RF - "What exactly is your point Ian? You ask a question that is obviously loaded, and then blow your own trumpet about how good & well educated you are. You sound very much to me like a man that is laying a trap and waiting for the unwary to fall into it. If you know what salvation is, why ask the question."

Ian - The point to my original question (and which no-one has engaged yet) was to generate some thoughtful discussion on what should be a very important subject to all Christians. As for me introducing my qualifications, I did so to provide a little context, and to indicate that I don't approach Scripture in a shallow or na?e fashion. And whilst I believe I know the answer to the specific question that I posed, I'm still interested in engaging with RF-ers in discussion as there's no reason that I can't learn from another person's perspective. 

RF -  Ian either maintans a website or has in the past with another ex RCI member that is dedicated to opposing the teachings of the RF RCI doctrines. He has also been a regular contributor in the past to a forum in Cultweb.org or some such website. I have tangled with him before, and as much as he claims to be honest in his motives for doing what he's doing, I don't believe he is.

Ian - It's true that I'm involved in a website that provides a different perspective to Revivalist doctrines, such is common knowledge. It's also true that I was once involved in discussions at certain counter-Revivalist forums. What you failed to mention; however, was that I was banned from said forums for taking certain "key-players" to task over personal and hate-filled attacks against RF & RCI personalities. When I was active on such forums, I restricted myself to discussing Revivalist doctrines. I never once engaged in personality attacks against Revivalist pastors (in fact I publicly defended several against attack a number of times), nor did I engage in "much-raking" against the Revivalist organisations themselves. Now, as for our previous interaction, perhaps you can tell me your name, and I'll search my memory to see if I can recall you :)

RF - "His posts are very manipulative, and appear to be designed to provoke people into giving answers they would not normally give."

Ian - Hardly. I ask questions that seek to tease out theological understanding.

RF - "His responses make him sound like he is God's gift to the unlearned masses."

Ian - You're welcome to hold whatever perspective on me that you wish. However, might I ask you a few questions in an attempt to ascertain your own degree of "learnedness"? Can you read Scripture as it appears in Hebrew and Greek? Can you lay claim to knowing--in intimate detail--the histories, cultures, geographies and social circumstances that underpin each of the 66 books which combine to make up our Protestant Bible? Have you spent years studying the broad range of subjects which are fundamentally necessary to claiming a truly informed opinion on the "ins-and-outs" of the proper and responsible interpretation of Scripture? I'd suggest that your answer to each and every one of these questions would be ?no'. Your sole claim to biblical "understanding" hinges on a capacity for speaking in "tongues". Well, I have this particular gift as well. But as I was also given the gift of teaching, I undertook the labours necessary to exercise such a gift responsibly. Does this necessarily make me any "smarter" than you? ?No'. But it does allow me to answer ?yes' to each of the questions that I posed above ;)

RF - "Ian, if you're happy in your present state, then go away and be happy. If you are not (which it sounds like you might not be) then in your quest for knowledge go and attack the JW's or something."

Ian - I'm more than happy in my present state, but why should I possibly want to go and ATTACK the JW's, or any group, for that matter? Why should I not seek to engage in scriptural discussions with fellow believers?

RF - "You sound like you have made a god out of "orthodoxy"! Goodness, next you'll be telling us the Catholic church is Christian."

Ian - The word 'orthodoxy' means 'correct worship' in Greek. Even a cursory reading of Scripture would indicate that such is the only kind that's pleasing to God. But to put your mind at rest, I worship the Christian God and him alone, and then with my mind as well as my mouth. And finally, to respond to your Parthian shot, the Roman Catholic Church has as much claim to the title "Christian" as does the Revival Fellowship. One significant difference between the two groups; however, rests on the fact that you fellows have been in the business for about 9 years. The Roman church for about 1,946 years ;)

RF - "...I do not know how referring to the spirit as a 'it' is a negative thing.. the holy spirit is reffered to by a few ways not he or whatever you said.. it even refers to the holy spirit as the comforter."

Have you ever referred to your father as "it'" Chances are you haven't, because you understand your father to be a person having an individual identity, as someone to whom you can, and do, relate. When you refer to God's Spirit as 'it', you indicate that you don't view the Spirit as a person having an individual identity, and as someone to whom you can, and do, relate. The impression that you give is that you see the Holy Spirit as something of an impersonal 'force', a little like spiritual electricity. The New Testament, however, doesn't present such a view.

The Greek word for 'spirit' is in the neuter gender. So, according to the grammatical Rule of Concord (which applies to Greek equally as it does to English) the correct third person singular pronoun used to refer to the Holy Spirit should be 'it'. But we don't find this to be the case in the NT. The various NT authors 'broke the rule' by using the Greek third person singular masculine pronoun, 'he'. They did this intentionally (with Greek it is impossible to do so otherwise), and they did so to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit has an individual identity, is personal, and is someone who we can, and should, relate to. I'd suggest that you have a closer look at the various examples where the Holy Spirit is referred to in the NT, and notice this time around that the pronouns 'he' and 'him' are used.

You also mentioned that the Spirit is referred to as the Comforter. If I can ask you to check John 14:10-18 again for yourself, you'll notice several things. First, Jesus placed himself in a coordinate relationship with God, the Father (verses 10, 11 and 13). This is one of many direct claims that Jesus made to being God. Second, Jesus stated that he would pray to God (the Father) to send another Comforter. The first Comforter (one can't have 'another' without a former) was Jesus himself. Now is Jesus an 'it''? So Jesus was equating the Holy Spirit with himself (notice particularly, verse 18), and given that Jesus claimed to be God, then he was making the same claim for the Spirit as well. Third, Jesus also (and significantly) refers to the Holy Spirit by the third person reflexive singular masculine pronouns 'him' and 'he'. Given that Jesus doesn't use the neuter form 'it' to refer to the Spirit, why do you?

RF - "...that is like saying to me.. you calling the holy spirit the comforter is negative.."

Not in the slightest. In the passage that you pointed me to, Jesus gave the Holy Spirit personality, something you apparently want to deny him.

RF - "...plus you say.. refering to the holy spirit as tongues is negative.. sorry your incorrect..!"

Actually, I'm not. The Holy Spirit is nowhere in Scripture referred to as the gift of tongues. I think what you've done is misunderstand what Acts 2:38 states. "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." As I mentioned in my response to Nick a little earlier this morning, in the Greek: tou Hagiou Pneumatos functions as a genitive of apposition; i.e. the 'gift' that is promised by Peter consists of the Holy Spirit himself! What you've done is assume that the gift refers to the sign of 'tongues' that was mentioned in relation to verses 2 to 13. It doesn't, and grammatically it can't.

RF - "...Jesus said that true worshippers "must worship God in the Spirit" (John 4:24) The only Bible clarification for this is given in 1 Corinthians 14:14 where Paul identified that praying in the Spirit was praying in tongues. "...If I pray in an unknown tongue my Spirit prays."

Again, I have to say that what you assert simply isn't correct. To begin with, you've inserted a word into the verse, which the verse doesn't contain: 'the'. What John 4:24 does state is: "God is a Spirit (notice the capital 'S' in the KJV): and they that worship him must worship him in spirit (notice the KJV uses a lower case 's' this time) and in truth." The word 'Spirit' in the first part of the verse functions as what is known as a 'qualitative predicate nominative', that is, it's equal to the subject in the passage, which is 'Theos', or 'God'. The second occurrence of the word 'spirit' doesn't function in the same way, which is why the translators put the 's' in lower case. Worshipping in 'spirit and truth' simply refers to worshipping in a manner that is pleasing to God. It doesn't refer to the Holy Spirit, or to 'tongues'. The grammar of the passage in both English and Greek makes this plain.

Finally, you referred me to 1 Corinthians 14:14. Again, I think you've misunderstood what Paul implied. For starters I noticed you've capitalised the 'S' in spirit in the verse, while the KJV presents it in lower case (indicating that it doesn't refer to the Holy Spirit). But did you notice that Paul specifically stated that when he prayed in tongues, it was his (i.e. Paul's) spirit and NOT the Holy Spirit which prayed? The word 'my' as it appears in the Greek is the singular genitive possessive pronoun. This pronoun simply can't refer to the Holy Spirit, my friend.

In summary, you've read your theology into the various verses that you've pointed me to an attempt to defend your views, rather than reading what the author (who is ultimately God) had to say. You've not proven your case. Not by a long-shot!

God bless,

Ian

RF - "...Signs will follow believers- we know this from Mark 16. One of them is the ability to speak in a language never learned, with various purposes. And Ian, you will suggest that not all who are believers (this confirmed with the infilling of the Holy Ghost) do speak in tongues, correct?"

For starters, if you're going to use Mark 16 as a defence for your position, then you will need to be consistent in your application of what that particular passage teaches. Verse 17 clearly states that the following signs - plural - will be evidenced in Christian believers: (1) the casting out of demons, (2) speaking in tongues, (3) the handling of snakes, (4) the drinking of poison without ill effect, and (5) the healing of the sick. Now to claim that this passage is a promise of supernatural abilities that are given to all believers, all the time, is to assert that all believers will need to give evidence of 'proofs' 1, 3, 4 & 5 all the time as well. It's no good to hang your hat just on number 2 in the list, which also happens to be the least objective and provable from a strictly supernatural perspective. So, to put this another way, if you claim to be a believer, and you pray for someone to be healed, then the ill person must be supernaturally restored to health every single time. Otherwise, according to this logic, you're clearly not a believer ;) Unfortunately for your position, the NT record sets us straight that such wasn't the case at all (with respect to either the healings or the 'tongues').

The only viable option is the one I personally subscribe to, which understands the Mark 16 list in the Greek text as a description of 'categorical plurals'. If you like I can explain why the Greek text indicates this is the case, but for the time being I'll summarise by stating that the signs describe 'categories' of the miraculous that will typify believers as a group, from non-believers as a group. This position also fits perfectly well with Paul's explanation in 1 Corinthians 12 through 14, that different believers have been and are given different spiritual gifts (in line with his analogy of the Church as a body).

RF - "...My question is simple- how do you know you have recieved the Holy Spirit?"

Quite simply: because God said that he would give to me the Holy Spirit when I believed in Jesus Christ. God can't lie, ergo, God kept his promise.

RF - "...Maybe a more important question, how do you know you havn't?"

This question is just as simple to answer. Jesus stated that the unregenerate would be known by their fruits (see Matthew 7:15-18). Similarly, Paul provided us with a list of spiritual fruit (a list of many presented as a singular), the evidence of which would clearly demonstrate the indwelling of God's Spirit in the lives of the regenerate (see Galatians 5:22-26). As I've quipped many times before, "bad root, bad fruit".

RF - "...Asking is a nessesity of recieving. But just because you've asked, it dosn't mean you've recieved. If I ask you for $100, it dosn't mean i've got it. But when you've given it to me i'll know it. And i'll give you my bank details if you like!"

I wish I could spare you the pesos! But to be serious, where your analogy falls over is in you having leveled the asking of God to fulfill a promise he made, to that of one human being making a request to another human being. The two, quite simply, are not the same. God swore by himself to keep his promises, we human beings may make requests of all sorts to each other without any surety of them being answered whatsoever.

RF - "...Luk 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?"

And this is perfectly true (because it's in the Bible) ;)

RF - "...Persistance in asking is something Jesus told us to be prepared for-Luk 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; Luk 11:6 For a friend of mine in his journey is come to me, and I have nothing to set before him? Luk 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. Luk 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. Luk 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."

Did you happen to notice this entire pericope is framed within the context of Jesus teaching his disciples the efficacy of prayer? Jesus was contrasting the petitions of humans to humans to those of humans towards God. This, Phil, is the crucial point! The entire matter rests on God being faithful to his promises. It's also important to appreciate that Jesus was using a Rabbinical interpretative method known as Qal Wa'homer, or arguing from the lesser to the greater. The context of what Jesus was talking about was God's dependability in meeting concrete human physical needs (see verse 3). Jesus then used the physical as a launching pad to the dependability of God meeting our deepest spiritual need - redemption and the restoration of a right relationship with God, the Father.

RF - "...I believe that Jesus whole intention in this conversation was to prepare us for the persistance we would need if we desired to recieve his Holy Spirit."

And I think when you read Luke 11:1-13 again, you will find that the context of the passage doesn't support your view. Further, that it actually mitigates against what you believe.

RF - "...In the end, its not me or you or pastor whoever or priest whats-his-name who declares wether you have been filled with the Holy Ghost. Its God."

Agreed. Given that God alone does the 'filling', it remains God alone who is the judge of who has, or hasn't, been so filled.

RF - "...The speaking in tongues experiance is Gods confirmation."

Not according to Scripture, it isn't.

God bless,

Ian

P.S. This is a good conversation that we're having, and I thank you for it.

RF - "...Jesus could do no mighty work in his own town (Mark 6), was Jesus suddenly an unbeliever? No!"

Ian - Jesus had recently inaugurated his ministry. Jesus was also fully God. Can you hazard a guess the "why's" and "wheretofores" for Jesus not performing many miracles in his own hometown? I'll give you a hint: it has to do with a fulfilment of biblical prophecy.

RF - "...To claim that one can have Jesus inside and *not* have power over sin sickness and satan is to believe in a flaky Jesus!"

Ian - "...Sorry, but that's quite the leap! To be clear, you're telling me that you've never sinned since becoming a believer, and that every time you've been sick you've been miraculously healed?!

RF - "...No it's your leap of logic. I'm saying that all that have Jesus inside have all the abilities listed in Mark 16, I'm not saying that they never fail to fully use what they've got, which is the conclusion you've jumped to."

Ian - Sorry, Nick, but that doesn't wash (at several levels). First, the miracles listed in Mark 16 are referred to, and function as, signs; they're not referred to as gifts.Signs are portents, and are outside our control, while gifts are something someone may choose, or choose not, to exercise. Second, if you wish to claim that all Christians are to manifest sign number 2 ('tongues'), then all Christians must also manifest signs 1 through 6! Third, you said that people who profess to be believers but who don't have power over Satan, sickness and sin must believe in a flaky Jesus. So I'll ask you again: since becoming a believer, are you claiming you've never sinned? And that every time you've been sick, you've been miraculously healed? If the answer is 'no', then apparently you believe in the same flaky Jesus that you accuse others of believing in, given that you clearly lack the power you believe to be necessary.

And so far as what Mark 16 actually teaches, I've addressed this topic in a separate post in this area of the forum.

...Brother, the specific sign of the New Covenant was Jesus hanging on the cross"

RF - "...The fact that Jesus died on a cross doesn't mean that anyone in particular has entered the New Covenant. The business of making signs of crosses or wearing them has more to do with babylonian mystery religion that the new covenant."

Ian - As for your first line, tell that to the thief on the cross! :) However, the point that I sought to make was this: the sign of the New Covenant was Jesus physically hanging on a cross, and not 'speaking in tongues'. But who said anything about the physical act of crossing oneself? It wasn't me. Finally, as for your so-called 'Babylon mystery religion', I reckon you'd gain more benefit and insight from studying the history of Christianity than you would Woodrow's book. Incidentally, you're probably unaware that he wrote a sequel to that particular book. In it, he renounced his former position, and explained all of the errors he made in failing to check the truthfulness of his primary source - Alexander Hislop's, "The Two Babylons". Woodrow's second book was a solid act of contrition, and something of an apology.

God bless,

Ian

Hi, guys.

Given that Mark 16 has been appealed to recently, I thought I might just expand on what I believe this passage teaches and why.

I hope this post helps to explain my position a little more clearly.

Mark 16:16-18 is often used to defend the idea that all Christian believers will (perhaps, must?) speak in tongues to demonstrate that they've been saved. But as I'll attempt to demonstarte, this is just one of many biblical passages that proves those making doctrinal rules on matters like this must base their conclusions on to understand the Scriptures present in the original languages. Relying exclusively on an English translation (especially a very old one) just doesn't 'cut the mustard' because English often uses ambiguous statements to translate what are concrete positions in Greek :) Further, I've no interest or intention whatsoever of calling into question whether or not this passage was originally written by the author of Mark's gospel. The answer is basically moot in any case - the Christian Church has accepted the 'longer ending' (which is simply one of four ancient endings it has accepted, by the way) as canonical and authoritative.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (KJV)

What I'll try to do below is explain (as simply and concisely as possible) the significance of the Greek grammar and syntax of this passage.

First, the entire passage from verses 16 through 18 describes one rather lengthy conditional clause, hence the "...he that...and is...shall be..." and so on. Next, each time the English pronoun 'they' appears in the passage, it points back to the two Greek words that lie behind the translation, 'he that believeth'. These two words define the subject of the subordinate conditional clauses that follow - the people who believe, i.e. Christians. Third, the different Greek words for 'they' are all: future aspect, active voice, indicative mood, 3rd person plural verbs. This combination of grammatical data, located in conditional clauses, is crucial to a proper understanding of the intent of the passage. It's crucial because this specific combination of grammar and syntax defines what is known as the use of the 'Categorical (or 'Generalizing') Plural'. And the reason that this sort of plural (which in our case is the six instances of 'they') is used is that it more easily yields itself to a generic notion: the focus is more towards the action, than the actor, i.e. "this is the kind of person who does this". In simple terms, the 'Categorical Plural' is used to distinguish one group or class from another group or class. (see D.B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, Zondervan, 1996 pp.403 - 406).

So what's the significance of all this grammatical mumbo-jumbo to Mark 16?

First, many people mistakenly assume two things about Jesus' words at the beginning of verse 17, based solely on how the passage appears to them in English. First, that the future tense is a promise rather than a prediction. And second, that it's a promise to all believers. But however strongly someone might like to wish this to be the case (especially when this passage is used as an important 'proof-text' to defend a particular doctrine on 'salvation with signs'), the grammar and syntax of the Greek text contradicts and dismisses this mistaken view. It simply isn't possible. So what this passage teaches isn't that all believers will 'cast out demons through to healing the sick' at all. The stress isn't on the idea of promises given to believers (presumably in order to strengthen or validate their faith); it's on the authentication of Christianity in order to establish it's validity as being from God before an unbelieving world. What this passage properly teaches is that some Christians may speak in tongues, others may cast out demons, others may be involved in the other supernatural effects that are described; but these effects are simply one part of what it is that demonstrates the uniqueness of the Christian Church as a group. The effects, therefore, aren't individual promises, they're corporate predictions.

As an aside, the use of the KJV translation in this instance will cause confusion if for no other reason then it starts the passage with: "He that believeth..." This gives the impression that the focus is individually appropriated and directed, and a present reality. But the two Greek words that define the subject actually have an indefinite force, and a clear future intent, which is why the majority of English translations use the words: "ANYONE who believes", or "THOSE who believe", or "WHOEVER believes", or something similar.

In closing, Mark 16:17-18 doesn't mean what you think it means at all :)

God bless,

Ian

Good morning, Guys.

John 3:1 - 8 is often appealed to by RF pastors to support the idea that baptism (by immersion) in water, followed by the Holy Spirit, will lead to 'tongues' (which to the RF, equals 'being born again'). But how many pastors have read into this passage their own beliefs, rather than letting the passage inform and shape their beliefs? I'd suggest all of them :)

I'd like to briefly comment on this passage again, even though it was briefly discussed in a previous thread in the 'open' forums. My comments there were removed, because what I had to say apparently disturbed the faithful. I now open the meaning of this important text, and my understanding of it, to discussion in this, our private forum.

First, we need to know a little about the way John wrote if we're to grasp what he sought to record. One of the literary devices that he frequently used was the 'misunderstood statement'. The way it works is this: Jesus says something but the hearer doesn't quite catch the meaning, which then allows Jesus to expand and further develop both the point he originally intended, along with the theology underpinning it. The current passage is just one such example, another related by theme and content to this one is to be found in the discussion between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?' Jesus answered, 'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of [the] Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.'" (John 3:3-8, KJV)

I've recently been accused of using Greek as a weapon in an attempt to make the simple difficult! So what I'll do this time around is keep the Greek to an absolute minimum, and explain the most important features as simply as possible. When I do refer to Greek, I'll use such familiar 'helps' as Vine's Expository Dictionary and Strong's Concordance. Not because I rate them particularly highly, but because it's unlikely any of you will have access to better lexical works.

We should begin at the beginning. Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born 'from above'. The Greek word he used was anothen (Gr. 509, 'anothen': 'from above'; by analogy 'from the first'; by implication 'anew.' KJV: 'from above, again...'). Nicodemus, being more than just a little dense, thought Jesus was referring to the word's secondary meaning, and so he 'heard' Jesus say, "...you must be born 'again'." However, Jesus sought to distinguish between the 'natural' state of humanity over and against the 'supernatural' or regenerate state (see verse 6). He even pointed out that the 'natural' man wouldn't be able to perceive ('see' Gr. 1492 'eido': ...'to see [literally, or figuratively]; by implication [in the perfect only], 'to know') the Kingdom of God. To Jesus the Kingdom, and it's implications, was completely beyond the grasp of unspiritual people.

It's very important to recognise at this point, that the entire passage uses puns based on Greek word-plays to bring out the meaning intended by Jesus, so it's just about impossible to try and explain this passage without referring to the underlying Greek text at key points. So you guys will simply have to accept what I say for a bit; just grin and bear it ;)

After Nicodemus categorically proves he's still in the 'natural' (i.e. carnal) state - see verse 4 - Jesus uses his misunderstanding to further develop his message. He says to Nicodemus (who is identified as 'THE Teacher of Israel'), that a 'natural' man simply can't enter into the Kingdom of God unless he's been born of 'water' and 'wind'. The first part of the pun is that both water and wind come from 'above' (i.e. 'anothen', which we've already covered). As just about everyone knows, 'wind' and 'spirit' are the same word in Greek, which forms the second part of the pun i.e. further confusion based on a natural inability to perceive the proper context of Jesus' message. We know Jesus intended to liken the Spirit to 'wind', because he describes how it 'blows where it wants'; the main point is that Jesus emphatically declared that a person must be born from above, and that only people who've experienced this second birth would 'understand', given that only these people were truly 'spiritual' :)

So what exactly does the reference to 'water' and 'wind' mean? Well, it certainly isn't baptism; it's a reference to the Holy Spirit. The Greek phrase hydatos kai pneumatos forms what is known in Greek grammar as a hendiadys: a construction where two words are combined to describe a single referent (you'll also find this technical word explained in a good English dictionary). A hendiadys involves the second of a pair words explicitly pointing back to, and reinforcing the first word. In English our passage should be translated, "...by water, which is Spirit." When Jesus said this, the penny should've dropped for Nicodemus. But it didn't.

Was it reasonable for Nicodemus to link Jesus' words to the rather unusual practice of Jewish baptism John the Baptist had recently introduced? It's highly unlikely, and so it's quite anachronistic for modern Christians to presume baptism from Jesus' statement. And remember, Jesus referred to Nicodemus as 'THE teacher of Israel'. Jesus was talking to him about the Kingdom of God, a subject which was VERY well known, and very much anticipated by Jews of the time. Given Nicodemus' position, Jesus was fully justified in expecting him to make the obvious theological link to a number of very prominent Old Testament passages that dealt with this specific theme - the clearest being: Isaiah 44:3-5, and (especially) Ezekiel 36:24-28 and 37:9-10. But Nicodemus altogether missed the plot. Of course, he's not been alone in this ;)

Now as part of my reading, I noticed in one of the articles published at this site pastor Brad Smith continued an old RCI error in appealing to the "...hearest the sound thereof..." of verse 8 as a direct reference to 'tongues', and that this 'tongues' should be taken as being the 'voice' of the Holy Spirit! This is nonsense of course, and isn't found anywhere in the text. Appeals to Strong's Concordance invariably fail at this point, for several reasons. First is the meaning of the biblical text has been subordinated to a  faulty theology. However, Strong's is completely inadequate in expressing the full range of meaning for the Greek words phone (Gr. 5456) and akouo (Gr. 191). For example, Strong's reference for phone is but a scant four lines long. Bauer's Lexicon, which is the academic standard for New Testament Greek, devotes an entire column and a half to this word, and quotes scores of references spanning the Greek translation of the OT, the NT and to sources contemporary to the NT. What comes to light as a consequence is that the word has a far broader range of meaning than Brad Smith claims, or that Strong's infers. For example, the word also could be used to refer to music produced by instruments (so Plato's Republic 3. 397a).

This meaning has carried across into the NT as well (e.g. see Matthew 24:31, 1 Corinthians 14:7, and Revelation 8:13). So contrary to Brad's claims, John 3:8 is NOT the only occasion where phone has been translated as something other than 'voice' at all. But even if one seeks to maintain this is the word's principle meaning, the claim that 'tongues' is meant can be completely disqualified. The fact is attention has been directed to the wrong word! I now refer you all to Vine's Expository Dictionary, s.v. 'HEAR, HEARING' on pages 534 and 535 in my handy Nelson's edition (1997 ed). Vine's is a little more useful than Strong's as it provides a useful measure of the grammatical information needed to ensure that the proper context is kept in view. But it also expects a little more understanding on the part of the reader as to the way language works as well. In our case, Dr Vine discusses several passages, highlighting the very real difference in a word's meaning that results when the word appears in one or other of its various grammatical cases. He describes the difference in outcome that results should a genitive case appear in contrast to the accusative, for example, by commenting on an apparent contradiction between Acts 9:7 and 22:9. Upon which, he states: "The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did NOT hear)."

I will now quote what Dr Vine has to say about our current passage: "In John 5:25, 28, the genitive case is used, indicating a "sensational perception" that the Lord's voice is sounding; in 3:8, of hearing the WIND (my emphasis) the accusative is used, stressing the "THING PERCEIVED." (my emphasis). The point missed by Brad Smith in his article, the point missed by RF people the world over who try to 'prove' the impossible from our passage is this: akouo (Gr. 191) doesn't automatically mean to hear something AUDIBLY at all. It can also mean to 'perceive SPIRITUALLY', which is precisely what was intended by Jesus in John 3:8 :)

Nicodemus was 'earthly' and 'natural'. Consequently, he didn't have the developed spiritual insight that comes from being regenerate. Consequently, he completely missed what Jesus was saying to him, because he was looking at the matter from a purely natural angle. You fellows, I might add, have done precisely the same thing ;)

John 3:8 doesn't teach baptism by water followed by the Holy Spirit will lead to the 'voice' of 'tongues' at all. What it does demonstrate is that natural, unregenerate human beings will invariably and completely miss the point Jesus made between earthly/natural understanding, and spiritual/supernatural perception. Consider this: Nicodemus probably expected to hear a 'voice' too ;)

God bless,

Ian

Ian - Communications and tongues

Well, communication involves the conscious act of exchanging information/data. If one of the parties engaged in the act has no idea of what is being said/transmitted, then it's quite reasonable to suggest that communication isn't taking place. So people who assume that babbling mindlessly in 'tongues' is the highest form of prayer to/with God are clearly mistaken, and are without any sort of biblical support for their position. Scripture consistently describes prayer as an active engagement between a person and God. Prayer in 'tongues' is passive engagement at best. In stating as much I would like to point out the use of 'tongues' has its place for those with the legitimate gift. However, and as a 'tongues-speaker' myself, I believe Revivalists tend towards 'overselling' the benefits, and by doing so they impoverish their prayer lives by giving preference to this form over the many other forms that involve more in the way of active engagement. Of course there's also the very real question of whether every Revivalist actually has an 'authentic' tongue to begin with ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian

666

Good morning, NJA.

"The media here in England keep saying that the bible says the devil was born on this date."

No doubt.

"It's like some people in the media are deliberately spreading this mis-information."

Yes, just as some people in certain groups continue to deliberately spread misinformation of precisely the same sort about others they feel don't deserve the title of Christian ;)

"*Here is wisdom*:- Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is *the number of a man*; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.'"

Given the word 'man' in the Greek text of the passage is anarthrous, another way to translate the verse would be, '...it is the number of man', (i.e. without the 'a'); the lack of the article infers the word anthropos should be understood in a qualitative sense. This is why the NIV renders the passage: "This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is MAN'S number."

Your fellowship's take on who 'the Beast' is misses the mark grammatically, historically and theologically. The noun 'man' in verse 18 appears in the genitive singular form, rather than in the nominative case and plural number. Put simply, if we are to accept that it's number refers to an INDIVIDUAL human being, then it can only refer to ONE individual, and not to EVERY individual who may fill the certain religious office that you no doubt had in mind. In other words, find me an individual pope and name HIM. The grammar of the Greek text doesn't afford you the luxury of making a sweeping reference to the entire papal OFFICE :)

"If you read Revelation 13 and know any history you will know what man's name / titles have the value 666 and you will know what people have known for centuries that those that refuse to worship with this religious system will be persecuted when the beast is in power. Which religious organisation is pushing for a European Union and political power elsewhere in the world?"

Right, and you will no doubt reach this conclusion when you read Revelation 13 through a cracked interpretative lens, which is completely ignorant Western Church culture and history. But if you actually understood just what the passage meant to the Christians of Asia Minor during John's day; if you had some idea about how Jewish Apocalyptic was interpreted, and if you had an adequate understanding of Church history in all it's glory; then it's certain that you wouldn't find hidden references to the Pope and the Roman Catholic system hiding behind every arcane reference in this particular book.

"Spiritual wickedness in high places".

To be certain. Perhaps the only thing that's just as bad is biblical ignorance in low places ;)

God bless,

Ian

Good morning, Phil.

"I'm happy to admit the numerous and obvious failings of the Revival Fellowship. But i'm tasting your fruit and it don't taste real good."

Then please, take another bite and savor the experience :)

"People like the prophets in the old testament, and Jesus and the apostles in the new testament, had a lot to say about religion, but they also had the power, love and sound mind straight from God to back it up."

Okay. So are you claiming I lack: love, power and a sound mind?

"You, however, just appear to be a sarcastic know all. You've made numerous true points, but who cares? Is it honestly motivated by love?"

Who cares? You should, for starters. You've acknowledged the RF has numerous and obvious failings. You've also acknowledged I've made numerous true points in my posts. But you then cap these admissions by stating, 'who cares?' Well, if you'll indulge me for a brief moment, I'll tell you who cares: first, God; second, me. God cares because these are issues having eternal significance and consequence. I care for precisely the same reason.

Now, as for appearances, I fully accept there are times when my commentary runs perilously close to sarcasm. I'm human. Am I a 'know-it-all'? I leave that to you to judge. Do I know in detail the subjects about which I comment? Ditto.

Am I motivated by love? I've encountered what I honestly believe to be significant biblical and spiritual error. I've three basic options in front of me: (1) turn a blind eye and let those in error reap the consequences. (2) I could engage with those I believe to be in error with empathy (the whole, 'been-there-done-that' thing), by demonstrating why I see things differently to them, and why I think they have the wrong end of the stick. Or (3) I could board the 'hate-train' and go for broke running down my former associates on web forums which are notorious for their muck-raking activities.

Guess which of these three options I've chosen to do?

God bless,

Ian

My name is Evert. I see that I can post comments about the Website. I am a member of the Revival Fellowship Holland. I have posted a reply in the Topic: Non-doctrinal issues / Dead sea scrolls. I found a few disturbing replies from one named Thomasson, an ex-RCI member. In my reply i advised to keep the public forums apart from members of the RF. This because a lot of rubbish is being posted by ex-RF members and non-believers or pentecostals. This can be really confusing for newborn of 'weak' members of the Revival Fellowship as you can imagine. Now I read that you have made a change in oktober last year but I still read posts from Thomasson after that date which ofcourse contains anti-RF statements. I also was able to make a post after registration without waiting for verification. This means everyone still can make posts and when you find out it might be too late.

Appearently there are a lot of people that spend a lot of time trying to convince people that what we believe isn't correct.

I hope you will find a 'safe' solution for this matter so members of the RF can enjoy the information on the forums instead of being confused..

Evert,

What you claim I do with respect to your fellowship, members of your own group do from the platform and in their homes week in, week out. For my part, I attempt to remain honest by holding myself accountable, given that I'm required to publicly justify my comments here.

In any case my aim isn't to run down the RF, it's to discuss Scripture as it alone remains the standard by which all doctrine should be judged. You are completely free to refute anything that I write by appealing to the same authority. And if what you believe so passionately is actually true, then you should be able to conclusively demonstrate this beyond any doubt. You shouldn't need to have me muzzled in the hope the issues I discuss will simply go away :)

It's true that I don't necessarily see things the same way that you do. That doesn't automatically make my views correct, but by the same token, it doesn't automatically guarantee your own.

"He that answers before listening--that is his folly and his shame." (Proverbs 18:13)

God bless,

Ian

"Your words look like all you are trying to do is run us down... look what you write."

My aim in writing is to demonstrate where RF opinions part company with Scripture. If I was interested in 'running you down', as you put it, you can rest assured I could do a far more devastating job of it than anything I've written at this forum. My focus is solely in challenging you to approach Scripture with an open mind.

"Are you really saved?"

Yes, I am.

"Please there is no room for that here. Your arguements go nowhere and almost account for nothing for us."

I wouldn't be so sure. My comments lead much further than you clearly think, and they account for more than you give either me, or others, credit.

God bless,

Ian

"Are you really saved ?" Thomason.. i wasnt asking you that question.. i was giving an example of what you say.. you question our salvation.. and there is no room for that here."

I'm not sure that I've actually asked any of you whether or not you are 'saved', but the question would be a reasonable one nonetheless (see 2 Corinthians 13:5 for starters). But please don't play the hypocrite. You and all your friends question the salvation of every person who claims to Know Christ, but who disagrees with your assessment of what being a Christian entails.

Now, back to the point. What I have asked is whether anyone here has any views on 'salvation' as a state, rather than as a one-time event. It's clear no-one has really thought about the subject in much detail before I raised it as a discussion point.

God bless,

Ian

Hi, guys.

I'd like to pose a very simple question (but in two parts): Part 1: "What does it mean to be saved?" And part 2: "What is the context of salvation from a biblical perspective?"

What I'm asking is whether you have actually looked into the Bible's teaching about what constitutes salvation as a state, and not what steps you might think are necessary in order to become 'saved'.

God bless,

Ian

Hamlet - "2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes."

So am I to take it that you believe a discussion about the extent and the means of salvation is either (a) foolish, or (b) unlearned?

I find such an position in a professing Christian very curious.

God bless,

Ian

Hi, PJN.

"How about you inform us instead of playing games?"

Games? All I'm trying to do is discuss a subject that should be of keen interest to all Christians (i.e. the biblical teaching on salvation as a state rather than as a simple goal). But for whatever reason, it doesn't seem to be of much interest to you lot. The impression that you're presenting is you're afraid to discuss anything that might involve a little theological reflection beyond the strictly superficial.

In any case, my experience of Revivalists is, that as a group you're mad keen to share your beliefs with others. Well, here's an excellent opportunity for you to do so. Finally, this isn't going to be a discussion about 'tongues', but I think I've said that a couple of times already ;)

Blessings,

Ian

Good morning, PJN.

You said:
"What does it mean to be saved?

From dictionary.com saved means:
a) To rescue from harm, danger, or loss.
b) To set free from the consequences of sin; redeem.

What is the context of 'salvation' from a biblical perspective?

b) from above

Your turn Ian."

Thanks. For starters, words function as signs as well as concept markers, so 'dictionary.com' probably isn't going to be of much use to us in this discussion, certainly not as much use as the biblical material itself will prove to be.

Next, while the biblical concept of 'salvation' certainly includes the notions that you've listed above, importantly, it goes way deeper and is much broader. For example, 'salvation' is grounded in Scripture's teaching about 'mercy' and 'peace' from God's perspective, rather than from our own. Most people tend to forget the 'God' angle, given that we're basically selfish creatures, and tend to view things from simply our own perspectives ;)

In my initial post I mentioned the biblical concept sees 'salvation' primarily as a state rather than as an event. The definitions that you provided above tend to indicate that you view the matter in the reverse, more towards the 'event' end of the scale than the 'state', so I'd suggest that you've not answered (b) as well as you think. Now 'dictionary.com' used the 'R' word (redeem). This is important, so can you please explain for me your understanding of what 'redemption' means, given this leans towards the 'state' bit that I've been harping on about. Your doing so will advance this conversation no end.

Thanks, your turn again :)

Blessings,

Ian

Good morning, Evert.

You wrote: "In short what we believe: To be saved you need to repent, be baptized by full immersion and receive the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. (Acts 2:38 , Mark 16:15 t/m20) (Romans 8:9)"

Yes, I understand that this summarises your fellowship's methodology about how one 'becomes saved'. But remember, and as I've mentioned a few times now, this discussion isn't about 'becoming saved'. It's about the biblical concept of 'salvation' as a state rather than as an event.

"To stay saved: walk in the Spirit as an overcomer. So...that's settled then."

You think the above comment settles things? :)

Please consider: you've clearly spelt out your fellowship's belief that 'salvation' can be lost. In other words, according to you the state of salvation is more transitory than it is permanent. To put this bluntly, the 'down-payment' of the Spirit doesn't function as much of a guarantee at all (see Ephesians 1:12 & 13).

"It has no use to have endless discussions with either unbelievers or ex-members of the RF or who-ever."

Only if you're not open to the possibility that people outside of your small circle of belief might actually be able to teach you something about Scripture ;)

"It's better either spend time getting saved or when you are saved, look for others that want to be saved. It's very easy...God will confirm with signs following if you are preaching the Gospel.(Mark 16:20)"

Okay. Can I ask you this: what makes you so sure that you're already in the 'saved' state? Is your assurance based on what Scripture teaches? Or is it based on a personal experience that you once had? If you hope to claim the two are one and the same, then given what you've already asserted above, just what assurance do you have that you're currently 'saved' right NOW? If you were to sin in even the slightest degree, and if you were to then immediately drop dead, what would be your final state? If you stop to consider the logic of your position for a moment, then you really can't be sure one way or the other. When taken to its final conclusion, the logic of your position teaches a continual striving through personal effort in the vague (perhaps vain?) hope that at the end of things, you just might make it. Ultimately, you function as your own saviour, Evert. Now is such a position biblically defensible?

"Spending endless time dicussing topics is a waste of your precious time I recon."

Discussing Scripture is a waste of time? How so?

"I always ask the person that wants to know about salvation to pray for the Holy Spirit. That saves a lot of time discussing."

Would you please do me the favour of providing a single Scripture passage that supports the notion that people pray for the Holy Spirit in order to be saved?

"You can't explain how an apple will taste also! You can have a big discussion about it of course...but you will never now how it will taste unless you try it."

Agreed. But do you presume that you're the only person who has ever tasted an apple? But here's a thought to ponder: what if you've been led to believe that you've been eating an apple, when in fact, what you've really been savouring is an lemon?

"For visitors: Ask God for the Holy Spirit and you will be answered without discussion and will speak in tongues. (Seen it always happen!). Don't get caught in thoughts and ideas of someone else..there are thousends of them!"

Sure, but to be biblical and correct for a moment, we need to determine just what Scripture teaches about any given subject and not just what you might think, or what I might think. We've not yet come close to establishing your views (or mine, for that matter) best line up with the Bible yet, hence this current discussion :)

"The bible is not a book to discuss but a manual to do!"

Really? Do you think it's as simple as that? If so, why is it that millions of people read this 'how-to-do' manual for themselves, and still do things completely differently to each other? Perhaps if they spent a little time discussing it first... Don't be afraid to join in the discussion, as we all stand to learn something or other.

God bless,

Ian

Hamlet - 2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

(cont.)

Evert - Just wondering - why on earth do any of us, including admin, want to keep fellowshiping and discussing things with Thomason who is indeed an ex-Revival member ??? especially on a site like this ???

Good morning again, Evert.

(I said) "Do you think it's as simple as that? Then why is it that millions of people read the 'how-to-do' manual for themselves, and still do things completely differently to each other? Perhaps if they spent a little time discussing it first..."

(You said) "Praise the Lord that He made it simple so that everyone can be born again without education!"

A nice attempt at a redirection, brother, but you didn't respond to my question. Now here's an interesting thing concerning the simplicity of the gospel: there are hundreds of millions of people out there who read the Bible for themselves, and without any tutoring at all, responded to the simplicity of the gospel message about trusting in Christ. Compare this against the infinitesimally smaller number who've had a message presented to them that's based on one or two carefully selected passages, but which are verses that require additional commentary not found in any Greek New Testament manuscript or English translation to clarify the apparently 'obvious' meaning: "...with the evidence of speaking in tongues." Isn't it remarkable that no-one in your fellowship is ever "born again without education", as you so aptly put it?

"The problem with the majority of the world is exactly the apparant need to discuss things first."

And as I've just pointed out above, the only ones that really need to have the requirements for salvation discussed beforehand (read, 'spelled-out' in detail), belong to your fellowship and those very few others that preach the same message. Have you ever wondered why this remarkable level of coaching is necessary for you fellows, when the gospel is so plain and simple that even the simplest among the uneducated can grasp it?

"By doing what God asks from you, you will experience signs and wonders but with discussing you will experience headaches."

Again: why is it that a straightforward reading of the Bible doesn't lead one to adopt your conclusions about the requirements for salvation?

"I have noticed that you like to keep everything concerning the gospel theoretical. I am sure you won't see much sign and wonders in your own life then."

You misunderstand my intent then, Evert. First, I simply expect that a 'salvation message' must be based on what the biblical texts actually state. Second, I've witnessed many significant wonders than aren't limited to hearing someone say, "yabba dabba do" over and over ;) Odd that I am, I rate seeing Jesus miraculously changing lives on a daily basis more highly than I do superficial displays of largely learned behaviours ;)

"Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that DOETH the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Yes! That's precisely the point, isn't it? But did you happen to read verses 15 through 20 as well? This passage is an extended discussion concerning the very fact that it's the nature of the 'fruit' which betrays the 'tree' from which it springs. And the context to all of this is sharpened by the verse following your quote, verse 22: "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'" This sounds a little like you, Evert, harping on about so-called 'signs and wonders'. So how did the Lord answer these claims to fellowship with him? Verse 23: "Then I will tell them plainly, 'Go away from me, I NEVER knew you.'" Despite of the so-called 'voice gifts', despite the miraculous 'signs and wonders', Jesus said that he NEVER knew them. Never implies precisely that, brother.

Perhaps you should reflect on this for a bit? And once you've done so, we can get back to discussing the subject of this thread, which is salvation as a state rather than as an event.

God bless,

Ian

Anton,

Long time, no hear.

"Just wondering - why on earth do any of us, including admin, want to keep fellowshiping and discussing things with Thomason who is indeed an ex-Revival member ??? especially on a site like this ???"

Well, for starters I'm a Christian, so there's no biblical reason for you not having fellowship with me. Second, as Proverbs so aptly puts things, "iron sharpens iron", and when this occurs, there'll always be a few sparks! However, the results are well worth the friction (both for you and for me). Third, I'm actually one of those dull and stodgy people trained biblical studies, so I'm in the unique position here of being able to introduce a plethora of important contextual material you fellows aren't really capable of adducing for yourselves (even with a Strong's Concordance or Vine's Dictionary). Fourth, this site was actually established with forums that are open and public. My posts are in keeping with the 'rules and regs' that Admin laid down here. When he believes I've over-stepped the bounds (even when I think otherwise) he can, and does, remove my posts to languish in the 'private' area ;)

Now the fact I'm an ex-Revivalist Christian ought to warrant two things with you: first, I was once where you are now, and I believed then as you do now. Notably, my relationship with Christ hasn't diminished since adopting a more orthodox faith, it's moved in completely the other direction! This clearly stands at odds with what you've probably thought would be the case with people like me. Second, I'm in a minority of ex-Revivalists who don't wish to slug your church by engaging in hostile muck-raking. If I wanted to do that, then I'd have a ready and receptive following at the well known Aimoo forum, and I could let loose to my hearts content! Finally, I'm in a minority of one here by being someone who understands your doctrine much better than most of you do, but who who can actually read and exegete Scripture in Hebrew and Greek. I'm the only person here who has the range of skills, knowledge and training necessary to put forward a truly informed opinion. This isn't a boast, simply a fact.

I've noticed that a few of you fellows have recently begun playing-the-man rather than the ball. This topic is supposed to be about teasing out the meaning and importance of salvation as a state rather than as a goal. I'd suggest that you fellows either get with the program and engage, or sit on the benches and watch. We have a saying in my occupation: "Lead, follow or get out of the way!" 'Whine' isn't one of those task-verbs ;)

God bless,

Ian

Reply to : Anonymous

---

Wow! Can I ask you two questions? Have you ever met Ian Thomason? Are you a Revivalist?L

---

Ian Thomason has his own website called www.pleaseconsider.info. That site should be enough to inform you of Ian Thomason's real intents and purposes. I for one support Ian's brave efforts at addressing serious RF abberation of Holy Writ. Perhaps the RF should consider that Ian's life is a remarkable demonstration that one can leave the RF and succeed in going to much higher places in God and obtain outstanding recognition. Perhaps you should enquire of him personally of the reason he was forced to leave the RF or RCI as it was then known. What a tragedy it would have been had Ian remained shackled behind RCI/RF erronous theological and legalistic walls.

absolutely anonymous