You're referring to the article at http://revival.aimoo.com/Freedom-Forum/Article-Is-Your-Revival-Centre-a-Cult-1-1774306.html and you say you've been a member of the RCI for some time and you don't find any of the criteria remotely fit it? Then, I'd have to say as a person who was a full-time member of RCI-then-TRF that you sir would have to be the liar.

The points on that page are bang on for any reasonable person to see who hasn't got their blinkers on in regards to how Revival sects run their business.

Are you just 'dropping and running' or are you actually able to give a case for the Revivalists and show how they are not a cult according to Troy's criteria adapted from http://www.caic.org.au/general/idencult.htm

Reply to Moth and Rust.
After seeing a father of a child in GRC say that Xray results of his child were just a lie of Satan makes me think Troy is more believable than a revival member. Lies are part of their culture.

 OMG at that stupid man.

Totally agree Moth.   Couldn`t have said it better.  As someone who spent 20 years ` on the inside` of the rci cult this article highlights very strongly the criteria that does exist in that place`.  Man he sure is blind, deaf and stupid if he hasn`t worked that out and to call  tw a liar. Wake up you fool.  

You can`t be serious! Obviously you haven`t been taking much notice or you haven`t spent much time `in the fold` cause if you did you wouldn`t be writing that ridiculous crap on here. As a long time ex- member of RCI and now out thank god that is exactly what the criteria was. Hang around a bit longer buddy open your ears and eyes before you put harsh and  inaccurate name tags on people.  Oh and you might wanna visit a real church that is christian and does have compassion and some biblical truth to compare the difference between a church and a cult. Wise up. 

Hello again, Guest.

Given your latest post you might be surprised to learn that the notorious 'Rules and Regulations', the 'SITREP', the 'Assembly Guidelines', 'Young Peoples Guidelines', and similar such materials are neither 'dead' nor forgotten. These policy documents are still available to RCI pastors, and they're still consulted by them.

To briefly correct certain other erroneous statements of yours: (1) you don't preach 'salvation by faith alone' at all. (2) No sect ever promoted your 'salvation message' before the late 1930s, which led to the forming of the UPC. (3) What the RCI labels the 'Gospel' is anything but. (4) Calling someone 'pastor' is actually quite an unscriptural thing to do. (5) Your 'fonication doctrine' isn't 'in line' with the Bible. And, (6) your attempted defence of the RCI hierarchy is rather hypocritical given the slanderous comments your leaders still make from the platform about the Roman Catholic Church's leaders! I could wax lyrical on these and a host of other subjects that your latest response has provoked, but for the sake of brevity, I shan't at this stage.

Review your facts. Ask 'pastor' if you must.

Ian

 And this is why I won't bother.  In the first instance, I have been a member of oversight for years, those rules were generated in the past and have not been referred to for a long time, and certainly have not been handed to people for more than a decade.  If people don't have those rules, then it's irrelevant if some pastors somewhere still read them, they are not rules in force, as no-one has them in hand.  However, again, the core of those rules was scripture, the change is that we encourage people to be led by an understanding of their salvation and their relationship with God, instead of having a list of rules they follow blindly.  This is in keeping with the difference between the Old Testament law and the New Testament walk by faith.

 1. Of COURSE we preach salvation by faith alone.  This is ridiculous semantics, because we have faith in the promises of God, which include His promise to answer, critics claim we preach salvation by works, when it's God who gives the ability to speak in tongues, as per His promise.  Again, this is exactly why I won't bother with this place, the nature of any place that consists of words only, is word games and legalism for self justification.  I refuse to play.

The RCI belief that speaking in tongues is the initial sign that one has received the Holy Spirit is fundamentally opposed to Scripture and is the reason, when I eventually woke up to it,  that I left RCI/RF after 30 years involvement and speaking in tongues. BTW "salvation by faith alone" refers to faith in(to) *Jesus*

Good morning, Guest.

And this is why I won't bother. You 'won't bother'? Given that you've been happy enough having your say and expressing your views until now, why the 180 degree change of heart?  In the first instance, I have been a member of oversight for years, those rules were generated in the past and have not been referred to for a long time, and certainly have not been handed to people for more than a decade.  If people don't have those rules, then it's irrelevant if some pastors somewhere still read them, they are not rules in force, as no-one has them in hand. If you were a 'pastor', then you'd be better informed about access to these policy documents. Put simply, the situation is not as you maintain. However, again, the core of those rules was scripture, the change is that we encourage people to be led by an understanding of their salvation and their relationship with God, instead of having a list of rules they follow blindly.  This is in keeping with the difference between the Old Testament law and the New Testament walk by faith. Excepting, of course, for the small fact that your sect skews the teachings of both Testaments. And then there's the problem that you fellows don't 'walk by faith', you 'walk by sound'.

1. Of COURSE we preach salvation by faith alone.  This is ridiculous semantics, because we have faith in the promises of God, which include His promise to answer, critics claim we preach salvation by works, when it's God who gives the ability to speak in tongues, as per His promise.  Again, this is exactly why I won't bother with this place, the nature of any place that consists of words only, is word games and legalism for self justification.  I refuse to play. Really? Why?

'Salvation by faith alone' (sola fide) implies that nothing but faith in God, through Christ A-L-O-N-E (solus Christus), is required to be 'saved'. You don't believe this. You don't teach this. And, you certainly don't practice this. You fellows believe, teach and practice 'salvation by tongues alone'. Big difference. Second, your entire 'speaking in tongues' platform owes less to God and Scripture than it does to sectarian coaching and conditioning. The Bible nowhere teaches what you do about the supposed significance of 'tongues', and yet it remains the 'hinge' for your entire belief system. The hinge for the Christian belief system, by the way, is the crucified Lord Jesus Christ. Again, big difference.

2 .I have no idea how you claim to know the details of every church that existed prior to 1930, but, you're welcome to hold to your view, it's really irrelevant, all that matters is what the Bible says. What is relevant is your earlier claim, the one that you can't substantiate from history. Herein lies another significant difference between Revivalism and Christianity. The former is a-historical and revisionist in its approach; the latter isn't.

With respect to your comment about the Bible, who says your interpretation is even valid? You fellows have a reputation for shying away from having your beliefs examined and assessed by people with training, experience and competence in biblical studies. So far as the RCI is concerned, mastery of the biblical languages is completely irrelevant. Understanding the myriad of contexts that imbue the biblical text with meaning is likewise discredited. Why? Because you people believe that you can 'speak in tongues', of course! And apparently 'tongues speaking' grants much greater spiritual and interpretative insight than does years of patient and consistent Bible study. In the RCI it presents as if personal 'perspiration' counts for much less than does personal 'inspiration'.

So what about you? Are you confident enough that your Revivalist beliefs are correct, that you'd be prepared to have them evaluated by me? You've stated that you're keen to have RCI beliefs properly represented here; such being the case, surely you'd welcome the offer of discussion and dialogue?

3. Again, I encourage you to live your life with integrity by your beliefs, if you hold them with sincerity.  You're welcome to your opinion, although, of course, I disagree.  The salvation message that delivered me for a downward spiral of drugs, alcohol, self loathing and suicidal thoughts when the mainstream 'give your heart to Jesus' proved powerless in my life no matter how sincerely and whole heartedly I followed it, was and is good news to me. So are you now telling me that 'truth' isn't important to you? That getting the Gospel message correct isn't important to you? Are you actually suggesting that what's most important isn't fidelity to biblical truth, but 'pragmaticism'?!

So, as long as someone 'lives their life with integrity, and holds to their beliefs sincerely', then issues of 'truth' are largely irrelevant? How does this approach square with your earlier denunciation of Waller? Wasn't this thread created because you suggested that he didn't present the 'truth' about your sect's beliefs and practices? Can't you see the irony that your latest recommendation creates? And, of course, there is also the fact that the 'live and let live' approach to personal/corporate belief isn't promoted by your sect, and never was.

4. I am well aware that we're told to call no man 'father', I assume this is what you refer to.  I don't know of any church I've ever attended that didn't show respect for the role of a leader by calling them 'pastor' or similar.  I know that Catholics called people 'father' still in the 1980s, I read a book then where they claimed that as the Bible was written in Greek, it was only the GREEK word for Father we were not to use.  I'd say they were nitpicking more than you could ever claim that we are. And I'd suggest that you're back-peddaling, again.

Demonstrating a respect for Church leaders and those in positions of authority is altogether a different thing to demanding that they be accorded titles (so Matthew 23:9), or that they're seated on raised platforms, 'five feet above contradiction' (so Matthew 23:6). The 'call no man father' reference speaks to the general issue, but there are other passages in Scripture that do so just as well. More significant from my perspective, however, is that you apparently aren't aware that ποιμένας more correctly refers to a person being a 'gift' to the Church, than it does a person holding a church 'office'.

5. I could debate this with you from the scriptures, if I thought you were remotely interested.  I know you're not, so I won't.  At the core, no-one is saved by their policy on fornication, or any other thing, they are saved through the Holy Spirit experience and walking in faith with God, so in that sense it's somewhat irrelevant to discuss in a place where the nature of salvation is disputed. Please, I welcome you engaging with me in debate as I am interested! Fascinated, even!

However, I feel compelled to correct another of your unfortunate statements in the interim. People aren't saved by your Revivalist 'Holy Spirit experience'. People are saved as a consequence of the completed work of Jesus Christ that took place on a Roman cross. Noting this, I do agree with you insofar that your sect's policy on fornication doesn't save; how could it? But neither does it redeem, restore, offer hope or reconcile. In short, your sect's policy on fornication actually seeks to undo the effects of Christ's sacrifice! Again, a big difference.

6. I am not sure why it is hypocritical of me to defend the leadership of my church from false claims, whether or not any members of my church make statements about the false nature of Catholic doctrine.  Did you know that the Pope requested clemency for Hutu nuns who lured Tutsis in to a church for sanctuary, locked them in, covered the church in petrol and lit it ? I take this from a non religious book on human rights, I may well be the only person in RCI who knows it ( and I have no intention of ever mentioning it from the platform ). And? Assuming for the moment that such an event actually did occur as yoy claim, then it would be perfectly proper for the Pope to seek clemency for those under his spiritual care. After all 'clemency' equals 'mercy', and mercy is a very significant biblical concept!

The Catholic church is not an organisation set out to do evil, but it is an organisation that has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and that has more than it's share of hypocrisy.  I would never attack any catholic on a personal level, from the pope down to the guy who lives next door, but, as a religion, it is deeply flawed. What is 'deeply flawed' is your overall assessment of Roman Catholicism. As an ancient communion, the Roman Church has endured it's share of troubles, failings and setbacks. However, it's also been responsible for promoting Christ's teaching far better and more capably than you've credited it with. 'Johnny-come-latelys' such as the RCI have a much less perfect 'track-record', and then over a far shorter period, so perhaps you fellows should pay more heed to what's implicit in Matthew 7:3 & 4 before arrogating to yourselves the role of arbiter?

I am sorry to hear, however, that people anywhere in RCI take the time to criticise one group, because, at the end of the day, that we do what the Bible says is all that matters, that's kind of my core point here.  If you've found the 'true' Gospel, why do you need to define it in terms of attacking what I and other RCI members preach ? How does it do you harm that I am happy with a Gospel that includes an experience from God ? Why do you need to tell these lies to back up your views that your new way is 'better' ? If doing what the Bible 'says' is as important to you as you've conceded, then surely any group that makes the claim but then doesn't do what it implies should expect to be corrected? Such is my belief, anyway. From my perspective the thrust of Romans 1:16 seems clear enough. Consequently, false 'gospels' such as that promoted by the RCI need to be confronted, considered, refuted and condemned (so Galatians 1:8).

I'm sure you believe every one of them, but that is only possible through groupthink, through ex members getting together to convince each other of these things, because, again, I stand by my claim that no claim made in the document I commented on, reflects RCI policy or official conduct ( that is, how the church is expected to run ).  In any case, what's missing from all such documents, is any sort of examination of if what RCI does is in line with the Bible.  Anti cult sites don't care what the Bible says, and if you want to stand by such attacks, you value man's wisdom over the Scriptures. Right. Do you honestly think that I don't care what the Bible says? That I value man's wisdom over Scriptural teaching?

They are still false claims, but some of them have a small basis in truth, and that small basis revolves around our doing what the Bible says, not what the latest panel of experts thinks an acceptable religion ( that is, one that doesn't change any aspect of how anyone lives their life ) should be.  If I want to claim that I am 'born again', where would the point be, if I was still the same as everyone else ? Such would depend on whether the claims that you've made are valid, and whether they have any basis in biblical reality. A debate just might settle this, eh?

You've waxed rather long on what you personally 'think' about the Roman Catholic Church, about what you personally 'think' the Bible teaches, about what you personally 'think' salvation involves and so forth. But what you personally 'think' seems to be very short on facts and biblical support. 'Spin' doesn't ever compensate for 'truth', and it's 'truth' which stands at the core of this disagreement. After all, it was you who earlier accused Troy Waller of being a liar. Now, it seems, you've inferred as much of me, too. This being the case, please excuse me for not wanting to let you 'off-the-hook' quite so easily.

Act 5:38         And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
Act 5:39         But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

That is the sum of my advice to you from the Bible.  I have no interest in seeking to personally attack you, or your church, or what you believe.  God will prove the nature of your work and mine, at His return if not before, in the meantime, I need to follow my conscience, and you should follow yours.  Of course, if we knew each other personally, or if you were genuinely interested in what I believe, I'd be happy to share it with you, but, there is no value for anyone in an online slagging match.  So, for that reason, this is all I intend to post here, and I'll come full circle by saying again, no group on earth, of any nature or origin, is best represented by the one sided reports of those who have decided to leave it.  If anyone wants to know what a Revival Centre meeting is like, they should attend one.  If anyone wants to know if God answers by filling people with the Holy Spirit, they should ask Him.  My word, and yours, are just a stream of bytes over the internet, and like so much that is online, they amount to heresay and personal opinion.

You've completely missed the point about, and the implication behind, Gamaliel's speech. Gamaliel was an eyewitness to Christ's ministry. Yet in spite of knowing the Scriptures (just as you claim); in spite of seeing God at work (just as you claim), Gamaliel chose not to follow Jesus' teaching! Gamaliel's 'equivocation speech', then, was a rather lame 'cop-out' (kind of like Pilate's hand-washing stuff). In this respect, I see much of Gamaliel's diffidence in your own approach. As you've made a number of accusations and claims here, I'd like to see you substantiate them with something a little stronger and more authoritative than simply personal opinion.

My own position on your sect is well known: that you fellows preach, teach and promote heresy. Consequently, I'll happily continue to warn people against gullibly swallowing the nonsense that your sect dishes up. And I'll continue to do so by demonstrating the nonsense for what it is.

Ian

 Hey Guesty

I hope you don't go away so soon. I'd love to hear how the RCI deals with sexual sin nowadays. Are people still ex-communicated for life after it's revealed that they've indulged in various 'sexual' sins? Are they still going with that?

Nope, still kicken' 'em out and co-ercing young people to get married.

Looks like they're still the four letter C-Word until further notice.

I think RCI oversight's whole post reads like a soft sell to promote the place.  "If anyone wants to know what a Revival Centre meeting is like they should attend one" has a familiar ring to it.  Thanks for the invitation/s, but no thanks.  

Good morning, Epi et Pete.

Nope, still kicken' 'em out and co-ercing young people to get married. Looks like they're still the four letter C-Word until further notice ... I think RCI oversight's whole post reads like a soft sell to promote the place.

Indeed to both comments. Our friend attempted to introduce a little pro-RCI 'spin' here, pure-and-simple, but I wonder that he thought it would go unchallenged. I wonder that he thought certain posters wouldn't take him to task over his ludicrous claim that we, the former RCI 'folk', didn't really undertstand his sect; its doctrines and practices. In any case I've invited our friend to to dialogue; debate even, but I won't hold my breath waiting for him to engage with me.

Who would've thought that I'd ever side with and 'defend' Waller?! I suppose Lord Byron got things right when he said, 'For truth is always strange; stranger than fiction'.

Blessings,

Ian

 Good Morning Ian and Moth,

.... Eric

Rules on Marriages and Dating

Hi Epios,

After a little surveying of all the news and gossips etc of my former "fellowship" of many years, I have made a rough "guess -tem-ation" that of all the marriages whether forced or otherwise ( some more than 20 odd marriages or thereabouts), as a general round of empirical data, about 85% or greater have ended in divorce or separation. My reckoning is that my "guess-tem-ation" does fall a little short of what the real figure would be..

And the rule at that time was that you were only allowed to date and marry from within the confines of the fellowship itself and you had to be a member of the fellowship for three months before you could date.. And then only when you had the OK from your Pastor..

Something to really ponder over. Can that "guess-tem-ation" of 85% or greater translate as a general figure for the whole of ALL the revivalist sects put together ???  ... Time will tell.

 .. Eric

 Right on Eric that`s how it was . And his majesty super sleaze samoilenko in Townsvillevegas made sure of those rules.  What a  creep he is and was. 

Epi et Guest..

Something else that has caught my attention. There appears to be an abnormally high level of mental illness in the form of 'depression' occurring on a all too often regular basis. I haven't enough empirical data to survey from my past group but none the less there is a lot of mention of it in my communications.

Of course we can speculate as to why and draw up some good reason for this but none the less, mental illness as 'depression' is but one dire fruit of the heretic sects we call 'revivalism' .

blessings

Eric

To enable yourself to conform and be a 'happy/clappy' member of these groups, you have to deny or suppress your 'true self.'

Australia, and the rest of the world, have shut up about these "revival churches", that are so dangerous since, what I have read, 1958. And now you will reap what you have sown. A totally disaster.

 Troy