Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Revival Doctrines we 'USED TO BELIEVE' Go to subcategory:
Author Content
jim55
  • Rank:Lurker
  • Score:110
  • Posts:4
  • From:Australia
  • Register:23/10/2008 12:17 PM

Date Posted:23/10/2008 1:16 PMCopy HTML

Brothers and Sisters,
My name is James (Jim)  and i was in RCI from Aug 1991 till summer '03, i have tried many other churches trying to find a spirit filled church with those that exercise the manifestations of the spirit; gifts and fruits ( there more similar than you realise).
Of all 11 churches ive been to ( 5 were of the AOG)  i have to say nothing measures upto RCI.

I find most christians (on here aswell) to be so overwhelmed by their self pride that the spirit of god cannot be in them! many on here seem to hide ander the intellectual umbrella of the self-righteouss Ian.


Let me just say Ian that for someone who spends a great deal of time studying the srciptures, brother what part of love dont you understand? you rather quote people line for line ( completely taking the overall structure of their post for granted ) with little witty remarks putting them down! i hope you show some form of meakness and humility when you reply to this one.

RCI has its internal problems, big deal, so has every church ive been too! however their doctrine on the spirit is the best ive found, people who leave cannot accept this as they cannot man-up to the truth, they make exceptions,excuses. many were put-out of fellowship and blame the pastors for everything. Take it on the chin i say!

So is Tongues really a sin guys? is it passed away?

It is the sign of the spirit at the time of communion (corinthians 14) just like prophecy is the sign of truth ( corinthians 14) ,
Did not someone special say that true worshipers shall worship in spirit and in truth?

So  in Acts  2,10,19 ?? How do people read this and come up with garbage like Peter speaking to the Jews in every language under the sun? anyone got any new ones?

So how do we justify having the spirit?
Believing in jesus as the son of god?? Big deal, half the world believes that, the devil believed that!......anyone who preaches this is not telling the whole story and is therefore perverting the truth! that is as meak as ill be!

Paul writes that when he speaks in an unknown tongue his spirit prayeth! how does your spirit pray my friends?
If you havent recieved the spirit, you are merely being conformed to these people who misinterpret scripture and are leading you to settle for something less. It is mentioned in Timothy that in the last days there will be people with a form of godliness but denying the power of god. Just look around at how many half-hearted christians there are.
Why not find out for yourself? the apostle Paul did, jesus said you will and his disciples did!
Be a partaker of what was promised, let god work his power on you.

The most important part of speaking in tongues is that you keep it personal, it is your private language to god, many churches have gone overboard and have made it a coveted spectacle, just like the Corinthian church ( did you notice however that they all did speak with tongues? )

To brother Ian, i have read your thoughts on many points and i appreciate the effort you put in to help people, however tearing down a supernatural event is beyond your  coveted intellect.If the first time you spoke in tongues wasn't an amazing event, then im afraid you, like many in RCI, havent recieved what was promised, dont let your self-pride get in the way!

God answers by fire in the bible, has he answered you by fire?


Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:23/10/2008 9:47 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Jim.

My name is James (Jim)  and i was in RCI from Aug 1991 till summer '03, i have tried many other churches trying to find a spirit filled church with those that exercise the manifestations of the spirit; gifts and fruits ( there more similar than you realise). Of all 11 churches ive been to ( 5 were of the AOG)  i have to say nothing measures upto RCI. Perhaps, then, you should've tried a Christian church first? They're rather easy to spot, given that they follow the same emphases as does Scripture.

I find most christians (on here aswell) to be so overwhelmed by their self pride that the spirit of god cannot be in them! many on here seem to hide ander the intellectual umbrella of the self-righteouss Ian.
Excusing the fact of an exercised intellect for a moment, what you've just described sounds very much like the average Revivalist.

Let me just say Ian that for someone who spends a great deal of time studying the srciptures, brother what part of love dont you understand? you rather quote people line for line ( completely taking the overall structure of their post for granted ) with little witty remarks putting them down! i hope you show some form of meakness and humility when you reply to this one. The part of 'love' that I don't understand, and I'll be perfectly frank about it, is that bit that apparently divorces itself from truth so as not to offend anyone. Next, I quote people line-for-line, given that's the best way to capture the actual context of their statements. I read Scripture the same way, line-for-line; I'd recommend you do so in future too.

RCI has its internal problems, big deal, so has every church ive been too! however their doctrine on the spirit is the best ive found, people who leave cannot accept this as they cannot man-up to the truth, they make exceptions,excuses. many were put-out of fellowship and blame the pastors for everything. Take it on the chin i say! Yes. No doubt. I don't overly bother myself with the socially dysfunctional side of the RCI; however I will state this: that you believe the RCI has the 'best' doctrine is so only because you quite simply don't know any better. Now ignorance does have it's advantages, I suppose. But as I've stated here a few times before, whilst it may be 'bliss' it simply ain't eternal.

So is Tongues really a sin guys? is it passed away? 'Nope' and 'nope'. But who says what you do is "tongues"? Tell me, Jim, what's the proof for your proof? 


So how do we justify having the spirit? Believing in jesus as the son of god?? Big deal, half the world believes that, the devil believed that!......anyone who preaches this is not telling the whole story and is therefore perverting the truth! that is as meak as ill be! Indeed believing in Jesus is a big deal. But going, "yibidah, yibidah, that's all folks!" over and over (... and over) is somehow an equally big deal?

Paul writes that when he speaks in an unknown tongue his spirit prayeth! how does your spirit pray my friends? Yes, HIS spirit does the praying and not THE spirit. Did you happen to notice the distinction?

If you havent recieved the spirit, you are merely being conformed to these people who misinterpret scripture and are leading you to settle for something less. It is mentioned in Timothy that in the last days there will be people with a form of godliness but denying the power of god. Just look around at how many half-hearted christians there are. Why not find out for yourself? the apostle Paul did, jesus said you will and his disciples did! Be a partaker of what was promised, let god work his power on you.

The most important part of speaking in tongues is that you keep it personal, it is your private language to god, many churches have gone overboard and have made it a coveted spectacle, just like the Corinthian church ( did you notice however that they all did speak with tongues? ) Do tell. There's a little word that comes from Greek rhetoric that I'd like you to look up in the dictionary: hyperbole. I'll explain its significance a little later, if you'd like.

To brother Ian, i have read your thoughts on many points and i appreciate the effort you put in to help people, however tearing down a supernatural event is beyond your coveted intellect. Who says what Revivalists do is in any shape, form or way, a 'supernatural event'? Especially given the way that Revivalists first 'do' what they 'do' happens in totally contrived settings?

If the first time you spoke in tongues wasn't an amazing event, then im afraid you, like many in RCI, havent recieved what was promised, dont let your self-pride get in the way! I'm sure much the same could be said for the first time people got drunk, too. Is the 'buzz' that comes from drunkenness also 'supernatural'?

God answers by fire in the bible, has he answered you by fire? Hallelujah! Jim, I'm glad that you finally got around to mentioning the Bible in that long and drawn-out post of yours. Now, would you care to test your beliefs against it? Could be interesting.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:23/10/2008 10:16 PMCopy HTML

 Hello Jim James,

It is always good to see someone willing to leave RCI if they need to, and seek out the truth in other establishments.
But I can tell you that if you use RCI indoctrination as the measuring stick to base discernment on another groups way of worship, then the apple really can fall no further from the tree.  Sometimes it is best to get another perspective.  Otherwise you are not really leaving the RCI, you are just trying to fellowship elsewhere.  Why not just return to RCI?

There is nothing wrong with using our intellects, that is why God gave us intellects, for us to use them. This does not move us away from God, but closer. 

You have asked us if tongues is a sin - no it is the charismata that is listed in the bible, for use the way the bible has instructed.  Just because RC/RF have not understood tongues and charismata, doesn't mean mainstream churches do not understand these manifestations.  Again, please read the please consider articles on the subjects, and also speak to an orthodox minister in your neck of the woods ( for example an Anglican minister) about the subject so that you can understand how others deal with the issue.  At the Anglican church I attend, all our ministers can "speak in tongues" as well, but to go with that they have the proper qualifications to go with it.

The rest of your post was pure re-iteration of RCI indoctrination.  I am sure your final line made a lot of us laugh!

I would bet that you still think that all people who dont "speak in tongues" are not real christians, just try hard wanna be's, and people like you are the "special ambassadors" of God's "true" message.

And then you look at the postings on a site like this and find that here you are not so "special" after all.

Well, you are not so special, you have been sold a pup, so take it on the chin.

Most of us have had to.

Regards PM
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:23/10/2008 11:20 PMCopy HTML

Hi Jim

Personally, I'm more concerned whether a church I visit measures up to the bible - the apostles' doctrine - rather than whether it measures up to RCI (or in recent times for me RF). By that standard (the bible) the majority of Christendom has way better doctine than RCI regarding the Spirit. For starters, the vast majority don't promote the furphy that everyone who has the Spirit speaks in tongues.
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
jim55 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Lurker
  • Score:110
  • Posts:4
  • From:Australia
  • Register:23/10/2008 12:17 PM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:24/10/2008 1:53 AMCopy HTML

Sorry guys il take back all that talk on love, meakness, humility. Obviously thats a little far-fetched for some of you fellas.
 I am not pro-RCI as an organisation, but scripturally speaking i think their doctrine on the SPIRIT is the best fit to that desrcibed by Paul.
In that tongues, interpretation and prophecy are used according to Corinthians 14 and are not taken out of order. I do NOT naturally pride myself on speaking in tongues, but understand its role in the body of christ and the personal prayer language it offers.
Ian you are definately right on your point about how just because someone can say yipedah yipedah their saved, obviously not!
My experience of speaking in tongues was AFTER i repented and excepted christ as the saviour, and in praising him this amazing experience occured, and still is amazing! and sorry to abuse your correlation, but it clearly beats the first time i was drunk!  How about you? drinking is better?

The scriptures on tongues are simple,Mark 16:17,  Acts 2:4 , Acts 10:44 , Acts 19:6 , what explanation have you guys got for these? Jews, Gentiles, Disciples, there was nothing from a linguistic (ironic when people spell this wrong!) point of view that is inconclusive.
Should Peter and Paul repent for this sin as well ? common guys!

Im sorry to be only talking about tongues, but that seems to be the dividing line between RCI and many other churches. I havent been back there for alot of internal reasons, mainly affecting my family.
However i am dissapointed in the lack of care that you guys have for your fellow brothers and sisters, mister kilometres i think you understand more than the others, you actually were part of the church and felt the love of alot of the people there.
Many accuse RCI of being a slash and burn Texas cult!  they are merely brothers and sisters doing thier best to live by the way of the lord, just like us!

I appreciate all your thoughts,
Jim

Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:24/10/2008 2:48 AMCopy HTML

Hello Jimbo

You are disappointed about the love and care that 'we' show for our brothers and sisters? No, I can honestly say that I (and the vast majority of us) DO show love, care and respect for our brothers & sisters Jim.  There are some truly beautiful people in the rev groups the same as in any organisation. People are people where ever they are! 

But I would like to say (in love) that you really have to read up more and pray and seek God about some things. Yes, the Corinthians spoke in tongues, yes we ALL spoke in tongues (because we wouldn't have been allowed to stay in fellowship if we didn't, after all!) and yes I certainly pray in tongues when it's just my Lord and me. But we do NOT NEED to speak in tongues for salvation and that's where the rev groups have it wrong.

When we believe on Jesus Christ and what He did for us at the cross, and we make the decision to follow Him and only Him, we are filled with the Holy Spirit - whether we speak in tongues or not!  Tongues are not a 'sign' that one is 'spirit-filled'. The 'sign' if there must be one, is seen in how we live our lives, treat others, do what Jesus would do etc etc. in other words, our fruits.  I know many people that speak in tongues and will stab you in the back as quick as look at you - AND I'm talking pastors/oversight here as well.  They are not displaying the fruits of the Spirit. And before you suggest that I am bitter against these groups - I am not.  I left of my own accord after 24 years because of seeking God and finding Him.  I'm now in a beautiful relationship with my Lord and Saviour that I didn't even know I could have during that whole 24 years. Get it?

Urch

Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:24/10/2008 2:58 AMCopy HTML

Jim

1) I don't have time for sweetness-and-light, so if you appreciate my thoughts you'll have to bear with it.

2) I was part of RCI from 1977 to 1995, so I know very well the sincerity of the many with whom I fellowshipped. Same goes for RF from 1995 to 2008. Such sincerity, however does not mean their doctrine is God's doctrine. Remember what Paul said about his fellow Jews?

3) The essays in the first sub-forum at the top of the home page of this site, and those at  www.pleaseconsider.info can enlighten you as to interpreting the scriptures you mention, as well as many other Revival favourites. As a starting point you should consider that those verses have a context. Eg Ac 2:4 refers to the sound of wind, the appearance of flames, languages that were understood and it was *the apostles* who spoke in tongues; do these characteristics apply to your experience?

4) Where on Earth do you get the idea that I lack concern for members of RCI/RF?

The key to your better understanding scripture is to mix humility with reading in context, and it may take some work to see that context rather than just the Revivalist out-of-context, proof-texting perspective.

The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:24/10/2008 3:32 AMCopy HTML

  Hello Jimbro,

You are right to look more closely at tongues doctrine.  The key for you on this is that I am not saying that there is no tongues.  What I am saying is that the tongues that happenned at pentecost and the tongues that is spoken of to the Corinthians are different.  If you can properly grasp that and accept it, you will be well on the way to a more inclusive and correct view of the matter.  If you cannot break the two events from each other, then you will be destined to be seperatist and exclusivist in your approach to fellow christians, both in and out of RC/RF.

So the dividing line is not the order of the gifts in the service, but the acknowledgement of tongues and charismata as being seperate.

I personally found that coming off my high horse on this position liberating on the one side, and a sense of loss of what I thought was a special exalted position with God I had.  Later I knew it was just plain old ordinary pride.  Once humbled off my horse, I was able to truly feel at one with all christians. 

Yes, I was a part of the Box Hill scene for 14 years ( minus the year I spent at Bellarine) and I grew many relationships with really good people, some of which now that they have left RC/RF I am allowed to converse with.  When I went - I received only 2 invitations to talk with people.  One was from Pr Alf, and the other an older gent from my area, who when he heard that I was down, he called me on the phone and was very nice, and offered to talk anytime.  What I am saying is that these are really only limited friendships in RC/RF.  When the chips are down, your real friends and family are there for you.  You will be abandoned by RC/RF.  You will only feel the love as long as you are in.  I have publicly said here in aimoo land that I do miss a lot of people there - don't we all!  And we will be there for them if we can, but usually that means they must leave RC/RF before normal relationships with people can recurr. 

When you say lack of care - what do you mean by that?  Because it is very easy to read some of these posts in the wrong light.  If you care to take what people are saying on the forum here in the most loving way meant, then you will not be so aggrevated by what is posted.  I know Ian has seemed to of pushed your button so to speak, but if you care to have a look at the bigger picture of what he is posting, and then verify it, you will see an abundance of care.  It just doesn't come as nicely wrapped as you would like it. 

Please keep engaging us - and also please read up on the please consider articles from Drew and Ian, and bring up what points you do not agree with, in order to openly dicuss the details with us all. 

Keep your chin up,

Regards Mr K
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:24/10/2008 3:46 AMCopy HTML

Jimbo, hola.

Sorry guys il take back all that talk on love, meakness, humility. Obviously thats a little far-fetched for some of you fellas. Nope. But I'm guessing that it was probably a little far fetched for us to expect that you would actually consider what we had to share in our responses to you. Typically Revivalist, if you don't mind me saying.
I am not pro-RCI as an organisation, but scripturally speaking i think their doctrine on the SPIRIT is the best fit to that desrcibed by Paul. In that tongues, interpretation and prophecy are used according to Corinthians 14 and are not taken out of order. Yes. And as I said previously, you simply don't know any better.

I do NOT naturally pride myself on speaking in tongues, but understand its role in the body of christ and the personal prayer language it offers. Ian you are definately right on your point about how just because someone can say yipedah yipedah their saved, obviously not! Obviously. But I had heaps more to say in that particular part of my response to you, crucial info that you clearly glossed over in your haste to reinforce your rubbish concerning 'tongues'. My experience of speaking in tongues was AFTER i repented and excepted christ as the saviour, and in praising him this amazing experience occured, and still is amazing! and sorry to abuse your correlation, but it clearly beats the first time i was drunk!  How about you? drinking is better? I wouldn't know. I don't drink and I've never been drunk. But the point that I made remains valid.

The scriptures on tongues are simple,Mark 16:17,  Acts 2:4 , Acts 10:44 , Acts 19:6 , what explanation have you guys got for these? Try reading some of the stuff that I've published on the aforementioned passages.
Jews, Gentiles, Disciples, there was nothing from a linguistic (ironic when people spell this wrong!) point of view that is inconclusive. Should Peter and Paul repent for this sin as well ? common guys! Yes, poor spelling is somewhat ironic. Almost as ironic as is poor spellers commenting on others' poor spelling.

Im sorry to be only talking about tongues, but that seems to be the dividing line between RCI and many other churches. I havent been back there for alot of internal reasons, mainly affecting my family. You're a one-track guy with a one-track theology. Noone was expecting you to speak about anything except 'tongues'. Had you done so, I expect a few people here would've fallen off their chairs in shock. However i am dissapointed in the lack of care that you guys have for your fellow brothers and sisters, mister kilometres i think you understand more than the others, you actually were part of the church and felt the love of alot of the people there. We've all been a part of that 'church', Jim. Some of us simply decided it was better to ditch the Longfeldian heresy in order to embrace Christianity.

Many accuse RCI of being a slash and burn Texas cult!  they are merely brothers and sisters doing thier best to live by the way of the lord, just like us! Rubbish. I appreciate all your thoughts. That's nice.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
lots2say Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Lurking
  • Score:40
  • Posts:2
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/10/2008 10:34 PM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:24/10/2008 4:35 AMCopy HTML

First time poster, long time observer.

To Ian, you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

I will start by saying that I find most of what people have to say on this forum extremely distressing. To those who get off on their intellect, rattling on with smug little smiley-faces and catch phrases, wake up and smell the manure!

I too was a “Revivalist” as this forum puts it. Though it seems that the tone in which you pigeon hole such people seems very judgemental. I may be wrong, but didn’t you regulars on this chat room go to such churches at one point?  This label seems to be given antagonistically to those who still hold onto what they have, the Holy Spirit. I can only assume that you are not privy to such a label as none of you seem to have received the Holy Spirit, for none of you seem to have proof.  I can only therefore assume this is the reason for your resentment and remorse toward those who understand the term “humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord”. If you label me as a “Revivalist” because I have the Holy Spirit and have received evidence of the fact, as this IS Biblical, then I will take such a label humbly and happily, regardless of whether you intend it to be an insult.

Before I go any further I need you to clear something up for me Ian.  Once again we “Revivalists” pose the question to you – HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE SAVED OR HAVE RECIEVED SALVATION? In typical form of a Politian (must be from the water you drink), you have not answered this question directly when it has been put to you in the past. Your answers to date have simply been full of ambiguity and fluff. You simply avoid the answer to this by putting down the Holy Spirit experience. Well, answer the question.

I left RCI a while ago and after speaking to some Baptist friends who told me that I had been brain-washed and would need to be debriefed, I decided to step back and start from scratch and look at the scriptures with a “clear vision” - hi there Mr Clear Vision! After doing this I was only more convinced that the sign of the Holy Spirit that I had experienced was the truth. So if I have taken anything good from the RCI experience, it is this strong foundation – a foundation you clearly never grasped!

I do not belong to any organisational church as the politics and lack of shepherding of the flock caused me a stumbling block that was slowly destroying my joy in the Lord. I too have looked at many other churches and yes Jim James, you are right, they all have their problems; it is called mankind, man’s wisdom and man’s pride. Whenever mankind gets between us and the Lord things seem to eventually go wrong. This has been the history of organised religion all through the ages. Many well known organisations started out on the right path only to loose sight of what the Lord asks of them at some point (usually after one generation). Have a think about that, PSL is second generation leadership. Most have been overridden by rituals, greed and pride or ‘charity’ alone (though performing good works was never RCIs forte).

The one thing that I did start to realise after leaving RCI, is just how different the churches in Paul’s letters functioned, worshipped, had fellowship and even the way that they interacted with each other; this was a far cry from the way many of the churches operate today. Over the centuries the idea of “church-based worship” has reverted back to the ritualistic and repetitive practises that God had sent his Son to do away with. God’s purpose for sending Jesus was to teach a new way to follow God and to prepare the way for the Spirit (a way to have a direct relationship with our God).

Contrary to beliefs of many who are still blind (and are being led by the blind), the true church is made up of ALL those that are Spirit Filled, sanctified through the Holy Spirit, manifesting ALL the gifts of the Spirit (the Lord does not do things by halves), and walking the walk, communicating with Him through the gift of tongues (as the Spirit gives utterance) which manifests itself in all those who truly believe – NOTHING more, NOTHING less. The church of the New Testament simply relates to two or more gathered together in fellowship (or in communication with one another).

The NT church looked after each other through building themselves up in the Lord – this was rarely through structured meetings, but were in fact often through informal gatherings. Paul even warns them not to get caught up in the repetitive rituals of worship, which all organised churches indulge in today, sadly even RCI.  “Decently and in order” does not mean 10-15min of choruses; stand and open in prayer; sit and open Bible; listen to what you are told for 20-40mins by carefully chosen scriptures; stand for closing prayer; sing a song; repeat, then go home.  

Can anyone tell me where this format of worship is in the Bible? Fellowship is one thing, organised religious structure that just aids in the stroking of egos; helps to puff up those who seek superiority; or acts as a platform for exhibitionists and performers, this is something very different.

The early apostles would take the tithes and offerings and distribute it to those in need, this is a repeated direction to the churches throughout the letters from Paul and was in fact the purpose of the offering in the first place. By removing the burden of need, the believers were better able to do the Lord work and be built up in Him.  You don’t see this in RCI, and with the current situation I am wondering how much money that has been offered over the years has made it to the hands of those in need within the congregation. I had a couple of very tough years there, toast and cereal was almost a staple diet three times a day and I didn’t see any compassion from the church at that time, only vague words of encouragement “the Lord provides”. Yes He does, but He also tells the elders to support those in need and not to flaunt wealth as it causes a stumbling block and an avenue for contention.

I am happy to have fellowship with any true Spirit Filled believer who is walking a righteous walk, but I am no longer interested in pretend Christian practises that these false churches indulge in. The name of the church we belonged to will mean nothing to the Lord on judgement day. He is only interested in ‘His Church’; hiding behind an organisation (or theology for that matter) isn’t good enough. Place your walk into your own hands, or should I say into the Lord’s.

Somebody I spoke with recently use the analogy that they felt like they had been only served vanilla ice-cream at RCI for so many years. When they took a fresh, unadulterated look at the Word for the first time in their lives they discovered that RCI had only been offering vanilla from a Neapolitan tub. I thought this was a fitting way of putting it. Don’t know about you but I like chocolate and strawberry too, or at least I would prefer to have it available to me. Don’t just open your mouth and expect that what others are putting in is everything on offer. Remember the Lord is bigger than us all and is not a man that he may lie.

I hope this has touched those who may be a little disillusioned out there, that the Lord is bigger than RCI or any other organisation that claims to be a church. As the truth regarding the impending GD court case and audit comes out, I am sure there are many of you who may be looking for an alternative. Let me challenge you to look into the scriptures and for a moment put aside the “walk away from the church you walk away from the Lord” mentality. We all have this in our heads and is one of the reasons we linger for so long, but look for yourself into what the Bible defines as fellowship and where this fits into His church (not organisation or corporation).

If you are in doubt about anything, don’t ask a man to explain, take a look at the Word and pray for the Lord to guide you, dare I say it, if you have a clear vision you will see all sorts of things like you have never seen before. I must say well done ClearVision, it is you who have prompted me (and obviously one or two others) to speak up for what is right, just, pure, noble etc. Finally, someone had the gumption to cast some light in a dark place. I too, until now,  just shook my head a lot when reading much of the rubbish posted in this forum, but if those of us who have the truth, know the truth and have experienced the truth decide to stand up and be counted, then maybe together we can shed more and more light on the dimwits - Oh! Sorry, I meant to say dimly lit.

 Yep, I know this is long but I did warn you with my nick name.

If you are looking for fellowship as I have mentioned post a private message to me here.

L2S

 

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:24/10/2008 5:14 AMCopy HTML

Hello, L2S.

It's indeed true that you have 'lots to say'; however, most of it is little more than uninformed twaddle. Consequently, I'll limit myself to responding to just the 'highlights' (and never a poorer choice of words has been made).
Once again we “Revivalists” pose the question to you – HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE SAVED OR HAVE RECIEVED SALVATION? Quite simply in fact: God doesn't lie.

I left RCI a while ago and after speaking to some Baptist friends who told me that I had been brain-washed and would need to be debriefed, I decided to step back and start from scratch and look at the scriptures with a “clear vision” - hi there Mr Clear Vision! After doing this I was only more convinced that the sign of the Holy Spirit that I had experienced was the truth. So if I have taken anything good from the RCI experience, it is this strong foundation – a foundation you clearly never grasped! Pffttt! Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but you were brainwashed, and you are quite naive if you think that you can approach Scripture, tabula rasa. By-the-bye, your much vaunted 'foundation' is, in and of itself, cracked and wholly unsuited to the task that you would ascribe to it. I do not belong to any organisational church as the politics and lack of shepherding of the flock caused me a stumbling block that was slowly destroying my joy in the Lord. I'm supposed to be surprised that you're another one of those 'Lone Ranger'-types? There's something of a pattern that's been forming around the latest influx of Revivalist posters, and I'm wondering if you've noticed what it is?

Contrary to beliefs of many who are still blind (and are being led by the blind), the true church is made up of ALL those that are Spirit Filled, sanctified through the Holy Spirit, manifesting ALL the gifts of the Spirit (the Lord does not do things by halves), and walking the walk, communicating with Him through the gift of tongues (as the Spirit gives utterance) which manifests itself in all those who truly believe – NOTHING more, NOTHING less. The church of the New Testament simply relates to two or more gathered together in fellowship (or in communication with one another). In a word, 'bollocks'.

I decided to end my response at this point, as it was just too difficult taking any more of your ignorant nonsense seriously (especially the rubbish that you prattled on with, as to how you think the original believers 'did' church). And whilst I thoroughly enjoy reading the ravings of people who are functionally illiterate when in comes to Scripture, who have no first-hand knowledge of biblical or theological studies, and who wouldn't be able to recognise context were it served up beside their mashed potatoes and peas; it does get a bit tedious hearing the same old, "...my experience of 'tongues' is..." line. So why don't you fellows put aside your subjective beliefs for a moment, and start appealing to the objective canon which is Scripture? You claim to have 'proof'? Well the only proof that I'll accept is the kind that can be solidly defended from the Word of God. There's a challenge for you.


Blessings, dude.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:24/10/2008 5:43 AMCopy HTML

L2S

Here's a point to ponder. I too decided to "step back and start from scratch and look at thei scriptures with a clear vision” and came to a different conclusion from you ie tongues, according to the bible, is not the universal sign of receivng the Spirit ('though I still pray in tongues). We can't both be correct. How would one go about choosing between our positions?

Hmmm ... I can't read the original languages of the bible, and I certainly don't have access to the autographs. I don't even live in the middle east, asia minor or south-eastern europe during the first century. So, my understanding though I believe from God, *was* mediated by man. Perhaps you didn't need any mediation through men ...

The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:24/10/2008 6:24 AMCopy HTML

Hi Talmid,

Amen to your statement that "Tongues, according to the bible, is not the universal sign of receivng the Spirit (though I still pray in tongues)"
 
L2S, EVERY single believer receives the Holy Spirit when he/she believes. I have copied some info for you to consider and I ask you to read it prayerfully and remember that the Holy Spirit is not a 'force' or a 'power' to be ' tapped into' to enable us to speak in tongues.

The Apostle Paul clearly taught that we receive the Holy Spirit the moment we believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior. 1 Corinthians 12:13 declares, "For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free - and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." Romans 8:9 tells us that if a person does not possess the Holy Spirit, he or she does not belong to Christ - "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ." Ephesians 1:13-14 teaches us that the Holy Spirit is the seal of salvation for all those who believe, "Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-to the praise of his glory."

These three Scriptures make it clear that the Holy Spirit must be received at the moment of salvation. Paul could not say that we all were baptized by one Spirit and all given one Spirit to drink if not all of the Corinthian believers possessed the Holy Spirit.
Romans 8:9 is even stronger. If a person does not have the Spirit, he does not belong to Christ. Therefore, the possession of the Spirit is an identifying factor of the possession of salvation. Further, the Holy Spirit could not be the “seal of salvation” (Ephesians 1:13-14) if He is not received at the moment of salvation. Many Scriptures make it abundantly clear that our salvation is secured the moment we receive Christ as Savior.

This discussion is controversial because the ministries of the Holy Spirit are often confused. The receiving / indwelling of the Spirit occurs at the moment of salvation. The filling of the Spirit is an ongoing process in the Christian life.  In conclusion, how do we receive the Holy Spirit? We receive the Holy Spirit by simply believing in the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior (
John 3:5-16). When do we receive the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit becomes our permanent possession the moment we believe.

Regards, Urchin

Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:24/10/2008 6:28 AMCopy HTML

Tabula rasa (Latinblank slate) refers to the epistemological thesis that individual human beings are born with no built-in mental content, in a word, "blank", and that their entire resource of knowledge is built up gradually from their experiences and sensory perceptions of the outside world.

I'm glad I'm not too lazy to look up new words and concepts in a dictionary (in-joke). 

Many a 'Revival doctrine enthusiast' will be heavily biased to include the 'tongues' indoctrination into any future study, even if it is 'blank slate', unless they're able to see through the mudded waters and not believe the lie. I left the Revival groups about 5 years ago and hung unto the s.i.t. beliefs, even though I acknowledged it didn't make sense and it wasn't supernatural. I was in there for 17 years and took the beliefs therein very seriously, but also with good humour.

Consequently, and after regularly fellowshipping at various types of churches in the two proceeding years, I became disallusioned with Christianity, religion, and the idea that god existed in the first place. I'm not scared to go completely blank slate and work up from there BUT I'm not prepared to be taken in by the nostril by other people's misconceptions, preconceptions and obvious deceptions.

I think the quote from Numbers 23:19 that God doesn't lie would be a good start, and that some informed study, in context and with a healthy dash of exegesis, it might actually take me to a place where I can make some 'statements' about what I believe in. I know it will. I'm a slow learner, but learn I do.

I'm very curious to see the Revival doctrine apologists actually defend (or aplologise) for their unfortunate and shallow interpretations, but I don't really NEED to see them anymore, enjoyable thought it is to see Ian answer them both simply and comprehensively. Revival tongue doctrine enthusiasts (sorry, can I just use the word Revivalist?) seem to scan very quickly over any documentation that very thorougly debunks their humanly invented beliefs. I DO enjoy reading scriptural debate though, so please don't hold back. I'll watch and learn.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:24/10/2008 6:53 AMCopy HTML

To all those thoroughly uncritical, completely subjective Revivalists:

If you're posting here with little more intention than seeking to assert the "I'm right, Didaktikon's wrong" line, and then with nothing more substantial to back this up than your supposedly "supernatural" experience, understand this: I'll simply shred your arguments and demonstrate conclusively just how ignorant and/or naive you are. That is, if I even bother to respond to your nonsense at all.

However, if you're interested in testing your beliefs, and then against Scripture; I will be a little more accommodating towards you.

Now, for all you "lone Ranger" types floating around out there at the moment, assuring me that you're actually a part of the "Church Universal", the NT teaching on what constitutes a church is both clear and specific and simply getting together with your "buds" for "fellowship" ain't it. A NT church is a corporate and structured body of believers, one that is constituted and empowered by God, one that actively and pointedly engages in corporate Christian mission, one that disciples believers to spiritual maturity, one that preaches the gospel without fear or favour, one that teaches believers, and one that has in place structures that foster mutual accountability. It also administers the sacraments, engages in worship, and stands in common fellowship with the rest of the Body of Christ. And such a "laundry list" of "marks" is simply the beginning of "what is the Church". In a "nut shell", biblical Christianity is thoroughly communal (the Greek term that's often translated as "fellowship", properly means "participation"); it knows nothing of the individual who chooses to "go it alone".


Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:24/10/2008 12:32 PMCopy HTML

Epi,

Amen and amen. When the Revivalists stop to think about matters, they will quickly discover that there isn't a single account of anything in Acts, or 1 Corinthians, that mirrors how they "got saved". No example of anyone "seeking" for the Holy Spirit,
ever. No example of anyone ever saying "hallelujah" over and over until the inevitable hyperventilation kicked in, and with it the light-headedness and slurring of one's speech. No example of anyone in Scripture ever being coached to speak in "tongues".

Revivalists,

Yep, your "tongue" is a real, bona fide miracle, huh? As I pointed out to an RCI pastor recently, for a group of people who place such a premium on God "proving" himself through the "miraculous", I'm amazed that you fellows seem to feel such an urgent need to lend him a hand. Biblical Christianity, real Christianity, isn't defined by self-delusion or self-deception. Think about that, and then repent of your hubris.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
jim55 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:Lurker
  • Score:110
  • Posts:4
  • From:Australia
  • Register:23/10/2008 12:17 PM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:25/10/2008 12:09 PMCopy HTML

To keep you Anti-Revivalists happy , ill give you the clarity i should of given from the start, if i only i knew what id get hit back with!

My Tongues experience:
August 11, 1989, i was in prayer by my car after being shook up by a few things. When i started to speak in tongues it was an amazing experience, hit for six, i felt light and overtaken. i could not control my tongue and when i finally could stop i felt so much peace and  internal energy it was quite unexplainable. 
Since then ive only been able to activate it through prayer and complete mental saturation of god ( was saturation the right word?) , in other words if someone on the street came and told me to speak in tongues i couldnt. Anyone else had a similar experience?
I didnt understand,why me? im a light-hearted down to earth guy, i only thought the churchy big-wigs were able to speak in tongues.
Since then my speaking in tongues experiences have been similar, nothing la-di-da about it.


My view on RCI:
Look when i came to RCI i was astounded at the warmth of the people and the things they had to say, that slowly diminshed over time. I was and still am skeptical of their view on tongues, it seems that anyone their can speak in tongues at anytime, sounds a little suss? its so hard to say this without coming across as a big-headed boof, but it wouldnt suprise me if MANY revivalists havent actually recieved the gift of tongues like on the day of pentecost. But that wasn't by problem with the group, my problem was their pride that just because they belonged to an organisation they automatically had it right, without any sincere knowledge of the word or the works of jesus. From a practical point of spirituality, the place stinks!

On other groups:
Yet to find one that acknowledges that jesus died for us to have his spirit! many are either
A) jesus loves everyone, you can sin willfully and you'll be forgiven straight away, think of jesus as this perfect MAN  that was TRAGICALLY killed. They acknoweldge the ways of jesus (which is great!) but dont understand the purpose behind his death.

b) Believe jesus died for a reason but cannot tame the understanding of what it was, eg; lets all speak in tongues and give prophecys about global warming and politics! you guys know the type...'charismata' someone said...

So after my distaste for RCI, why did i like that group the best?
Probably because they teach the life,ways and techings of jesus, take communion, baptise people in the name of jesus, and keep a lid on the spiritual gifts and the spiritual way of life.

Am i tongues crazed?
No, but i can only see it as a fulfillment of jesus' promise. What else do people have of their beliefs?
This topic is one that ive been chatting about since i became a christian in '88 , people are still coming up with the same excuses as to why tongues is no longer around, some people these days try to be clever and whip out their Hypo-Greeko texts and pick a word out of their thesaurus that takes their liking, RCI did this too.
Id love to proved wrong on every scripture concerning tongues as to why it is not important, sadly havent been in 20 years. Mind you 12 years in RCI doesnt help!

Im looking to fellowship with a group that can be tough (stand by) on scripture and not give way to their love PHILOsophy.
And by the same token display the humility that jesus had, many on here for example seem to have all the answers ready to pounce with their theories and human knowledge. Many of you are very condemming ( probably not your role! ), i went through 12 years of that, doesnt phase me the slightest.

Jim



Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:25/10/2008 1:08 PMCopy HTML

Hi, Jim.

My Tongues experience: August 11, 1989, i was in prayer by my car after being shook up by a few things. When i started to speak in tongues it was an amazing experience, hit for six, i felt light and overtaken. i could not control my tongue and when i finally could stop i felt so much peace and  internal energy it was quite unexplainable.  Since then ive only been able to activate it through prayer and complete mental saturation of god ( was saturation the right word?) , in other words if someone on the street came and told me to speak in tongues i couldnt. Anyone else had a similar experience? I didnt understand,why me? im a light-hearted down to earth guy, i only thought the churchy big-wigs were able to speak in tongues. Since then my speaking in tongues experiences have been similar, nothing la-di-da about it. Sure. But if you don't mind me asking, "so what?" It's ironic, but when I read what Scripture has to say about the gift of "tongues", I don't find very much that's common to what you've described. Does that concern you?

My view on RCI: Look when i came to RCI i was astounded at the warmth of the people and the things they had to say, that slowly diminshed over time. I was and still am skeptical of their view on tongues, it seems that anyone their can speak in tongues at anytime, sounds a little suss? its so hard to say this without coming across as a big-headed boof, but it wouldnt suprise me if MANY revivalists havent actually recieved the gift of tongues like on the day of pentecost. Oh, I think we can be a little more explicit than that. I think we can categorically state that NO Revivalist has received what the apostles received at Pentecost. Furthermore, neither did you.


But that wasn't by problem with the group, my problem was their pride that just because they belonged to an organisation they automatically had it right, without any sincere knowledge of the word or the works of jesus. From a practical point of spirituality, the place stinks! There are lots of things stink, Jim.

On other groups: Yet to find one that acknowledges that jesus died for us to have his spirit! many are either A) jesus loves everyone, you can sin willfully and you'll be forgiven straight away, think of jesus as this perfect MAN  that was TRAGICALLY killed. They acknoweldge the ways of jesus (which is great!) but dont understand the purpose behind his death. Please humour me for a moment, Jim. What do you think was the purpose behind Jesus' death? If you think it was simply to make available the Spirit (which isn't "tongues" by the way), then you would be quite mistaken.

So after my distaste for RCI, why did i like that group the best? Probably because they teach the life,ways and techings of jesus, take communion, baptise people in the name of jesus, and keep a lid on the spiritual gifts and the spiritual way of life. And if you actually believe the above to be true, then I have a bridge that I'd like to sell to you! The RCI knows nothing about the teachings of Jesus. Further, the way the RCI takes communion isn't the way the early Church partook. Further, the RCI understands very, very little about spiritual gifts, so how on earth could they keep a lid on them? And finally, as an organisation they are about as far removed from demonstrating that they understand the spiritual way of life as a group can get. Your admissions, above, haven't done very much to bolster your credibility I'm saddened to say.

Am i tongues crazed? Probably. It's what you seem to talk about the most, and it's what you seem to gravitate back to, time and again. In short, you present as being someone who has a relationship with a "sign" more than he does one with a Saviour.

No, but i can only see it as a fulfillment of jesus' promise. What else do people have of their beliefs?
This topic is one that ive been chatting about since i became a christian in '88 , people are still coming up with the same excuses as to why tongues is no longer around, some people these days try to be clever and whip out their Hypo-Greeko texts and pick a word out of their thesaurus that takes their liking, RCI did this too. Id love to proved wrong on every scripture concerning tongues as to why it is not important, sadly havent been in 20 years. Mind you 12 years in RCI doesnt help! Well, to be honest, it wouldn't take very much effort to prove you wrong on this, and a number of other faulty beliefs that you no doubt hold to. In fact, you've already been proven wrong, conclusively.

Im looking to fellowship with a group that can be tough (stand by) on scripture and not give way to their love PHILOsophy. And by the same token display the humility that jesus had, many on here for example seem to have all the answers ready to pounce with their theories and human knowledge. Many of you are very condemming ( probably not your role! ), i went through 12 years of that, doesnt phase me the slightest. Jim, I've mentioned several times now that you simply don't know any better. You keep on proving my initial observation correct. I fear that you don't know what biblical Christianity is; consequently, you wouldn't recognise it were you to somehow stumble across it. To the contrary, you're clearly seeking after a group that will simply reinforce your mistaken assumptions and faulty beliefs. And that's very sad.

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
lots2say Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:Lurking
  • Score:40
  • Posts:2
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/10/2008 10:34 PM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:25/10/2008 1:17 PMCopy HTML

Well, I have been challenged to stand up and show scripture (NIV) and not just opinion. Not that I see to many scriptures in context given by Ian, just more:

 If you're posting here with little more intention than seeking to assert the "I'm right, Didaktikon's wrong" line, and then with nothing more substantial to back this up than your supposedly "supernatural" experience, understand this: I'll simply shred your arguments and demonstrate conclusively just how ignorant and/or naive you are. That is, if I even bother to respond to your nonsense at all.

However, if you're interested in testing your beliefs, and then against Scripture; I will be a little more accommodating towards you

Well here is the scriptural response to your “I know more than you do” dribble, whilst hiding behind the “I know how to translate Greek words better than you” dribble. Well I know a lot of Greeks and they can translate most of the English dictionary into a Greek word if they try. What does that prove? I also have a  Greek concordance, big deal.

I will clear up one thing that Ian has falsely said, I remember from the message board, you made a comment about the meaning of the word baptism not meaning full emersion in the Greek. Well according to my Greek concordance the word baptism comes from the Greek word baptizo which means to be fully overwhelmed or fully wet or washed. My Greek friends tell me the same thing. So what Greek are you reading or are you just hoping that people want challenge your tripe?

Reply To Guest

(Date Posted:20/10/2008 07:42:33)

 

O Nameless One,

I thought I was quite clear in what was required. But given that I apparently wasn't, to your satisfaction at least, I suppose Paul's answer to the Philippian gaoler's direct question, "...what must I do to be saved?" should suffice: "...believe in the Lord Jesus."

To put such belief into practice, one simply needs to accept, first, that one is a sinner to begin with. This addresses the issue of human pride, which probably is at the root of sinfulness and rebellion against God. Such acceptance should then cause one to fall before God, seeking his forgiveness (figuratively please, I don't want to be sued for any injuries sustained as a consequence of literalism!). God promises to forgive, should the person trust in the fact that Jesus Christ died on the cross for him or her personally. And at the point of trusting in Christ, the Holy Spirit then indwells the new believer. In summary, this describes the NT concept of repentance: a turning from human self-centredness and pride, to Jesus Christ as one's all-too-willing Saviour 

It really is this simple!

Saved by God's grace alone, through faith in Jesus Christ alone, revealed by the Holy Spirit alone. At it's core, salvation, then, is fully a trinitarian act.

God bless,

Ian

Talk about pick one scripture out of many to prove a very week attempt at a salvation message. Also doesn’t Satan himself believe in Jesus and what His purpose was?

I will hold onto the Word of God thank you. And no I don’t need to read your little essays, I don’t listen to heresy or naive opinion, particularly from a hater of the truth and a hater of those sanctified by God.

I am sick of Ian’s childish bullying tactics; He even serves up a slice of castigation to his followers if they hint that they don’t agree with everything he says, talk about inferiority complex. I tell children to just ignore bullies in the school ground, I also tell these children that most bullies dish out insults and pretend to be tougher or smarter because they are just insecure, jealous or are very unhappy people. This is basic psychology.  Though I suspect Ian will not respond to this post (if he does, it will only be with snide comment and avoidance of the real substance that he tries to avoid) as I don’t think he has the ability to argue against the Lords Word. If he does then good luck with that on judgement day!

May I start by saying, not every person who has received the Holy Spirit with signs following will automatically enter into the Kingdom. The Holy Spirit is what makes us anointed but our testimony (walk in the Lord thereafter) is the most important thing to which we will be judged. We must present as in 2 Peter 3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, (referring to judgement day) make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with Him.

 In John 14 Jesus refers to His purpose here on Earth, that He was here to prepare the way for us to entre his Fathers Kingdom and tells us that we must follow His instructions in the fullest.

John 14:6 “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me...”

John 14:15-22 “If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever –the Spirit of truth.... Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. Anyone who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

John14:26  But the Advocate (Comforter),  the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

The Christian Church began on the day of Pentecost. It started at that moment when the first disciples of Jesus received the anointing of God’s Holy Spirit. They became Christians, ‘anointed ones’. This is precisely the meaning of that word – Christian. They were the first to receive the New Covenant. The benefits that Jesus had paid for with His own life were delivered to His early followers on that day. Not surprisingly it was on the day considered by the Jews to be the anniversary of the giving of the Old Covenant to the children of Israel at Mount Sinai. It was fifty days after the celebration of the Passover when Jesus, the Lamb of God, had been crucified. There were many visitors still in Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost. The disciples of Jesus were waiting obediently in that city. Waiting, as commanded, for the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which Jesus had promised several days before. Prior to Jesus ascending into heaven and taking up his position with the Father.

Acts 1:4-5 ..while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptised with water, but in a few days you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 2:1-4 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

This was the first time in history that anyone had received the ‘promise of the Father’, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. It was truly the beginning of a new dispensation. The Old Covenant of the Law was ended.

Peter was sent to Cornelius in Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Question, I think this scripture is clear that the EVIDENCE of the new believers speaking in tongues was how they knew they were saved, so if this evidence was apparent to Peter why is it not to you who down play the gift? It is simply a sign of the Spirit being present in a true believer and a way for that believer to pray to the Lord.

Paul

In some cases the Bible says that believers received the Holy Spirit but it does not describe what happened to the receivers.  This is where unbelievers try to discredit the tongues experience. Saul whose name was later changed to Paul was apprehended on the way to Damascus by Jesus Christ. Paul asked the Lord ‘what do you want me to do?’ This is how repentance starts. Doing what you are told is true repentance. Jesus said that Paul would be told what to do by a man. The disciple Ananias (chosen by God) told Paul to get baptised and that he would receive the Holy Spirit. Paul did not receive the Holy Spirit straight away as can be the case  but he had at this point followed the Lords instructions and had repented and was baptised. Some time later he had received the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues as he indicates in his letter to the Corinthians. ‘I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you’ 1 Cor 14:18

The whole chapter 14 in 1 Corinthians is dedicated to the use of tongues in worship and the fellowship. Then why is it not important?

The Samaritans

Philip preached to the Samaritans. They turned to the Lord Jesus. Although they had believed and had been baptised, the Scriptures once again shows that they did not automatically receive the Spirit.

‘When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 8:14-16

Peter and John were sent that these believers might receive God’s Spirit. They had not received their personal Pentecostal experience. Why didn’t the Apostles just assume that they had received like many do today? They were believers. Surely they were saved? Why bother going all that way just to help them receive a nice but non-essential experience? Here is another important question. How could the Apostles be so sure that the Spirit had not yet fallen on them? There was ‘great joy in that city’. Their lives had taken a turn for the better. The Samaritans felt good now that their hearts were turned toward God and they were no longer rebellious. They were mentally and emotionally delighted with the news that Jesus had risen from the dead. The miracles that Philip did in Jesus’ name impressed them greatly. They were repentant to the point that they had been baptised in obedience to Christ’s command. However the vital God-supplied ingredient was still missing.

The answer to these questions is obvious. There was as yet no God promised evidence of them receiving of the Spirit. No one had spoken in tongues, so the Apostles knew positively that the Holy Ghost had not fallen on any of them. God’s salvation plan had not been fulfilled in their lives. They were not yet saved. They had not yet received Christ, yes they were obedient and repentant but not yet filled.

The Lord has provided an evidence based experience to alleviate any confusion as to whether one has received the Holy Spirit or not. How else can we know for sure that we have the Holy Spirit or not or when we need to stop asking for it.

He tells as to simply ask and keep on asking. Luke 11:9-13 ‘Ask and it shall be given you seek and ye shall find..... how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?’ Have you asked humbly, with a truly repentant heart?

If you are right in your thinking, then well and good, but if you are not and I hope I have shown you that the Lord directs us to be filled with the Holy Spirit with his evidence of tongues for all that believe, then is it not better to be sure and seek for the Holy Spirit with tongues to make sure. I believe that many churches do not preach this today so not to segregate followers or through a lack of understanding or the experience themselves.

God has given us clear guidelines, the simple instructions on how to get saved, and more importantly, how to stay saved. If we believe His words, if we have faith in them, then we will allow Him to save us from this evil world. ‘Repent...be baptised...receive the Holy Spirit’ is the Bible blue print. Sadly even early into the work as shown in Jude, mans ideas had crept in, and those who were endeavouring to change this pattern started to show their corruption. Don’t fall foul to the wolves who creep in to destroy.

‘For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.’ Jude 4 and 19

I simply wish to encourage you to look at these scripture for yourselves as this has no bearing on me, but if tongues evidence is necessary and you do not yet have this evidence, then ask and keep on asking. If you are living a ‘Christian lifestyle’ and do love the Lord, and think that through Grace alone you are saved, ask yourself this; if that is enough then those of us who have the tongues evidence are covered either way, but if simply believing in Jesus (may I point out, I have worked in Corrections and many inmates believe in Jesus but have committed the most heinous of crimes, were do they stand?) and hope that through Grace you are saved, how confident are you in your heart of hearts that you will be accepted by the Lord on judgment day? I would prefer to be covered either way than take that kind of chance.

Though I have been disillusioned by my experience with RCI and have some issues with some of their policies and poor judgement, I cannot denounce my own experience. I have looked at the scriptures from both points of view and do feel that at least in this area RCI has got it right. They have missed the nurturing aspect of their shepherds role, and do not encourage the use of all of the gifts that come with the Spirit strongly enough. Where the salvation message is slightly off with RCI and it appears, as too in many other Revival based churches on this forum, they have the “get them saved” focus, but lack the “keep them saved” practise.

 Tongues are the sign given of God to seal His people, and it gives us the confidence that we need as humans beings that by nature we require evidence. Without it how do we truly know?

I will finish by saying that those of us who truly KNOW the truth and have it filling our very soul and guiding us daily. We may come to this sight at some point in our lives out of curiosity, we may be sussing out the other Revival options or just verifying things in our minds. Some may even come here to check out the gossip. No matter what brings us to this sight in the first place, we come, see, maybe have something to say (sticking up for the truth because our Spirit is vexed be the dribble on here), but then we will move on. Our lives and walk in the Lord will continue without this sight because we have the Spirit to fill us and give us the guidance, comfort and peace in our lives. Some of you have been registered here for years, and from what I can see, some of you are here daily, who has the problem getting over things? Who has unresolved issues? Who has the emptiness in their lives that they are desperately holding onto the one encounter with the truth that they just can’t let go of? I think it is obvious who has issues on this forum and it isn’t the so called “nutty Revivalists”. Not everybody who has left a Revival church is consumed with such bitterness and animosity toward those who remain in the Revival organisations or those who have left and hold onto the truth. I can’t help but wonder why have you regulars to this sight?

Lengthy I know, but I have said my bit and will now move on with my walk.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:25/10/2008 2:24 PMCopy HTML

Back again, L2S?

Well here is the scriptural response to your “I know more than you do” dribble, whilst hiding behind the “I know how to translate Greek words better than you” dribble. Well I know a lot of Greeks and they can translate most of the English dictionary into a Greek word if they try. What does that prove? I also have a  Greek concordance, big deal. You know a lot of Greeks, huh? Did those same Greeks that you know happen to mention that the language of the NT is Koine Greek, and not the modern variety, i.e. Demotic Greek? If they didn't, then they probably also neglected to mention that they would have as much success reading the former as I would have the latter! Second, so you have a Greek concordance? Hmmm, okay. And that helps you to make sense of grammar and syntax how, precisely?

(Oh, the word that you were after, above, was 'drivel' by the way as in: "the drivel you've been writing about 'tongues'". 'Dribble' is what a baby often does, or an over excited "tongues"-speaker!)

I will clear up one thing that Ian has falsely said, I remember from the message board, you made a comment about the meaning of the word baptism not meaning full emersion in the Greek. Well according to my Greek concordance the word baptism comes from the Greek word baptizo which means to be fully overwhelmed or fully wet or washed. My Greek friends tell me the same thing. So what Greek are you reading or are you just hoping that people want challenge your tripe? Well now. Is that so? I do hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you must be reading your concordance wrong. The English word 'baptism' is a noun, the Greek equivalents being baptismos and baptisma. These two nouns derive from the primary root verb bapto, which, of course, means "to dip". But they don't derive from the complex verb baptizo at all, they are simply cognate terms. Baptizo, which means "to baptise", also derives from the primary root, bapto. However, baptizo doesn't strictly mean "to dip" either. You see, a Greek word's meaning isn't dependent upon its etymology any more than is an English word's meaning. Consider, you'd have a very difficult time convincing me that a 'pineapple' is a special sort of fruit that grows on pine trees, or that a 'butterfly' is a wierd sort of fly that's made from butter! So if your Greek friends advised you to the contrary, then they are clearly either (a) idiots, or (b) they know as much about Greek grammar and lexeme formation as you do about the English equivalents! Neither proposition fills me with 'awe'.

I thought I was quite clear in what was required. But given that I apparently wasn't, to your satisfaction at least, I suppose Paul's answer to the Philippian gaoler's direct question, "...what must I do to be saved?" should suffice: "...believe in the Lord Jesus." Talk about pick one scripture out of many to prove a very week attempt at a salvation message. Also doesn’t Satan himself believe in Jesus and what His purpose was? A 'week' (or 'weak'?) attempt at a "salvation message"? Seriously?! Did you not know that the passage in question, Acts 16:30, is the only place in the entire NT where the words, "what must I do to be saved" appears? Further, that these very words were asked by an individual who wasn't Jewish, and so wasn't privy to the Jewish covenantal promises? Is any of this ringing any 'bells' for you?

I will hold onto the Word of God thank you. And no I don’t need to read your little essays, I don’t listen to heresy or naive opinion, particularly from a hater of the truth and a hater of those sanctified by God. Nasty. But also stupid. Your choice.

I am sick of Ian’s childish bullying tactics; He even serves up a slice of castigation to his followers if they hint that they don’t agree with everything he says, talk about inferiority complex. I tell children to just ignore bullies in the school ground, I also tell these children that most bullies dish out insults and pretend to be tougher or smarter because they are just insecure, jealous or are very unhappy people. This is basic psychology.  Though I suspect Ian will not respond to this post (if he does, it will only be with snide comment and avoidance of the real substance that he tries to avoid) as I don’t think he has the ability to argue against the Lords Word. If he does then good luck with that on judgement day! Actually, please understand I argue for God's Word, which is why I respond to nonsense aberrations of the same, such as yours, all the time.

May I start by saying, not every person who has received the Holy Spirit with signs following will automatically enter into the Kingdom. The Holy Spirit is what makes us anointed but our testimony (walk in the Lord thereafter) is the most important thing to which we will be judged. We must present as in 2 Peter 3:14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, (referring to judgement day) make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with Him. Sure. But how do you reconcile the above with John 10:28? Eh?

John 14:6 “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me...”
Absolutely. Through Christ, note, and not through the Holy Spirit or (worse still) through "tongues".

John 14:15-22 “If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever –the Spirit of truth.... Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. Anyone who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.” 'Yep', and did you happen to notice the words, "another Advocate"? Which means that Jesus remains THE Advocate between us and the Father. The Spirit, then, is the 'junior' counsel.

John14:26  But the Advocate (Comforter),  the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Yes, and I would suggest that you pay a little closer attention to the context of that particular verse, so as to ascertain who was speaking to whom.

The Christian Church began on the day of Pentecost. It started at that moment when the first disciples of Jesus received the anointing of God’s Holy Spirit. They became Christians, ‘anointed ones’. The plural term 'Christians' does not mean "anointed ones" at all, by the way. The word is an English transliteration of the Greek noun, 'christos', to which is appended the Greek adjectival termination, 'ianos'. Consequently, 'Christian' means nothing more than "a follower of the Christ".

(Regarding Pentecost) Not surprisingly it was on the day considered by the Jews to be the anniversary of the giving of the Old Covenant to the children of Israel at Mount Sinai. It was fifty days after the celebration of the Passover when Jesus, the Lamb of God, had been crucified. Yes. I seem to recall reading something very similar somewhere ...

Acts 1:4-5 ..while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptised with water, but in a few days you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit.” 'Yep'. Have a closer look at the context again, the who was talking to whom bit.

Acts 2:1-4 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Indeed. And this supports your contention, how? If you'd like to discover how it supports mine, you'll have to read one of my little essays.

Peter was sent to Cornelius in Acts 10:44-48 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Again, so?

Question, I think this scripture is clear that the EVIDENCE of the new believers speaking in tongues was how they knew they were saved, so if this evidence was apparent to Peter why is it not to you who down play the gift? I think you may need to read the passage again, but a little more closely this time (try to notice the details next time through). But could you tell me why it was that the Christians who accompanied Peter were 'amazed' that the gentiles spoke in "tongues"? After all, according to your beliefs they should have expected them to! No?

In some cases the Bible says that believers received the Holy Spirit but it does not describe what happened to the receivers.  This is where unbelievers try to discredit the tongues experience. Hardly. These are those points whereupon Christian believers try to get the unbalanced to comprehend context a little better.

Saul whose name was later changed to Paul was apprehended on the way to Damascus by Jesus Christ. Paul asked the Lord ‘what do you want me to do?’ This is how repentance starts. Doing what you are told is true repentance. Jesus said that Paul would be told what to do by a man. The disciple Ananias (chosen by God) told Paul to get baptised and that he would receive the Holy Spirit. Paul did not receive the Holy Spirit straight away as can be the case  but he had at this point followed the Lords instructions and had repented and was baptised. Again, please read the passage through once more, and look at what was actually stated.

Some time later he had received the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues as he indicates in his letter to the Corinthians. ‘I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you’ 1 Cor 14:18. 'Nope'. Neither Paul's conversion account in Acts, nor his correction in 1 Corinthians teaches that he received the Holy Spirit "...with the evidence of speaking in tongues". In fact, he intentionally mentioned to the wayward "tongues-crazed" Corinthians that he spoke in "tongues" because they didn't think that he could! Look at the context.

The whole chapter 14 in 1 Corinthians is dedicated to the use of tongues in worship and the fellowship. Then why is it not important? The whole of chapter 14 is a correction against the abuse of "tongues" in church; it's not a positive mandate for it's required use.

Philip preached to the Samaritans. They turned to the Lord Jesus. Although they had believed and had been baptised, the Scriptures once again shows that they did not automatically receive the Spirit. 'Yep'. I've written about this at length. Perhaps you should read it?

Peter and John were sent that these believers might receive God’s Spirit. They had not received their personal Pentecostal experience. Yes, Peter and John were sent to give the Samaritans the Spirit. Through the laying on of their hands.

Why didn’t the Apostles just assume that they had received like many do today? We don't know, as Luke didn't say. Just as he didn't say anything about "tongues" in the entire passage. Anywhere.

They were believers. Surely they were saved? 'Yep', and 'yep'.

Why bother going all that way just to help them receive a nice but non-essential experience? So where does the passage state they received an 'experience', non-essential or otherwise?

Here is another important question. How could the Apostles be so sure that the Spirit had not yet fallen on them? Well we don't know, as Luke didn't say.

There was ‘great joy in that city’. Their lives had taken a turn for the better. The Samaritans felt good now that their hearts were turned toward God and they were no longer rebellious. They were mentally and emotionally delighted with the news that Jesus had risen from the dead. The miracles that Philip did in Jesus’ name impressed them greatly. They were repentant to the point that they had been baptised in obedience to Christ’s command. However the vital God-supplied ingredient was still missing. I really do hate to be the one to tell you this, but the word 'joy' is used in the NT to describe a supernatural infusion of God's grace.

The answer to these questions is obvious. There was as yet no God promised evidence of them receiving of the Spirit. No one had spoken in tongues, so the Apostles knew positively that the Holy Ghost had not fallen on any of them. God’s salvation plan had not been fulfilled in their lives. They were not yet saved. They had not yet received Christ, yes they were obedient and repentant but not yet filled. Okay. But where in the passage does Luke describe the Samaritans speaking in "tongues"? I must have missed it.

The Lord has provided an evidence based experience to alleviate any confusion as to whether one has received the Holy Spirit or not. How else can we know for sure that we have the Holy Spirit or not or when we need to stop asking for it. Well, if this "evidence based experience" of "tongues" is the case, then why then did Luke not mention it? Anywhere in the passage? Further, and with respects to the Spirit, where does it state that we should be asking for 'it' ('him', actually)?

He tells as to simply ask and keep on asking. Luke 11:9-13 ‘Ask and it shall be given you seek and ye shall find..... how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?’ Have you asked humbly, with a truly repentant heart? Have a look at Luke 11 from the beginning, and see if you can tell what is actually being sought. Context, context, context.

If you are right in your thinking, then well and good, but if you are not and I hope I have shown you that the Lord directs us to be filled with the Holy Spirit with his evidence of tongues for all that believe, then is it not better to be sure and seek for the Holy Spirit with tongues to make sure. "Better to be safe than sorry", huh? There are two basic reasons why this approach is out-and-out wrong. First, it's adding to the gospel. 'Nuff said. Second, it's to follow precisely the same error that Jesus castigated the Pharisees over, the building of "a hedge around the Law". Sorry, but biblical salvation isn't dependent upon grace + anything.

I believe that many churches do not preach this today so not to segregate followers or through a lack of understanding or the experience themselves. Well you would be wrong. Again. They don't preach the Revivalist nonsense because it isn't the gospel.

God has given us clear guidelines, the simple instructions on how to get saved, and more importantly, how to stay saved. "Stay saved", huh?

If we believe His words, if we have faith in them, then we will allow Him to save us from this evil world. ‘Repent...be baptised...receive the Holy Spirit’ is the Bible blue print. And what of, "...believe on the Lord Jesus"? (have a peek at Acts 16:31)

Sadly even early into the work as shown in Jude, mans ideas had crept in, and those who were endeavouring to change this pattern started to show their corruption. Don’t fall foul to the wolves who creep in to destroy.

‘For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.’ Jude 4 and 19. Yes, indeedy!

I simply wish to encourage you to look at these scripture for yourselves as this has no bearing on me, but if tongues evidence is necessary and you do not yet have this evidence, then ask and keep on asking. If you are living a ‘Christian lifestyle’ and do love the Lord, and think that through Grace alone you are saved, ask yourself this; if that is enough then those of us who have the tongues evidence are covered either way, but if simply believing in Jesus (may I point out, I have worked in Corrections and many inmates believe in Jesus but have committed the most heinous of crimes, were do they stand?) and hope that through Grace you are saved, how confident are you in your heart of hearts that you will be accepted by the Lord on judgment day? I would prefer to be covered either way than take that kind of chance. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God—not the result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8 and 9.  "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!" Galatians 1:6-9.

Tongues are the sign given of God to seal His people, and it gives us the confidence that we need as humans beings that by nature we require evidence. 'Bollocks'.

Without it how do we truly know? “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” Romans 1:17(b)

I will finish by saying that those of us who truly KNOW the truth and have it filling our very soul and guiding us daily. Amen, we do indeed. Lengthy I know, but I have said my bit and will now move on with my walk. Your 'stumble', don't you mean?

Blessings,
 
Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:25/10/2008 3:16 PMCopy HTML

Some of you have been registered here for years, and from what I can see, some of you are here daily, who has the problem getting over things? 

Not many really, and some people heal faster than others. I have been registered for years here and come back because I've got an obsessive personality and LOVE reading the guys respond to posts such as yours, and also to genuine people who are actually trying to make sense of the real world outside Revivalism (for use of a better word - 'tongue' doctrinalists from all the various disfunctional organisations seem to have a lot in common with each other and it begs a coined word). I DO find you and the beliefs of people in your situation very fascinating. 

It's a pleasure to try and be a friendly voice for those who contact us. I've made many friends here and enjoy being a regular for as long as I have. Some people have been invited to stay and make themselves available to help people making their journey out of Revivalism and it's faulty doctrines; they have a heart for people who have been in the same ruts... people like yourself, but it's obvious you can't, don't and won't see their error in your beliefs, whatever. At least future readers will get something from the contrast between your posts and how they're responded to.

Not everybody who has left a Revival church is consumed with such bitterness and animosity toward those who remain in the Revival organisations or those who have left and hold onto the truth. I can’t help but wonder why have you regulars to this sight?

No, just the concept that Lloyd's doctrine could be considered truth... that's where the animosity by some people at this 'site' is directed at. Hmm, and you gloss over any mentions of scriptural discussion only to tap out the classic Revivalisms, and you are very quick to make personal jabs. You come across as nasty person to me, and I could very easily lump you in as being very typical of the tongue worshipping prosetylisers who venture into the forum to try and keep their dream alive. Yep, I've been through the bitter stage, but I'm not there now. I can see how some people may sound bitter to you while the Christians who post here answer to the convoluted beliefs you hold to be true. Truth is a bitter pill.

You fear 'losing' your salvation by the sounds of your post. I'm always thinking this is a funny trait of a mind-set that stands so proudly on a works/proof doctrine. Also, I see that you are still using Revival pastor catch-phrases, so embedded into your thinking... eg. Christian = Annointed ones. There's no way you're going to admit that someone else knows something more than you (and your friends) do about Koine Greek, or about Bible context. You turned a corner and it's going to take you a bit more than surface study to reorientate yourself as to the context that Paul was making himself very clear about. Unfortunately, you have to admit you're in error first. Regular users of this forum pray that you do.
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
jim55 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:Lurker
  • Score:110
  • Posts:4
  • From:Australia
  • Register:23/10/2008 12:17 PM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:26/10/2008 2:07 PMCopy HTML

Ok well im convinced....just off the topic guys, is this open forum or is this actually a religion on here...?
I speak in tongues so i have no faith or belief in Christ...actually had a chuckle at that assumption. 
EVERYONE who spoke in tongues in the bible had a thorough belief in jesus otherwise they never would of spoke in tongues or prophesied.

Its the signs FOLLOWING bit that is the confusion, in my case i didnt particularly "seek" for tongues, it came on me AFTER  i had believed in christ and became a follower 18 months earlier.

So i dont accept jesus as my Saviour? not even gonna reply to that.

MATE who are you to tell me where my faith lies....or that my tongues experience is illigitimate? tell me , if i didnt naturally seek to speak in tongues and as i was praying to god i burst out in a language, i wont humour you with details but perhaps you could explain your experience of tongues Ian??  that is if you actually have one...something that if you had an experience youve given little insight into, especially concerning the context of these chats...

Also Ian what is your interpretation of the word 'believe' in Acts 16:31  ,

So you dont have to retrace your steps, where can i view this tongues essay you speak of?
Im interested to see your interpretations, ive seen many over the years, but your background knowledge may give me extra points to consider, wouldnt mind having a goose.


When i get a lid on what angle your coming from Ian( your one line 'context error' answers dont help!), i could better understand your OVERALL view.
Perhaps i could even categorize you! (joking)

Ill fall into you by giving you the chance to show off a little intellect for the sake of the other couple of guys that you have ever-so-thoughtfully grouped together!

Appreciated,
Jim




Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:26/10/2008 8:56 PMCopy HTML

 Jim55

Might I suggest you improve your "listening". Re the essays you have two fairly telling clues - Ian's tagline, and the front page of this forum.

Also, you mention 'the works of Jesus'. It would be useful for you to meditate on the way Jesus spoke.

Cheers
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:26/10/2008 9:29 PMCopy HTML

 Hi Jimbo
No, this is not a religion, and it is an open forum to a certain degree. We try not to make it a home for Revival apologists, such as yourself, but you are very welcome to share your views courteously in the spirit of debate for as long as is comfortable. It is predominantly a forum for people taking off the shackles of an unscriptural doctrine that seems to make their stuttering vocal experiences some sort of god.

The most recent essay written by Ian and made available on the forum can be found at this link: http://revival.aimoo.com/Revival-Fellowships-RF/Revivalist-dogma-and-the-book--1-1018732.html

You can find all the essays very easily at www.pleaseconsider.info but they have also been reproduced in a room of this forum at: http://revival.aimoo.com/Please-Consider-An-examination-1-29541

You'll also find more discussions focussing on the tongue delusion (as I put it) at this following room of the forum: http://revival.aimoo.com/Speaking-in-Tongues-1-29179
[LINK SiteName=Mothrust: Movies and Modern Myth Target=_blank]http://aintchristian.blogspot.com.au/[/LINK] Be nice, for everyone that you meet is fighting a harder battle - Anita Roddick
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:26/10/2008 10:32 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Jimbo.

MATE who are you to tell me where my faith lies....or that my tongues experience is illigitimate? I wouldn't presume to judge your "faith" beyond pointing out your apparent fixation with "tongues", and the fact that you have harped on more about that, than you have Jesus. So I'll leave you to decide where your priorities lie. But as for the supposed "tongue" itself, well, given that what you've shared with us thus far hasn't married up with what Scripture presents on the subject, I hope you'll pardon me for having my doubts.

So i dont accept jesus as my Saviour? not even gonna reply to that. And who said that you didn't? What I actually said was that you seem to have more of a relationship with a "sign" than you do a Saviour. Nothing that you've written to date demonstrates otherwise.

tell me , if i didnt naturally seek to speak in tongues and as i was praying to god i burst out in a language, i wont humour you with details but perhaps you could explain your experience of tongues Ian??  that is if you actually have one...something that if you had an experience youve given little insight into, especially concerning the context of these chats... First things first. What makes you think that you "burst out" in a language? "Google" free vocalising, and see what results. Next, what you've described concerning your "experience" matches similar experiences of people involved in Spiritualism, other forms of the occult, certain pagan religions, and so forth. In other words, there's nothing "uniquely" Christian to it at all. Importantly, however, what you experienced was not the same as the apostles' experience at Pentecost. And that has been my primary point all along. At best you may have the very simple, rather insignificant gift of "tongues" that Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, but there's no real way of proving this, one way or the other. Further, it really isn't all that important anyway.

As for my own experience, well, it conforms to the standard Revivalist norm, one which occurred in the standard, thoroughly contrived Revivalist setting. I was "witnessed" to on a Friday evening, so after I got home I dragged out a Bible and prayed for a few hours. I repented, I confessed to God my need for a Saviour, and was consequently "born again". The following Sunday I was baptised and then spoke in "tongues" for the first time.

Also Ian what is your interpretation of the word 'believe' in Acts 16:31? Well, I'm so glad that you asked!

To begin with, let me remind you that the account of the Philippian Gaoler in Acts 16:30 and 31 is the only occasion in the entire NT when the unequivocal "what must I do to be saved?" question is asked. Importantly, it's also the only such event in Scripture that mirrors our circumstances: a non-Jewish individual is confronted by the reality of God, and so asks what he must do to be made right before God.

"... he brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' And they (Paul and Silas) said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.'"

The Greek prepositional phrase that's translated, "believe in the Lord Jesus", above, is pisteuson epi ton kurion Iesoun. Several very important features need to be understood concerning this construction. First, the aorist verb, "believe" is a 2nd person active voice, singular imperative. In other words, it's a command that was directed specifically to the gaoler as an individual. The fact of the verb also being aorist is telling: it identifies that at the point at which the gaoler "believes", that he would be saved. But, his "saving" was completely contingent on whom it was that he "believed in". The preposition epi, when it appears with a noun in the accusative case (as it does in this instance), implies motion towards an object: i.e. belief that is accepting of the claim that Jesus is Lord. And the fact of the Greek title "Lord" (kurion) itself is equally telling. This was the specific word used in the Greek OT (the Septuagint) to translate the personal Hebrew name of God, Yahweh. In other words, Paul and Silas stated to the gaoler, that if he believed that Jesus was God, then he would be saved!

So you dont have to retrace your steps, where can i view this tongues essay you speak of? Moth has graciously pointed you to my essay in his link, which appears in his response of today. Im interested to see your interpretations, ive seen many over the years, but your background knowledge may give me extra points to consider, wouldnt mind having a goose. I both invite and welcome you to have a "goose" (rather than continuing to be a "goose").

When i get a lid on what angle your coming from Ian( your one line 'context error' answers dont help!), i could better understand your OVERALL view. Perhaps i could even categorize you! (joking) I think you probably could categorise me right now: "biblicist". Ill fall into you by giving you the chance to show off a little intellect for the sake of the other couple of guys that you have ever-so-thoughtfully grouped together! Sure, but I'd suggest that the "grouping" of you fellows under the general descriptive title, "Revivalist" is perfectly valid.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #25
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:27/10/2008 2:18 AMCopy HTML

Vivos voco, mortuos plango

...... now that rings a bell !!


.

Now then Ian, what do you mean by "junior advocate" ??? .... Certainly the Holy Spirit does not and cannot replace the dual roles of Christ, namely His Priestly and Kingly roles... And yet may I venture a statement that is well beyond the simple understanding of the revivalist culture ?? :- The Holy Spirit is fully God also. Certainly  Mathews Gospel  28:19 " eis to onoma tou patros kai tou uiou kai tou agiou pneumatos " shows that the Triune God is fully involved in the discipling of the ethne - nations and also noun for name "onoma" is singular and accusative as well..

Now please correct me. The death of Christ upon the Cross is OUR MEANS OR THE MEANS BY WHICH WE ARE SAVED NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT as the revivalist make claim on their respective websites....

Eric


Xracer2 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #26
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:340
  • Posts:17
  • From:Zimbabwe
  • Register:29/10/2008 5:22 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:29/10/2008 5:24 AMCopy HTML

Ok Ian suggested I try it this way instead of the quick talk/chat thingy down below.

I was just reading the rather lenghy debate on the RCI doctrine Best i've ever seen post, yer whatever. I do have a question for Ian and Disciple, You state that by Jesus' death on the cross is our means or the means by which we are saved....ok no problem there, but if that is all there is to it what's the point of the HS? or why would people in the NT want or need it? Unless I don't get your meaning, it looks to me like you are saying you don't need the HS? Can you please explain this concept, maybe I am taking what you are saying out of context?? Thanks

Copy and Paste....gotta love it !!!!

X
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #27
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:29/10/2008 6:30 AMCopy HTML

Hello, Rob.

I was just reading the rather lenghy debate on the RCI doctrine Best i've ever seen post, yer whatever. "Yeah, whatever"? Do you normally preface your requests for information with off-handed slurs? I do have a question for Ian and Disciple, You state that by Jesus' death on the cross is our means or the means by which we are saved....ok no problem there, but if that is all there is to it what's the point of the HS? So by "no problem" are you really saying, "no problem ... but"? Please reflect on the following two points: Jesus' final words were, "...it is finished!" Further, at the precise point in time at which the Christ died, the thick veil that partitioned the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place was torn from top to bottom. Both of these statements are extraordinarily significant in what they imply. Do you comprehend the implications?

As for you questioning the "point" of the Holy Spirit, well, he's God. What other point is there?

or why would people in the NT want or need it? "It", Rob? Don't you mean, "him"? Or is the third member of the Godhead simply an impersonal force so far as you're concerned?.
Unless I don't get your meaning, it looks to me like you are saying you don't need the HS? Can you please explain this concept, maybe I am taking what you are saying out of context?? I might be so bold as to suggest that you don't yet "get" the concept of the Atonement. This isn't particularly surprising, as it isn't a "biggie" for your fellowship. Salvation isn't about "tongues", nor is redemption centered on the Person of God, the Holy Spirit. His becoming available to believers permanently is simply an outworking of Christ's perfect sacrifice, and his act of perfect obedience, towards the Father. Unfortunately, your single-minded fixation on the supposed "fireworks", has basically "blinded" you (to extend the metaphor) to the reality of what was achieved by Jesus Christ on a brutal Roman cross.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Xracer2 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #28
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:340
  • Posts:17
  • From:Zimbabwe
  • Register:29/10/2008 5:22 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:29/10/2008 8:27 AMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

"Yeah, whatever"? Do you normally preface your requests for information with off-handed slurs?

No Ian you seem to be taking what I am saying and adding what you think I am saying, this is incorrect, I did not mean it in that context. The yeah whatever is ment that this guy has his own opinion...good for him, who cares.

So by "no problem" are you really saying, "no problem ... but"?
 But???? Again I am not adding anything, I agree with what was said in that phrase, the but was a question, which is asked.
 Jesus' final words were, "...it is finished!"   I am interested to hear your thoughts on this.
Do you comprehend the implications? Obviouly not, which is why I asked :).

As for you questioning the "point" of the Holy Spirit, well, he's God. What other point is there?
This is what I thought as well.

"It", Rob? Don't you mean, "him"? Or is the third member of the Godhead simply an impersonal force so far as you're concerned?
Ok laugh it up, do you always make a joke of people who don't understand something and ask for it to be explained????
I typed "it" instead of a gender, yes I can put "him".

Now with this I have always thought that God,Jesus and the HS are 3 but also 1, is there something wrong with this thinking? if so explain it to me...in a nice way :).

I might be so bold as to suggest that you don't yet "get" the concept of the Atonement.
Yes you may be so bold :) this is why I ask, is there something wrong with that?

Lastly can I please add that there is no evil or bad intent behind my questions, I am not here to try to catch you out or prove you wrong or whatever you think I am up to, I get that feeling from how you reply with added coments of my "thinking".
Soz about the bold too, cut and paste does that.

Xracer

Xracer2 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #29
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:340
  • Posts:17
  • From:Zimbabwe
  • Register:29/10/2008 5:22 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:29/10/2008 9:18 PMCopy HTML

Hi Episkopeo,

Nice to meet you, sorry if you think I am being abrasive, I'm not, I am merely replying to Ian, I hope Ian understands. No harm ment on my behalf.

I read the Chapters of John 14,15, and 15. Nice chapters, as are all the scriptures in the bible. From what I read Jesus was reasuring his disciples about the experience which has happened (yes there is more to it). The disciples seems to be a worried or confused or don't understand what is about to happen and even this that have happened. The world hates them because they hate Jesus etc..etc.. Also of Jesus' end.

The part which has something to do with, about what my original question was, the "HE" in the Holy Spirit.

"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth" In these particular verses and there after the word HE is used a lot to describe what the HS will do or does.
Now here is where my earlier question come into play. From what I have read on this post there seems to be a reference that "HE" is another person, this is the question I am asking about. If it is what was "his" name....was it Holy Spirit?...ok ok...I'm being silly, But I don't understand the concept that is being put forward.
I am asking someone to explain this.
OR maybe I am not understand the statement that was made in reference to "HE" ? this is where i need explaination, as you may know to gain understanding some questions will be asked.

Xracer.

TELLMETRUTH Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #30
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:360
  • Posts:18
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/10/2008 5:11 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:29/10/2008 9:58 PMCopy HTML

Hello, Umm... First post 

Ok, This is what (I) understand.

(I) know that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are One. 

(I) understand when Jesus died on the cross he became the ultimate sacrifice (because of mans inability - to not sin).

This then opened a New way to come to know God. After Jesus was raised from the dead, he said that when he goes that he would send the Comforter. When one receives his Holy Spirit this is that same Comforter.

(I) understand that this is just the initial step in making it with the Lord in the end, I know that just because one receives his Spirit, it doesn't mean one will automatically make it. It has to be an ongoing walk.

Is my understanding wrong?

TMT.

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #31
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:29/10/2008 10:39 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Rob.

No Ian you seem to be taking what I am saying and adding what you think I am saying, this is incorrect, I did not mean it in that context. The yeah whatever is ment that this guy has his own opinion...good for him, who cares. Cool. Sorry for misunderstanding you by assuming that you were simply being flippant. So by "no problem" are you really saying, "no problem ... but"? But???? Again I am not adding anything, I agree with what was said in that phrase, the but was a question, which is asked. Well, when you think about it, there is no "but". Jesus' death on the cross, and it alone, is what achieves atonement. The cross is the pivot upon which our redemption hinges. Or, to put this another way, the fulcrum of "salvation" wasn't the feast of Pentecost, but the Passover that took place at Calvary.

Jesus' final words were, "...it is finished!" I am interested to hear your thoughts on this. The Scripture is John 19:30. The single word that Christ uttered in Greek was tetelestai, a perfect aspect, indicative mood, and passive voice, verb. The perfect aspect indicates that the results of the finished work of the cross extend infinitely into the future from the point of the utterance forwards. The indicative mood indicates that the results of the work of the cross are a present fact; they are not simply a hope or a future wish. In other words, atonement has been made (and then pre-Pentecost). The passive voice indicates that the work of the cross achieved results for others. In summary then, at the point at which Jesus Christ breathed his last, human beings had the opportunity to be restored to God. This occurred solely as a consequence the atoning death of Jesus Christ on the cross, and was to be grasped through placing one's faith in him, for he he is. It is for this reason that salvation in the New Covenant age began with the repentant rebel hanging on a cross alongside the Saviour. Do you comprehend the implications?
Obviouly not, which is why I asked. And do you now?

"It", Rob? Don't you mean, "him"? Or is the third member of the Godhead simply an impersonal force so far as you're concerned? Ok laugh it up, do you always make a joke of people who don't understand something and ask for it to be explained???? I typed "it" instead of a gender, yes I can put "him". Trust me on this: I wasn't laughing, and I wasn't joking. Do you refer off-handedly (or subconsciously)  to your mother or father as "it"? Or your kids? Or your friends? I'd suggest not. Yet notice how very easily and naturally you referred to God, the Spirit in an impersonal (and "de-personalising") manner. That you did so wasn't unexpected, as it was a very Revival-esque thing to do. Not so much a criticism as it is a statement of fact.

Now with this I have always thought that God,Jesus and the HS are 3 but also 1, is there something wrong with this thinking? if so explain it to me...in a nice way. The term is "trinity", and it implies that all three are fully God, including the Spirit. But the reality and implications of the trinity extends well beyond the simple, "three-in-oneness" aspect. I might be so bold as to suggest that you don't yet "get" the concept of the Atonement. Yes you may be so bold. this is why I ask, is there something wrong with that? Indeed there is. Given that atonement stands as the central concern of the entire 66 book Bible, to be completely unaware of the subject and its implications, as a professing "Christian", is remarkable!

Lastly can I please add that there is no evil or bad intent behind my questions, I am not here to try to catch you out or prove you wrong or whatever you think I am up to, I get that feeling from how you reply with added coments of my "thinking". Sure, but I didn't for one moment believe that you necessarily had (a) evil intent, or (b) were capable of "catching me out", so please put your mind at rest on these issues. I think, however, that you now have a bit to ponder and reflect upon.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #32
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:29/10/2008 10:53 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, Ralph.

We need to see that the Holy Spirit, God and Jesus are one person. In a word, "bollocks"! What you've just affirmed is the heresy of Modalism, which is promoted by the United Pentecostal Church and other, similar, "oneness" Pentecostals. The orthodox doctrine of the trinity affirms three Persons sharing one essence. There is a considerable difference.

Not your best effort.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #33
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:29/10/2008 11:24 PMCopy HTML

Good morning, TMTT.

Hello, Umm... First post. And welcome.
Ok, This is what (I) understand. (I) know that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are One. (I) understand when Jesus died on the cross he became the ultimate sacrifice (because of mans inability - to not sin). This then opened a New way to come to know God. After Jesus was raised from the dead, he said that when he goes that he would send the Comforter. When one receives his Holy Spirit this is that same Comforter. (I) understand that this is just the initial step in making it with the Lord in the end, I know that just because one receives his Spirit, it doesn't mean one will automatically make it. It has to be an ongoing walk. Is my understanding wrong? It's more a case of your understanding being both "partial" and "incomplete". To begin with God, the Father; God, the Son; and God, the Holy Spirit are three Persons, but then sharing of the one essence. Each has a personality, a role and a function, yet each also "interpenetrates" the other (the technical term for this being perichoresis). You may have seen a picture of the triquetra? (If not, "Google" the word and you'll find the image.) Celtic Christianity introduced the symbol centuries ago as an analogue for the trinity. It seeks to graphically represent the mystery of the "three-in-oneness"/"inter-penetration".

Second, Jesus' death on the cross achieved far more than simply the opening of a "new way" to God. The cross actually granted immediate access to his presence (as represented by the torn veil described in Mark 15:38)! Third, Jesus did indeed promise another Comforter/Advocate (but not "the" Comforter, who remains Jesus Christ). However, the second Comforter/Advocate who would represent Jesus and not himself. This is a crucial factor and truth that needs to be grasped! Fourth, at the point at which a person is redeemed, a person is redeemed! One can have complete assurance of one's salvation now, one doesn't need to have concerns about it into the future.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Xracer2 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #34
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:340
  • Posts:17
  • From:Zimbabwe
  • Register:29/10/2008 5:22 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 12:55 AMCopy HTML

Hi just a quick question so I can put things into a little more perspective when looking into the "trinity" side of things.

The "he" I asked about brolga, I understand that it is "another" or "seperate" person, by what you are saying. Can you idenity them? or is "he" a spirit?

To the best of my knowledge...as little as it may be...I have never come across the term "trinity" in the bible at all, maybe Ian or someone with  Greek knowledge can answer this? I don't know.

You must understand I have trouble understanding this concept, because to me it sounds like there is a person with no name that is referred to here, and is doing some increadible things with no credit to whom it is.

I have also been to a bapist church and looked at other various forms of religions, and in the Baptise church I don't actually remember hearing that there was another person only talk of a spirit...
So as you can see I am at a loss here.
More explaination would be better....for me anyway.
Thanks
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #35
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 1:35 AMCopy HTML

PARAKLETOS: A Greek Word for Holy Spirit

16 And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of Truth; Whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him:
but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you (Bible, Gospel of John 14:16-17 KJV).

When Jesus spoke this to His disciples, He was referring to the third Person of the Godhead that completes the Holy Trinity: God the Holy Spirit. The Greek word in verse 16 that is translated as "Comforter" in the King James Bible is "Parakletos." Jesus was saying that He would send another Person Who was exactly like Himself, the "allos Parakletos," God the Holy Spirit:... in 1 Jn. 2:1, Christ is termed our substitutionary, intercessory Advocate. Christ designates the Holy Spirit as Paraclete (Jn. 14:16), and He calls Him allos ... another, which means another of equal
quality and not heteros ... another of a different quality.
Therefore, the Holy Spirit is designated by Jesus Christ as equal with Himself, God ... The Holy Spirit is called a Paraclete because He undertakes Christ's office in the world while Christ is away from the world as
the God-Man. He is also called the Paraclete because He acts as Christ's substitute on Earth ... (Zodhiates, 1718; italics mine).

In the Book of Galatians, the Apostle Paul differentiates between the counterfeit "gospel" ("heteros") and the true Gospel ("allos"). This counterfeit "gospel" was a heresy delivered to the Galatians who had already
received the truth. Paul entreats the Galatians to reject heretical teachings:
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called you into the Grace of Christ unto another [heteros] gospel: 7 Which is not
another [allos]; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto
you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:6-9 KJV; Italicized Greek words in brackets
mine).

Thus, "Comforter" provides an incomplete portrayal of the "allos Parakletos" (God the Holy Spirit). Since the Holy Spirit is a living, functioning being of the Godhead, it is impossible to describe Him in one word; as it is impossible to describe God the Father or God the Son in one word.

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "Comforter" as the Holy Spirit when capitalized, or "one that gives comfort" (263). Implying that this circular definition properly introduces one to the Holy Spirit is
tantamount to claiming an intimate knowledge of someone who is merely a casual acquaintance.

The New American Standard Bible translates John 14:16: "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever." Comforter, Counselor and Helper are all accurate, if not complete,
portrayals of the Holy Spirit and His ministry.

The King James scholars were faced with the task of translating one of the Greek words for the Spirit, "Parakletos." Finding no single word with a parallel meaning in the English language, the scholars did the best they
could by using "Comforter." This presented quite a problem because "Parakletos" is a word of broad meaning, rich in context. A closer look at the Spirit and the Holy Trinity will demonstrate the inadequacy of "Comforter" and then we will see how "Parakletos" reveals the interminable spiritual truth in Jesus' statement.

The first thing to understand is that all three Persons of the Godhead have existed since the dawn of time. God the Father speaks in the Book of Revelation: "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'Who is,
and Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty'" (1:8 NIV). This extraordinary declaration of eternal existence and supreme sovereignty is reiterated in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13.

Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #36
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 1:56 AMCopy HTML

John 16:13 He reveals, guides us into all truth - the Holy Spirit will speak what he hears and reveal things to us

John 14: 26 He teaches us and will remind us of what Jesus says (in other words, we have already HEARD what Jesus said, but the Holy Spirit will bring it to our remembrance)

John 15:26 He testifies about Jesus

John 16:8 He convicts us of sin

Rom 8:14 He leads (if we're led by the Spirit of God, we are the sons of God)

Acts 9:31 He strengthens and encourages

John 14:16 He comforts

Rom 8:26 He helps us in our weakness

Rom 8:26 He intercedes for us

1 Cor 2:11 He searches the deep things of God - no-one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God

Rom 15:16 He sanctifies

Rom 8:16 He bears witness (or testifies)

Acts 5:3 He can be lied to (Ananias)

Acts 7:  He can be resisted

Matt 12:31-32 He can be blasphemed

 

Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #37
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 2:01 AMCopy HTML


THE HOLY SPIRIT POSSESSES PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS


   A. HE HAS A MIND...
      1. "the mind of the Spirit" - Ro 8:27
      2. This suggests thinking on His own

   B. HE HAS KNOWLEDGE...
      1. He "knows the things of God" - 1Co 2:11
      2. Just as the "spirit of man" (a personal being) knows certain
         things

   C. HE POSSESSES AFFECTION...
      1. Paul speaks of "the love of the Spirit" - Ro 15:30
      2. When have you known of an "impersonal force" that could love?

   D. HE HAS A WILL...
      1. "the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each
         one individually as He wills" - 1Co 12:11
      2. It was the Holy Spirit Who decided what person received which
         gift
Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #38
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 2:06 AMCopy HTML

THE HOLY SPIRIT SUFFERS PERSONAL SLIGHTS AND INJURIES

   A. HE CAN BE GRIEVED...
      1. "do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God" - Ep 4:30
      2. He can be made sorrowful through our willful neglect

   B. HE CAN BE BLASPHEMED...
      1. That is, to be spoken evil of
      2. As in attributing His deeds to the works of Satan, the
         "unforgivable sin" - Mt 12:31-32

   C. HE CAN BE INSULTED...
      1. One who has "trampled the Son of God underfoot" has also
         "insulted the Spirit of grace" - He 10:29
      2. This is done by sinning "willfully" - He 10:26

   D. HE CAN BE LIED TO...
      1. As Ananias and his wife Sapphira were guilty of doing
      2. "...why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy
         Spirit...?" - Ac 5:3

   E. HE CAN BE RESISTED...
      1. As Stephen charged the Jewish leaders of doing - Ac 7:51
      2. This they did by resisting the message and persecuting the
         messengers who were inspired by the Holy Spirit - cf. Ac 7:
         52-53

  
CONCLUSION

 A mere principle or influence cannot sustain these slights, only a
   personal being; so it is clear...
   a. The Bible presents the Holy Spirit as a personal being
   b. We should regard the Holy Spirit as a "He", not an "it"!

I'm not a big fan of 'cut & pastes' but am hoping that this will help you XRacer, Urch

Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #39
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 2:08 AMCopy HTML

Rob,

Brolga doesn't have a particularly strong grasp on the subject himself, so it's likely that he might not be the best person to directing questions of this sort to. Anyway. The short "answer" to your query is this: to "name" something is an act of the human will; it is impose one's authority over a "thing", by granting a "thing" an identity. Consequently, "names" themselves are part and parcel of the created order. God, however, is not a part of this order, he transcends it. Consequently, God does not require a name in order to be have an identity. And, of course, the Holy Spirit is God. To the best of my knowledge...as little as it may be...I have never come across the term "trinity" in the bible at all, maybe Ian or someone with Greek knowledge can answer this? I don't know. To the best of my knowledge, I've never come across the terms "Sunday School" or "prayer line" in the Bible either. So what?


You must understand I have trouble understanding this concept, because to me it sounds like there is a person with no name that is referred to here, and is doing some increadible things with no credit to whom it is. Really? And here was me thinking the Bible credited the Spirit with being God! I have also been to a bapist church and looked at other various forms of religions, and in the Baptise church I don't actually remember hearing that there was another person only talk of a spirit...So? Simply because you didn't hear mention of it in the (very short?) time that you visited the "Bapos" doesn't mean that they don't susbscribe to the trinitarian belief. I can assure you that they most certainly do.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Xracer2 Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #40
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:340
  • Posts:17
  • From:Zimbabwe
  • Register:29/10/2008 5:22 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 2:26 AMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

inregards to this,
You must understand I have trouble understanding this concept, because to me it sounds like there is a person with no name that is referred to here, and is doing some increadible things with no credit to whom it is.

Really? And here was me thinking the Bible credited the Spirit with being God!

You see this is what is confusing me, Is the Holy Spirit a man or is he God?
Oh the perils of my brain :(

So? Simply because you didn't hear mention of it in the (very short?) time that you visited the "Bapos" doesn't mean that they don't susbscribe to the trinitarian belief. I can assure you that they most certainly do.

My parents and there Parents have been in the Baptise church all of there lives, so as you can guess I spent more than a little time there. I did hear in quite a few "sermons" that the Holy Spirit was a Spirit, not a man, that is why I made that statement

sunday school...You are correct, neither have I come to think of it.

Thanks for the replies people.

Xracer





Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #41
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 2:39 AMCopy HTML

Hi X,

My 2c re 'trinity' ... The bible presents certain information about Father, Son and Spirit. The concept given the shorthand 'trinity' fits the biblical data better than anything else that people have postulated over the centuries. There's actually quite a lot of places on the 'net which point to scriptures such as those mentioned by Urch. It could be a useful exercise to search them out and think on them, then bring those thoughts into your discussions with Ian.

Here's another thought. A traditional English summary of the concept is 'three persons with one essence'. Without wanting to step on Ian's 'teaching shoes' might I suggest you think about what the concept is that's being represented by those words.

Ian led me down a productive path in a number of emails to learn about 'trinity'. My advice: Follow the path that Ian is pointing to. (Hmm ... Ian left me with some more steps on that path that I haven't taken yet ...)

Cheers

The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #42
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 2:49 AMCopy HTML

Rob,

I don't know why you're struggling with this (actually, you being a Revivalist and all, I do); but you need to get your head around this simple fact: the only member of the trinity to become incarnate was the Son. The Father is a spirit, and the Holy Spirit is a spirit.

Capiche?

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #43
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 6:32 AMCopy HTML

Hi All.

The heading of this thread, I must express in the context of many years hindsight, is the most naive statement I have come across for some time. But nevertheless that is what these boards are here for - to address such naive statements.

I have a little paste to share concerning the "parakletos" that our revivalist friends are stumbling terribly over..

 
From 'Little Kittel' (the abridged version of Big 10 Volume Kittel).. BTW I should refer to my newly acquired NIDNTT (New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology) but for the purposes of this thread, Little Kittel will do fine. But note that the use of 'Advocate' has a 'legal' application here.
 
Parakletos [advocate,helper]
 
C. The NT Concept.
 
1. The first clear idea linked with paraketos in the NT is that of the advocate at God's bar in heaven. In place of the many advocates Christians now recognize only one, Jesus Christ. He is our intercessior at God's right hand (Rom 8:34). He places his incorruptible life in the service of his people (Heb 7:25). He not only claims the office of judge but also promises to be the defender of those who confess him (Mt. 10:32-33). The Christian idea of an eschatological paraclete goes back to Jesus himself.
 
2. More richly developed, and difficult to define, is the idea in John of a Paraclete working in and for the disciples. First Jesus is such (14:16), the the Spirit, who completing the work of Jesus, leads the disciples into all truth (14:26), witnesses to Jesus (15:26), and convicts the world (16:8ff). This work is similar to that of the OT advocate and links up with descriptions of the Spirit's ministry elsewhere in the NT ( Rom. 8:26-27); Mk. 13:11; Lk. 13:6ff.). The Greek term may well go back to the term used by Jesus himself in his mother tongue. In translation the many secondary senses rule out any single eqivalent. If we are to avoid "Paraclete," the basic thought is that of "Advocate" but the more general "Supporter" or "Helper" is perhaps the best rendering. [J.BEHM, V, 800-814]  


blessings 

Disciple.
 
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #44
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 6:51 AMCopy HTML

Hello, Eric.

Indeed. The language of redemption is invariably legal, given that such is how redemption itself is couched (and understood) in both Testaments. It's also somewhat unfortunate that 'parakletos' has such a significant semantic range, as this makes it very difficult to provide a suitable, single English equivalent. 'Comforter' is generally misleading, being a rather dated carry-over from the Elizabethan Age. 'Advocate' is a much better equivalent, but what is implied in the 1st century Greco-Roman sense is much broader than what one automatically considers from a 21st century Western sense.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
TELLMETRUTH Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #45
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:360
  • Posts:18
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/10/2008 5:11 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 7:19 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

It's more a case of your understanding being both "partial" and "incomplete". To begin with God, the Father; God, the Son; and God, the Holy Spirit are three Persons, but then sharing of the one essence. Each has a personality, a role and a function, yet each also "interpenetrates" the other (the technical term for this being perichoresis). You may have seen a picture of the triquetra? (If not, "Google" the word and you'll find the image.) Celtic Christianity introduced the symbol centuries ago as an analogue for the trinity. It seeks to graphically represent the mystery of the "three-in-oneness"/"inter-penetration".

Second, Jesus' death on the cross achieved far
more than simply the opening of a "new way" to God. The cross actually granted immediate access to his presence (as represented by the torn veil described in Mark 15:38)! Third, Jesus did indeed promise another Comforter/Advocate (but not "the" Comforter, who remains Jesus Christ). However, the second Comforter/Advocate who would represent Jesus and not himself. This is a crucial factor and truth that needs to be grasped! Fourth, at the point at which a person is redeemed, a person is redeemed! One can have complete assurance of one's salvation now, one doesn't need to have concerns about it into the future


Blessings,

Ian

Hi Ian, thanks for the reply.

I understand and have no problem with what you have explained, I was being brief with my (Understandings) trying to keep it simple. Also called Comforter (THE) instead of (ANOTHER) - my bad.

I am aware of the symbol you referred to and know of it's symbolism.

I suppose the only point you make which I'm not clear on is - Once the Holy Spirit is received by someone, surly it isn't an all access ticket to forever, without a firm following of his ways for the rest of there lives.


By the way, how do I get rid of these lines?



Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #46
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 7:28 AMCopy HTML

Hi again.

I'll put it to you this way: either redemption is effectual, or it isn't. Either we are saved by grace through faith, or we aren't. Coming from a loosely Pentecostal background as you have, you've been raised on a diet of semi-Pelagianism. In other words, you've been taught to accept that you must do certain 'stuff' in order to stay saved. Salvation is an act of God. We can't earn salvation--present or future.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
TELLMETRUTH Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #47
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:360
  • Posts:18
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/10/2008 5:11 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 7:58 AMCopy HTML

I agree we can't earn salvation, but if one looses focus and indulges in things contrary to the way the lord would have us walk, then I can't see that being a wise move. Especially if the lord returned at that particular time. I'd doubt there would be salvation. 
From (My) understanding of course.


Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #48
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 9:51 AMCopy HTML

Hello again, TMTT.

I agree we can't earn salvation, but if one looses focus and indulges in things contrary to the way the lord would have us walk, then I can't see that being a wise move. Which is, in effect, a circumlocution for saying, "...we earn our salvation." In any case, Christians "lose focus" and "indulge in things contrary" to the Lord's will all the time. But salvation isn't a lottery, it's not dependent upon circumstances, chance or us having a "good" day. Salvation remains a work of God in Christ. It's a gracious condescension on the part of the triune Creator, who declares us righteous because of what Jesus did, and not what we might, or might not, do. Again, let me be clear on this point: we are saved by grace through faith, and not by works (Ephesians 2:8 and 9).

Especially if the lord returned at that particular time. Why should the Lord's return jepordise one's salvation? If a person has been absolved of the guilt of sin; if a person is then (forensically) declared righteous by the judgment of God, then what is there to fear about the Lord's return? Yet again let me reinforce this point: salvation isn't a lottery, it's not dependent upon one having more "ticks" than "crosses" in the Lamb's Book of Life! It's not about being in a constant state of (self) righteousness just in case the trumpet should sound. I'd doubt there would be salvation. From (My) understanding of course. Of course. Presuming for the sake of the exercise that the average Revivalist is in a saved state (and I would be very careful about presumption of this sort), s/he never actually enjoys his/her salvation because Revivalist dogma breeds fear and uncertainity! How completely unlike what we find recorded in Scripture!

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #49
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:30/10/2008 12:08 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon

Hello, Eric.

Indeed. The language of redemption is invariably legal, given that such is how redemption itself is couched (and understood) in both Testaments. It's also somewhat unfortunate that 'parakletos' has such a significant semantic range, as this makes it very difficult to provide a suitable, single English equivalent. 'Comforter' is generally misleading, being a rather dated carry-over from the Elizabethan Age. 'Advocate' is a much better equivalent, but what is implied in the 1st century Greco-Roman sense is much broader than what one automatically considers from a 21st century Western sense

Blessings,

Ian



Actually you are right about the NIDNTT, Ian. Page 88 in volume 1 has plenty to say but briefly: " But the use of parakletos for representative is to be understood in the light of legal assistance in court, the pleading of another's case.... etc

The etymology of parakletos suggests that it was used originally in thepassive sense of one called in to help.But the passages in which it occurs in the NT show that this alien to its meaning there. The parakletos is not called in but sent (Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:7), given and received (Jn. 14:16f). He does not merely put in a good word, but brings active help.... etc 

Now down to page 90

" The term is a variable concept which cannot be reduced to a single interpretation. On the one hand, it is Jesus who sends the parakletos from the Father (Jn 15:26). On the other hand the Father sends the parakletos at the request of Jesus. "


blessings again

Eric
TELLMETRUTH Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #50
  • Rank:Noob
  • Score:360
  • Posts:18
  • From:Australia
  • Register:22/10/2008 5:11 AM

Re:RCI Doctrine is the Best ive seen

Date Posted:01/11/2008 9:32 AMCopy HTML

Hi Ian,

Still can't see God letting people in who turn from his ways. Why would he say to (watch) Umm.. (MK 13.36-37) this is what confuses me.

So this (Parakletos) is the Holy spirit - the (another advocate) Jesus spoke of.

How does one know when they have received, come to know or come in contact with this advocate?
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.