Greetings, All.

Over the course of about a decade, I wrote (and responded to) several thousand posts, most having a decidedly 'doctrinal' flavour. As of this writing I have not been active here for several years, as other forms of ministry have engaged more and more of my discretionary time. However, I remain mindful of the ongoing value this forum has for many seeking to make sense of their 'Revival experience'. Consequently, I would like to provide a brief overview of my approach in the hopes such context will aid in better understanding my many posts.

First, the purpose. I sought to engage on this forum, as I did its predecessors, with the overarching aim of providing informed biblical responses to the standard nonsense espoused in the Revival Centres, the Revival Fellowship, the Geelong Revival Centre, the Christian Assemblies International, as well as in their multiplied heretical offshoots. I have consistently sought to demonstrate the massive gulf between what these pseudo-Christian sects promote as 'doctrine', and what the historic Christian Church has taught on the subjects from the very beginning.

Next, the method. I believe it crucial to demonstrate that all interpretations are not, in fact, created equal. For example: what Revivalist pastor 'so-and-so' says about 'such-and-such' shouldn't be believed if it can be conclusively demonstrated he has completely misunderstood what the text he appeals to actually presents. So instead of parroting their approach of expecting people to uncritically accept what I state, I have consistently gone to the effort of providing my 'workings out', to better enable readers to check the veracity of what I have written for themselves. My approach has been to actively promote dialogue, always seeking to establish conversations that foster communication. But not uncritically. While I have tried to be respectful wherever possible, you will quickly note I have little time for the self-righteous; for the willfully ignorant, or for the Revivalist apologist keen to use this forum as a launching pad for his or her 'witnessing'. My catch cry has been irenics whenever possible, polemics whenever necessary! Of course, I have also largely refused to 'spoon-feed' people with 'easy' answers. A pox on the gurus! To the contrary, I have expected people to think for themselves; to consider where the information I presented eventually led. This too has been intentional. Unfortunately 'Revivalism' promotes lazy thinking to an alarming degree, where the people sitting in the seats uncritically 'swallow' whatever rubbish is put in front of them. Far better indeed it is to 'taste' and 'chew' first; if more people did so, there would be far fewer dining on Revivalism than is the case presently. 

Finally, the endstate. Despite the repeated assurances of a small number of 'nay-sayers', I was not motivated by 'converting' people away from Revivalism towards Christianity. Instead, I preferred to set people to thinking about 'what' they believed or disbelieved, 'why' they did so, to then considering the consequences of their beliefs. When all is said and done, I am not personally responsible for others' standing before God, that remains completely between them and Him.

Blessings,

Ian T.

BTh(Hons), MTheol, MLead, ThD