Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Revival Churches > RCI Discussion Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Ex_Member
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Date Posted:12/06/2010 6:17 AMCopy HTML

Early translators of the Bible used the English word “Fornication” incorrectly. The English Dictionary meaning is ‘sex outside of marriage’ but the Biblical meaning is ‘unlawful sex’. You need to read what God declared as unlawful sex. So when the NT refers to “fornication” it is referring to either man with man, woman with woman, man or woman with beast, prostitution, sex with no intention of marriage, relationship with an unbeliever, incest and idolatry and not someone who may have slept with their partner before a marriage certificate. Latter translations of the Bible use the words “sexual immorality” or such instead of the word “Fornication”. ” The word “fornication” comes from the word “porneia” which was a district where the heathen visited prostitutes thus the term “flee fornication” or “flee porneia” as we read in 1Cor 6 v 18. Two Christian people who have slept together are not prostitutes unless they have slept with another party before. The Bible direction is for them to get married. The Word of God never used the Word “fornication” against anyone unless one of the engaged couple was not faithful and had a sexual encounter with another party. There was no penalty for a couple who had sex before a wedding ceremony however they needed to marry. Exodus 22v 16 If any man entice a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall surely endow her to be his wife. Deut22 v 28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her and they be found. Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsels father fifty shekels of silver and he shall be his wife because he has humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. Some laws of God were just common sense transactions which was not counted as evil, fornication or had a penalty as we read in Ex 22v 16 and Deut 22v 28-29. Some however were evil, was fornication and had a penalty such as Deut 22v 23-24. Here is an act of fornication which was called evil and had the penalty of death. Deut22 v 23-24. If a damsel that is a virgin and be betrothed (engaged) to an husband, and a man find her in the city and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them out unto the gate of the city and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel because she cried not being in the city and the man because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife, so thou shalt put away this evil from you. The Jewish culture has a better understanding about fulfilling a marriage than do many Christians allowing their children to marry if necessary once they have completed their Bar Mitzvah or Bit Mitzvah regardless of Government laws. (however when they are of legal age the couple register their marriage with the Government)
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #101
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:07/02/2011 12:53 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Biblianut

Guest 47#

 

Explaining marriage, according to the bible, is too numerous to post on here as there are so many concepts about it, especially in the OT.

One needs to understand what creation is all about and acquire some good commentaries and bible dictionaries to see what marriage is about.

 

What I would like though, if I may, is pass this on;

The importance of marriage is clearly presupposed [to require as an antecedent in logic or fact] in the NT. It is based on God’s commandment as told in the creation story (Gen.2:24; Mt. 19:4-5; Mk. 10:6-7; 1 Cor.  6:16; Eph. 5:31).

Although the NT often looks on marriage from the husband’s point of view (as the head, cf.1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23), the OT traditions are so transcended that the husband’s special rights fall away and the shared life of husband and wife stands in the foreground (1 Cor. 7:3; Eph. 5:21-33; Col. 3:18-19).

Jesus takes a strong stand on the sacred nature of marriage in the Sermon on the Mount. Speaking on the seventh commandment (“you shall not commit adultery”), Jesus, the second Moses, likewise prohibits adultery (Mt. 5:31-32). Although Duet. 24:1 in principle permits divorce, Jesus prohibits divorce (Mk. 10:2-12), granting only on the grounds of the immoral spouse (Mt. 5:32- 19:9). (Mounce’s Dictionary)

 

What do you think “Marriage” is? Have you asked “Ian” what marriage is? If it is any help I will give you a clue; “Marriage Bed”. You cannot just take snippets of scripture and apply them to prove your own point of view.

Get yourself into some serious study. It is amazing what one might learn outside of Revival.

 


Guest #107

You sound like someone trying to put together a giant gig saw puzzle and have failed to put the first piece together.

Guest #47


Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #102
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:07/02/2011 12:58 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

 

Hi Ralph,

This guest is not quite together. Now it appears that he/she is insinuading that Ian hopped into bed with his wife before they were officially married.



Eric



Eric,

I am not insinuating anything about Ian. Your posts are pointless and on the verge of stupidity. Please find someone else to annoy.

Guest #47

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #103
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:07/02/2011 2:47 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

Reply to Guest

 

Hi Ralph,

This guest is not quite together. Now it appears that he/she is insinuading that Ian hopped into bed with his wife before they were officially married.



Eric



Eric,

I am not insinuating anything about Ian. Your posts are pointless and on the verge of stupidity. Please find someone else to annoy.

Guest #47


And you likewise !!!

Your posts fail to answer anything that has shredded your empty arguments. Having illicit coitus does not constitute marriage.

If you are going to use the Bible as your support then do so using it responsibly and intelligently. The one real mistake you seriously present is that you display total ignorance in context of Judaism - Christian marriage in the 1 st Century and its required customs.

Goose

Eric
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #104
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:07/02/2011 5:34 AMCopy HTML

Guest #47

You sound like someone trying to put together a giant gig saw puzzle and have failed to put the first piece together.

 

You’re the one that's a puzzle. No good trying to explain things to self opinioned people as you. As you have already been advised, "the blood is on your own head".
Sad, very sad indeed.

 

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #105
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:07/02/2011 6:44 PMCopy HTML

 How about god and the government stay out of my life and how I live it with my mate.  If it's against the law or the bible or any others books of rules or people thinking WE DON'T CARE!!!

This is the freedom that we had before we had  gods and rules and laws of governments.

We are not sheeple we are not here just for the pleasure of the controllers be it religions or governments or bankers.
We have too few years to live with no proof of any after life or reincarnation or any UFO coming to take us away.

Rules and laws are for who can not control their actions towards others.
Live and let live.

have a nice day.


Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #106
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:07/02/2011 10:05 PMCopy HTML

Guest,

How about god and the government stay out of my life and how I live it with my mate.  If it's against the law or the bible or any others books of rules or people thinking WE DON'T CARE!!! Maybe not, but I'm betting your government does, and I'm pretty sure that God does too. This is the freedom that we had before we had  gods and rules and laws of governments. To begin with, there was nothing before God, strictly speaking. Second, governments provide peace and stability. Anarchy and 'rule by the roughest' was the way of life before our settled existence, and to be honest, I doubt that you would have fared particularly well under such a system. So I get the impression that you wish to enjoy the benefits that derive from the stability and services that governments provide, but you despise the responsibilities that go hand-in-hand with them. That's quite selfish, don't you think?

We are not sheeple we are not here just for the pleasure of the controllers be it religions or governments or bankers. We have too few years to live with no proof of any after life or reincarnation or any UFO coming to take us away. Yes. And you have no proof to the contrary either, so your worldview comes with a 50% chance of being very disappointed. Personally, I wouldn't ever gamble against odds like that.

Rules and laws are for who can not control their actions towards others. Live and let live. How remarkably naive. If it weren't for 'rules and laws' then life wouldn't be 'live and let live'. What it would be, however, is Tennyson's 'nature, red in tooth and claw'. Think about it.

have a nice day. Have a nice existence

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #107
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:07/02/2011 11:05 PMCopy HTML

Ian - being personally insulting to people is really not the way to proceed, but go ahead, as you seem completely unable to engage with people who have a different point of view in any other way. Not everyone believes in a literal translation of scripture. It has to be seen in its entire and correct context.

And making this post personal in the sense that you continue to refer to a person by name is to me not good practice. You should not try to shame someone because they disagree with you.

And contrary to what you imply, I do not need to be taught or swayed by either you or the other person whom you continually refer to.

My point about spiritual marriage is not unbiblical. After all, a man will be joined to his wife and they will become 'one flesh'. What is this if it is not spiritual? Or do you merely see the physical in this? Do you not conceive that two souls may be destined to be together? This is manifested in the outer selves, but inside, if it is a true marriage between two believers then it is also profoundly spiritual.

A marriage ceremony in today's context is a point of law, as well as being an excuse for a ridiculously overstated party. It ensures that both parties have legal rights in terms of children, property and so on. Of course it is necessary for people who are destined to be together to be married in these terms to safeguard themselves from difficulties that may arise in the relationship, but the intial decision to remain together for the rest of their lives was, hopefully in the hearts of true Christians, a spiritual decision, above all else. No?

Or perhaps you are perfectly rational in your holier than thou self so that you see 'marriage' in some other way?

Isn't it also rather hypocritical that those who are the most vocal about condemning people who have committed 'sex before marriage' are normally married. Have you all always been so chaste and pure? Really?

So the rest of us will just have to endure God's eternal torment, I suppose?

Grow up.





Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #108
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:07/02/2011 11:23 PMCopy HTML

Am I the only one who wants to try before I buy?

Ooops...

I repent, I repent. I am not worthy. Ahhhh, I feel the wrath of God falling on me, falling, falling...


smiley6
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #109
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:08/02/2011 1:08 AMCopy HTML

AN&S,

Ian - being personally insulting to people is really not the way to proceed, but go ahead, as you seem completely unable to engage with people who have a different point of view in any other way. Not everyone believes in a literal translation of scripture. It has to be seen in its entire and correct context. Hooray! Personally I don't subscribe to the strictly 'literalistic' approach to biblical interpretation either ('interpretation' being what I assume you meant, rather than 'translation'), as context is, and shall always remain, 'king'. As for your comments on what you perceive to be my 'insulting' manner, given your own attrocious conduct here, I'm surprised you felt entitled to judge.

And making this post personal in the sense that you continue to refer to a person by name is to me not good practice. Why? Are you ashamed at having your 'name' put to your posts? As it is, responding to someone automatically 'personalises' his/her post, even when that person lacks the strength of conviction to 'own' their comments. You should not try to shame someone because they disagree with you. You're right. I should only attempt to 'shame' such people when they demonstrate themselves to be vindictive and spiteful prigs. Or hypocrites. And contrary to what you imply, I do not need to be taught or swayed by either you or the other person whom you continually refer to. You very clearly need to be taught and/or 'swayed' by someone who knows what s/he is talking about, whether that's me or another is largely irrelevant (although our 'Robert' is hardly a reliable guide on this subject). What is relevant, however, is the fact that you really aren't half as knowledgeable about Christian doxa, praxis or pathos as you think. Consequently you should probably 'swallow' your pride so as not to choke on it; open your 'ears' so as to 'hear' more; and close your 'mouth' so as to 'speak' less. If you do so, there's a better than average chance you may just learn something.

My point about spiritual marriage is not unbiblical. After all, a man will be joined to his wife and they will become 'one flesh'. What is this if it is not spiritual? Or do you merely see the physical in this? Do you not conceive that two souls may be destined to be together? This is manifested in the outer selves, but inside, if it is a true marriage between two believers then it is also profoundly spiritual. If what you perceive about 'spiritual marriage', presented as distinct to 'ordinary' marriage, is biblical, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to provide me with the biblical basis for the belief. After all, this is what the adjective, 'biblical' infers (i.e. 'supported by the Bible'), is it not?

A marriage ceremony in today's context is a point of law, as well as being an excuse for a ridiculously overstated party. It ensures that both parties have legal rights in terms of children, property and so on. Of course it is necessary for people who are destined to be together to be married in these terms to safeguard themselves from difficulties that may arise in the relationship, but the intial decision to remain together for the rest of their lives was, hopefully in the hearts of true Christians, a spiritual decision, above all else. No? Agreed. One needs both, and not simply one or the other, which has been my point all along. Consequently it's not, as you've presented, an 'either/or' proposition.

Or perhaps you are perfectly rational in your holier than thou self so that you see 'marriage' in some other way? Not particularly, I simply understand how marriage is presented per the biblical model. And it's this particular model which is being debated here, not secular variations of the same.

Isn't it also rather hypocritical that those who are the most vocal about condemning people who have committed 'sex before marriage' are normally married. Have you all always been so chaste and pure? Really? Hypocritical? How would such be 'hypocritical', exactly? Further, are you now inferring that I condemn people who have (past tense) practiced pre-marital sex? If you are, then I'd really like to see how you've reasoned to that particular conclusion from the material that I've posted here over the years. As for your second question, 'yes', I have limited my sexual relations to my wife, and then post our wedding night (not everyone lacks the moral constancy that Scripture presents as being the ideal for God's people). As an aside, do you find Scripture's prohibition on pre- and extra- marital sex (i.e. 'porneia') restrictive, and/or offensive? Isn't 'chaste' sexual behaviour what Christian marriage purports to support? You know, 'one flesh': a monogamous, and life-long commitment? Am I the only one who wants to try before I buy? Ooops... I repent, I repent. I am not worthy. Ahhhh, I feel the wrath of God falling on me, falling, falling... Given these comments, perhaps you subscribe to a more 'progressive' sense of morality? One that claims to being Christian, and yet plays fast and loose with the biblical witness in order to justify and feed the carnal nature? Such certainly seems to be 'Robert's' approach; I take it that such is yours, as well?

So the rest of us will just have to endure God's eternal torment, I suppose? Best that you ask him that question, but I'd certainly be concerned were I standing in your size 6-es. More to the point, until you properly understand the contours of this discussion, and until you properly understand the biblical teaching relating to it, then likely as not you'll end up enduring 'torment' from me if you continue to prate on with ignorant opinions, per your established fashion.

Oh yes. I forgot to say, Ian, that ordering people to 'repent' is really not your responsibility. Show me a Scripture to support this contention. And then trawl through the New Testament and have a look at what the likes of John the Baptist, the apostle Peter, the evangelists Philip and Stephen through the apostle Paul demonstrated were their views on the matter. Only God and the Holy Spirit can minister within a body's soul to convict and/or convince them that whatever behaviour/belief/attitude is not suitable for a Christian. And God, the Holy Spirit, ordinarily does so through the ministration of Christian believers. In other words, my approach is not only biblical, but is also historically defensible as being the long-standing and ordinary Christian practice.

And only an ordained, respectable and genuine minister of the cloth, whether Catholic, Presbyterian or whatever, has the right to assume the authority to tell someone they should 'repent' and that only after that person has had a long, deep and mutually respectful discussion with said minister who is then in a position to 'advise'. You take the whole 'repent' thing out of context on here. You may be interested to discover that I am ordained as a 'minister of the Word', albeit not a 'minister of the sacrament'. Consequently I am charged to challenge, provoke, upbraid, teach, nuture, convince, convict and correct Christian believers from the Word of God inscripturated. So ...? The assumption of this authority by nutcases and spiritual frauds is the reason why so many people have been damaged by groups like RCI and CAI. First, what do you personally know about groups such as the CAI and the RCI? Remarkably little, I'd wager. Second, the reason that I am here is because of the nonsense that such groups promote. Should you not be setting a different example since your aims appear to be so much more admirable? How I engage with people depends completely on how said people choose to respond when engaged with. To those who are honestly seeking informed answers, I am as soft as 'a dove wrapped in tissue paper'. To the contentious, malicious and wilfully ignorant know-it-alls, my approach is more that of an 'iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove'.

I think it's misplaced and ultimately unhelpful for you, Eric and the other people who follow your example to do this. I'm sure you do, but then again you don't really don't know one way or the other, huh? How many people have you personally helped to leave Revivalism behind, so as to embrace a more orthodox and balanced form of Christianity? I'd wager the answer would be 'none', so you're not exactly the 'expert' to be pontificating on the subject.

And - no! It's not Christian. Not in this context. Au contraire, my ignorant but opinionated friend.

Goose.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #110
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:08/02/2011 3:24 AMCopy HTML



Rules and laws are for who can not control their actions towards others.



Hello Freedom and not Rules,

Your above quote shows more Wisdom in the nature of Christ than some so called “Religious Christians”.

Christ rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees who tried to put themselves above others. Many on this thread do the same, trying to bamboozle people with scripture that they do not understand the context of and laws that try and condemn those that seek the Truth.  

I am Christian myself but admire you for not putting up with “Religious Junk”, but being a person who seeks the Truth.

Guest #47.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #111
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:08/02/2011 3:30 AMCopy HTML

Robert,

Your above quote shows more Wisdom in the nature of Christ than some so called “Religious Christians”. Um, did you miss the very important point that your friend made? You know, the bit about him not believing in God? You really do read only what you want to see, eh?

Goose.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #112
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:08/02/2011 5:43 AMCopy HTML

 Hypocritical? How would such be 'hypocritical', exactly? Further, are you now inferring that I condemn people who have (past tense) practiced pre-marital sex? If you are, then I'd really like to see how you've reasoned to that particular conclusion from the material that I've posted here over the years. As for your second question, 'yes', I have limited my sexual relations to my wife, and then post our wedding night (not everyone lacks the moral constancy that Scripture presents as being the ideal for God's people). Do you find Scripture's prohibition on pre- and extra- marital sex (i.e. 'porneia') personally offensive?  isn't such what Christian marriage purports to be? You know, 'one flesh': a monogamous, and life-long commitment? 

And - no! It's not Christian. Not in this context. Au contraire, my ignorant albeit opinionated friend.

Goose.

Ian

Ian, sorry to interfere with my good friends post but;

To me you seem to very condemning to those who may have had sex with their Girlfriend before a Wedding Ceremony, wanting to throw them out of the Church and refer to them as “Fornicators”.

Ian this was your response to a couple(being myself and my girlfriend) who had sex before a Wedding Ceremony but may have been committed to marriage.

do support the biblical mandate of breaking fellowship with unrepentant 'fornicators'.

Being 'committed' to a marriage does not a marriage make, and so you're missing the point. Again. I previously explained to you the proper meaning of the Greek term translated 'fornication' in the KJV. Any sexual activity engaged in by a couple who are not married to each other is 'fornication'. And unrepentant 'fornicators' will not inherit eternal life (see, for example, Matthew 15:19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:8, etc).

Your interpretation as we have discussed on “Fornication” is not scriptural and to me sound condemning to any young couple who have yet to have a Wedding Ceremony or Marriage Certificate.

Guest #47

 

 

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #113
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:08/02/2011 5:55 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

Robert,

Your above quote shows more Wisdom in the nature of Christ than some so called “Religious Christians”. Um, did you miss the very important point that your friend made? You know, the bit about him not believing in God? You really do read only what you want to see, eh?

Goose.

Ian


Ian,

If you are talking to me (Robert?), then yes I realize our friend “Freedom not Laws” has opposition to Religion, Gods, Laws, Governments and Banks. After reading some of your posts then I can understand why. Our friend has probably had bad experiences with the other world systems as well.

I believe “Freedom not Laws” is a man of integrity shows that he will stand up for the Truth and this I commend.

Guest #47.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #114
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:08/02/2011 6:48 AMCopy HTML

Robert,

To me you seem to very condemning to those who may have had sex with their Girlfriend before a Wedding Ceremony, wanting to throw them out of the Church and refer to them as “Fornicators”. Ian this was your response to a couple (being myself and my girlfriend) who had sex before a Wedding Ceremony but may have been committed to marriage. I do support the biblical mandate of breaking fellowship with unrepentant 'fornicators'. Being 'committed' to a marriage does not a marriage make, and so you're missing the point. Again. I previously explained to you the proper meaning of the Greek term translated 'fornication' in the KJV. Any sexual activity engaged in by a couple who are not married to each other is 'fornication'. And unrepentant 'fornicators' will not inherit eternal life (see, for example, Matthew 15:19; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:8, etc). Indeed, and the important qualifer, the one which you clearly missed twice, was my use of the word unrepentant. Put simply, if a person hasn't repented of the sin, then the person remains in a state of sin. No repentance equals no forgiveness (see, for example, 1 John 1:5-9).

Your interpretation as we have discussed on “Fornication” is not scriptural and to me sound condemning to any young couple who have yet to have a Wedding Ceremony or Marriage Certificate. Actually, what our discussions conclusively demonstrated, was that the historic Christian position best accords with the biblical witness; that you've consistently failed to address the very many points raised against your view, preferring instead to ignore them, remains telling. The simple fact of the matter is this: according to Scripture, any couple who engages in pre- or extra- marital sex, and who doesn't acknowledge that their behaviour is wrong (that is, that it stands contrary to the teaching of Scripture, and that it's described as being an offense against God), clearly hasn't repented of the sin. According to Paul, a lack of repentance of this sort requires the removal of the sinners from fellowship.

As an aside, much earlier in this thread I pointed you to an essay that I'd written addressing the grievous Revivalist error in their handling of 'moral defaulters'. Clearly you didn't bother reading my perspective on the issue, given the charges you've now laid at my door. I will briefly summarise the gist of the essay for you now: (1) contrary to RCI policy and practice, Scripture doesn't mandate that fornication necessarily leads to disfellowshipping, and certainly not to permanent disfellowshipping. Also, and contrary to RF practice, (2) marriage doesn't 'tidy up' the sin. The one thing that's necessary, the only thing that's necessary, is repentance.

If you are talking to me, then yes I realize our friend “Freedom not Laws” has opposition to Religion, Gods, Laws, Governments and Banks. After reading some of your posts then I can understand why. Our friend has probably had bad experiences with the other world systems as well. I believe “Freedom not Laws” is a man of integrity shows that he will stand up for the Truth and this I commend. And once again you've very clearly missed the point.

It's obvious enough that my previous conclusion was correct: you're clearly too invested and entrenched in your opinions to brook any correction from the Word of God. Consequently, it's clearly a waste of my time engaging with you any further. Your blood will be upon your head unless you repent.

Goose.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #115
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:10/02/2011 2:05 AMCopy HTML

Ian,

Call me what you want; goose, fornicator, unrepentant, sinner, but it is like water of a ducks back to me.

But your “Attitude” does not benefit and can be somewhat offensive to those outside Christ or those wanting to learn and grow in Christ.  This “Attitude” does not reflect Christ. Christ treats people with dignity and respect even to those outside the Church.

This same “Attitude” comes across in RCI. They feel superior whether what they say is correct or not, much to the detriment of many.

I do understand your Repent and Forgiveness doctrine but I am nor arguing against that. But this “Get Out” rule does not apply to what I am talking about but more to do with understanding the context of scripture and it application on “Sexual Immorality”.

Your interpretation on “Fornication” or better described as “Sexual Immorality “is the same nonsense as RCI’s. Marriage certificates and Marriage Ceremonies are exactly what they say they are. (And well pointed out by Guest 118). They are traditions (which I am not against) but they are not “Marriage”. Marriage has to do with friendship, companionship, serving one another, intimacy and faithfulness between eligible couples.

This RCI approach breaks a “Marriage” union between couples though miss use of scripture. It makes sexual intimacy between eligible couples sound like sin where rather it should be celebrated. If a couple are in a relationship, then they need people around them to support them and help fulfil the “Marriage.”

King Josiah was married and had children at a young age. By many accounts he was also a good King. The reason for his success was because he had many wise counsellors around him.

The “RCI approach” is devious and demonic, separates and does not unite.

Guest #47.

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #116
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:10/02/2011 5:31 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Guest

Ian,

Your interpretation on “Fornication” or better described as “Sexual Immorality “is the same nonsense as RCI’s.

Guest #47.


"Nonsense" ???

Care to sit down and carefully and thoughtfully write out a nice post ( make it as long as you like ) and support your argument with clear concise facts that demonstrate clear understanding evidence that is scholarly researched.. In short, how about you proving to everyone who posts on these boards that you can qualify the above statement with good sound reasoning.

Are you up to it Guest 47 ?? Let's see if you have what it takes ...
 
Eric..
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #117
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:10/02/2011 11:52 PMCopy HTML

Eric,  Re #128.

Below is a Prophesy concerning Christians departing from the Faith in the latter times. Look up in your “20” Lexicons the word I have highlighted in capitals. This prophesy has nothing to do with grace before meals but rather about marriage and what is happening in Religion today with their false views on “Sexual Immorality” between eligible couples. Do this between you and God, without seeking the views of anyone else.

Guest #47.

 

1 Timothy 4

 1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

 2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

 3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

 4For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:

 5For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Guest #47.

 

Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #118
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:How the RCI miss interpret “Fornication”.

Date Posted:11/02/2011 5:18 AMCopy HTML


Guest 47... Do you understand the meaning of the English word "context" ?? and is that the best you can offer ???

Then I best borrow a word from Ian..

Goose

Eric.

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