Bible are symbolic of “Opposition to God and God’s people. See Mark 16:18 & Luke 10:19. However Pythons do not kill it’s prey with venom (words) they kill them by wrapping themselves around their prey and squeezing the BREATH (symbolic of the Holy Ghost) out of their prey. Pythons do not break the bones (Symbolic of Structure or form) of their prey either. They simply contract until their prey dies slowly due to a lack of breath. Bloke, you've just blown any hope I had that you'd repented of your penchant for "allegorising" the biblical texts; twisting them to suit your heretical theories.

Conclusion: This story is a prophecy about how the Church was going to fall into apostasy due to a deviation from the Holy Ghost and Fire ministry. Resulting ultimately into this shell of the original. i.e. 2Ti 3:5  Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2Ti 3:6  For of this sort are they which creep into houses (and websites like this), and lead captive silly (gentle, innocent) women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 2Ti 3:7  Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (*stunned silence ....*) Humour me for a moment, Mr Barton. Go back and read 2 Timothy in context. Just the once should do.

Ian would be almost heaving as he reads this, he is totally blind to the meaning of scripture. Okay, that must be it ...

Ian’s type of blindness is spoken of in 2nd Corinthians chapter 3: 2Co 3:3  Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 2Co 3:4  And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:2Co 3:5  Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 2Co 3:6  Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. Righto. Well call me crazy for thinking this, but I'm kinda guessing that Paul expected the wayward Corinthians to actually grasp what he intended for them to grasp what he wrote in ink! After all, he goes to quite some lengths to (a) make his meaning plain, and (b) to reproach them for not doing what he said.

Ian and other Theologians are wonderful in their understanding of the “INK” but just not capable of comprehending the “SPIRIT” Similarly when Ian, or anyone for that matter who is not Spiritual but carnal reads these scriptures they are simply Blind to what it says. No doubt Ian will reply to this post with a beautifully written, eloquent explanation (ridicule) of all of my so called delusions, just as surely as the Pharisees did in Jesus time. Well, I reckon the term "delusions" pretty much sums things up. But I don't think I really needed to resort to well-crafted, logical, grammatically correct and eloquent argumentation to get across my point. All I really needed to say by way of a summary of your views was: 'crap'.

No different to the thousands of Educated Mormons, JWs, Adventists, Catholic, Islamic and Hindu experts in Language and customs. Compare Acts16:21  And teach (Religious) customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans. (Orthodox, catholic, protestant, AOG etc etc.) It pains me to have to harp on about C-O-N-T-E-X-T all the time, but Acts 16:21 had to do with the charge that Christianity was religio illicita (i.e. an illegal religion), whilst Judaism was religio licita (i.e. a legal religion). The context was that Christianity wasn't entitled to protection under Roman law; consequently Paul should be given the boot from the city. It speaks absolutely nothing to the clap-trap that you've just gone on with.

All I say is that I can do nothing but declare the things I have both seen and heard and declare the wonderful, miracles that my God has performed in my life and continues to perform. If you find yourself following people with “enticing words of man's wisdom” then you need to re-think where you are going. Let me summarise between the two options: your made up religion versus biblical Christianity? Easy choice. I choose life.

Wake up.

Ian

Thank you for your post Metanoia

I have never had any experience of Hollins church GRC; as such I do not speak "Hollinese"

I see your point and I also understand where Ian is coming from.

Were it not for the fact that the Bible is a Spiritual book which is to be understood in the light of, and guidance of the Holy Ghost I probably would be inclined to see things fairly similar to Ian.

The major problem is that, as in Jesus time the Scribes and Pharisees (who were the academics of their time) were far from right in their approach to God.

I am sure that many of them had good intentions. Nicodemus is one such example. I do not know what formal qualifications he had compared with say Annas and/or Caiaphas but in terms of academic reasoning he would not have been in the same class.

The following story I think captures what I am getting at and why Ian and myself simply cannot agree.

Introduction: In this story the Pharisees argue that Jesus could not possibly be the Messiah because he was from Galilee and as we all know the Messiah was going to derive from Bethlehem of Judah. This misunderstanding meant that the Pharisees (like Ian) builds upon a fundamentally flawed (physical appreciation of the facts) foundation. Anyhow read for yourself.

John 7:32  The Pharisees heard that the people murmured such things concerning him; and the Pharisees and the chief priests sent officers to take him. John 7:33  Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. John 7:34  Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come. John 7:35  Then said the Jews among themselves, Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?

John 7:36  What manner of saying is this that he said, Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come?

Notice the total exasperation being experienced by the Pharisees. They are completely naturally minded in their approach. This is similar to Ian (as well as other orthodox Christians) they simply become frustrated by the total lack of comprehension on the part of us “simple” Christians.

Jesus then continues to be Spiritual in his speech.

John 7:37  In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. John 7:38  He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. John 7:39  (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Now take note of the two types of responses: 1) Appreciated the underlying spiritual truth and 2) the Pharisaic, natural, academic point of view.

John 7:40  Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. John 7:41  Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?

Note the Pharisaic, natural, academic point of view questioned saying….John 7:42  Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? John 7:43  So there was a division among the people because of him. John 7:44  And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.

John 7:45  Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? John 7:46  The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. John 7:47  Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?

Note that those who had “Appreciated the underlying spiritual truth” were termed by the Pharisees as having been “Deceived”

John 7:48  Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?

Now note how that they immediately made reference to the majority of fellow academics as if Majority Rules! Lest I remind you that the majority said “Crucify Him”

John 7:49  But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

Tony,

Given that your so-called "spiritual reading" of Scripture derives results that aren't tied to, or dependent upon, what the biblical texts mean according to a supposedly "natural reading" of the actual words; how can you be sure that your interpretations are valid? To what is your "meaning" tethered if not to the text itself?

Next, you've stated that I "...make a connection between the bad behaviour that has been directed towards you; and the Acts 2:38 salvation message. Logically there is NO relationship." Where have I made such a connection?! When have I made such a connection?! Can you provide even a single example of me having done what you've claimed that I've done? What I do suggest (and prove), however, is that Acts 2:38 doesn't mean what ignorant Revivalists such as you believes it means.

Next, "...he cultivates people's hurt and uses it so say their experience of receiving the Holy Ghost is false." Actually, 'no', I don't. I simply point out that what the Revivalist groups promote about "receiving the Holy Spirit", and what Scripture promotes about the subject, are poles removed . I simply point out that there isn't a single example of anything described in the book of Acts, which even remotely matches the Revivalist's so-called "salvation experience".

And finally, "...he uses his position and academic resume to substantiate his claim of being an authority to make his assertions, rather than the power of God." Actually what I do is use my academic training and exegetical abilities to conclusively demonstrate that Revivalism reads into Scripture it's own ideas rather than drawing out from Scripture what is actually there. As Romans 1:16 clearly states, "for I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to effect salvation for everyone who believes..." Ergo, I correctly rely on the "power of God" (i.e. the gospel) to prove my assertions.

In closing, "Luke", the delusions that you hold to aren't Jesus' confirmation of your words.

Ian

P.S. I'm still waiting for several responses to my original rebuttal. You aren't going to simply ignore the "hard" questions, I hope?

Good morning, Tony.

Your interested in checking out orthodox Christianity? Why do I have trouble believing you? However, if you do ever want to discover what faith in Christ is all about, then you could do worse then to visit the following types of churches: Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Congregationalist, Salvation Army, Wesleyan Methodists, and even the good old Roman Catholic and the respective National Orthodox, although I've no doubt that you'd be so biased against the latter two as to dismiss the possibility altogether. Whilst each of these approaches to Christianity is flavoured by certain long-standing cultural trappings and traditions, each also understands what the gospel of G-R-A-C-E is about. And, of course, even the most liberal example of the above traditions would be a mighty big step forwards from where you currently stand with respect to Christian teaching and practice.

Ian