Tracey,

Try Hard - A person who puts a large amount of effort into achieving a certain image, or counter-image, to the point where it is obviously contrived. 'Blow Hard' - A person who is quick to voice opinions, but without the benefit of facts ;) Yep I can see you have your finger on the pulse there Ian, as usual. Indeed. So where's your finger? On second thought, don't answer that question, as I'm not sure I really want to know :S

So great to see the churches packed to the rafters every weekend, people just can't wait to get in and worship god. Do you really think one has to be inside a church building to be worshiping God? Why? However, come Easter and Christmas time and it is 'standing room only' in most churches. All that patience waiting in the queues, damn australians are a godly bunch. (1) Care to guess the percentage of Australians who demand Christian services for the 'big three' (i.e. hatches, matches and dispatches)? (2) Every time there's a national crisis or disaster (e.g. a Bali bombing, flood, drought, bushfire, etc) the churches are 'packed to the rafters'. (3) Secularist educators attempted to take Jesus out of Easter pageants in our public schools this year, supposedly in deference to our multicultural society. You may recall that this stunt didn't go down very well at all. Apparently Australians aren't quite so 'godless' as you presume.

A little free advice: instead of continuing to demonstrate that your opinions are based on nothing more tangible than, well, 'hot air', why don't you try a little proper research? You know? The sort that involves f-a-c-t-s ;)

Give it a go, you just might learn something.

Goose.

Ian

 I don't see your point Ian. Why can't he voice his concerns about the obvious state of christianity today? Oh I forgot, one needs to be academic before one get's your official approval for speaking :). You also seem to have forgotten to answer both his concerns... and chosen to discredit the speaker instead. Uhmm.. where did I see this before  oh yes - CAI etc..

Torben,

I don't see your point Ian. Clearly. You struggle with understanding the context of the discussion because you're ignorant of the facts underpinning the discussion. Why can't he voice his concerns about the obvious state of christianity today? Oh I forgot, one needs to be academic before one get's your official approval for speaking :) No, 'informed' will do. You don't know the identity of the person. I do. You don't know what motivates this person. I do. In other words, you're making judgments that aren't based on an appreciation of the facts again, likely as not because your pride is still wounded and you think this discussion with Tracey makes me an easy target. You also seem to have forgotten to answer both his concerns... and chosen to discredit the speaker instead. Uhmm.. where did I see this before  oh yes - CAI etc. You don't have to cast your mind back that 'far' into your past. You simply need re-read your last couple of posts, and you'll recognise the signs.

By the way, 'his (her, actually) conerns' weren't framed as questions, but statements. Consequently, they didn't require 'answering'.

Jump down off your 'high-horse', Torben, before you fall off.

Ian

 well answered Ian, as usual :)

Torben,

well answered Ian, as usual :) That's why it says 'Forum Oracle' under my 'Avatar' :)

Ian

Torben

P.S. wounded pride? 'Yes', wounded pride. Oh.. so you did arrive at the conclusion that I stopped arguing with you because you were right and I did not have further arguments? 'No', I arrived at that conclusion based on your petulant attitude. That's what I would have expected... seeing your attitude in general. But rest assured.. I am planning to make another video soon about the subject you seem to be worried about = teaching/leading of the Holy Ghost.. and there will be plenty of scriptures for you to wrest. Ahem. The word that applies to me is 'exegete'. 'Wresting' is left to those who attempt to make Scripture say something that it does not. Only - it is not really done for you... but for the audience that get's influenced by you. If you wish to tread the path of Tony Barton, per your Revivalist heritage, 'fill your boots'. Many have before you, and no doubt many will after you. But don't get your hopes up of finding a receptive audience, here.

Ian

P.S. A few questions, if I may? (1) Why do you persist in using the King James Version? Is it because you yet believe that it's the most accurate of all English translations, per Gail Riplinger? (2) Are you now in fellowship in an orthodox church, one that's in no way 'staffed' by people previously allied with your former sect? A place where you can sit as a 'student' to 'unlearn' all of the doctrinal nonsense that you imbibed in the CAI, or do you see yourself more as a Bible 'teacher', instead? And, (3) do you still believe the British-Israel fables that Scott Williams promotes? In short, (4) how much of a Revivalist are you still?

These are the sorts of questions I'd like to see answered in your next round of 'Youtube' videos.

Good morning, Tracey.

Well Ian you seem to think your opinions are fact, which is not suprising considering your actual religion is being right, and has nothing to do with god whatsoever. Given that I base my beliefs and opinions on Scripture, if you think they're wrong, then all it would take is for you to demonstrate as much from the same source. But don't expect me to apologise for not crediting your uninformed musings with the same level of authority. I am as entitled as anyone else to comment on whatever I choose. Sure you are. And as I've pointed out to you so many times previously, when your opinions part company with reality, I'm entitled to point out as much.

Yes, I know in you sad little world seeming "needy" is such a terrible thing, but its honest sweet, I have no time for masks or hiding my agendas. No? Then why do you try hiding your identity here? I know this whole honesty thing is a foreign concept to you, but I guess you have made it clear you would never have the balls to give anyone an insight into what really goes on in that heart of yours. And I guess you simply ignored my earlier post, the one where I shared with you the accountability structures in place in my life. So at least one of us isn't afraid of being accountable to others, or of being honest. Your attempts to amuse yourself by trying to find my weak points and twist the knife are unconscionable, but I guess that is standard fare for your type. So far as I'm concerned your greatest 'weak point' is your misplaced arrogance. And that you continue to steadfastly 'lead with the chin' here is really your problem, not mine.

I'm not fixated on you Ian, you are merely the most reachable target at this time, and yes, it is probably fair to say I do take things out on you which I should be taking up with others. Hello! You've not made a s-i-n-g-l-e post in almost two years that hasn't been completely focussed on me, warp and weft. So do reach for your 'Macquaries', and look up the definition of 'fixated' again. Not that there is any point, you people are hard, cold and have no compassion or empathy whatsoever for those who will not toe the line. Then give it a rest and try finding another way to fill your days. My compassion doesn't extend to the wilfully ignorant, the arrogant, and the hypocritical, so you're plumb out of luck on that score. You are just another one in a long line of assholes. Yes, you know a awful lot of people who disagree with you, huh? Lucky you. Compared to many, apparently so. But compared to you, it ain't 'luck'. It's 'choice'.

Goose.

Ian

Good morning, Torben.

Ahem. The word that applies to me is 'exegete'. 'Wresting' is left to those who attempt to make Scripture say something that it does not.

Exegisis in your eyes seems to end at the point where you have established facts in a text. Well, 'yes'. If you read my earlier response to you, you would've learned that such is precisely what exegesis is all about: the 'meant' bit. Admittedly you also successfully realise what they do not mean. And how very lucky this was for you, eh? If one stops here and does not follow through knowledge>understanding>fear of God/wisdom/Love then one (you?) would not be neccessarily safeguarded from an intention to wrest the scriptures. Wrong. Wresting Scripture is to make it state/teach/promote concepts that are foreign to the text, itself. Exegesis prevents this from occurring undetected. In any case, the conditional statement that introduced your argument began with a false premise. To state here that I have the impression that this is exactly what seems to be the case with you would make little sense, as it needs to be backed up with scripture (which might be done with my next video..) point by point. Which is, of course, exactly what I've been asking you to do, and which is, of course, preciesly what you've refused to do. Given your 'track record' here thus far, I sincerely hope that you'll be able to cultivate the humility necessary to take the inevitable correction, when it comes. You however also do not seem to need any evidence in order to make quick judgements.. so you are probably ok with me having an opinion too... Opinions are like rectums, everybody has one. However, as I've pointed out to Tracey over the years (ad infinitum), not all opinions are of equal value, merit or worth. If you want me to credit yours, then you'll need to demonstrate that you understand Scripture aright and are not simply repackaging the errors of your CAI days.

If you wish to tread the path of Tony Barton, per your Revivalist heritage, 'fill your boots'. Many have before you, and no doubt many will after you. But don't get your hopes up of finding a receptive audience, here.

I do not know Tony Barton and have no intention to follow in his footsteps. Well, you've certainly started trotting off in the same direction as him, and after the same fashion as him. The audience I hope to help here are people who suffered like ma and need some answers. If your audience suffered like you then what they need are correct answers, and not simply more of the same well-intentioned but misguided nonsense that they uncitically gulped down during their time in Revivalism. I might not have reached your state of perfection yet, but what I have learned I am willing to share. Open your Bible and flick to James 3:1. 'Nuff said. Bible: everyone has a doctrine etc... Ian: only acedemic scholars speak. everybody else shut's up.. and then quickly the church organ before somebody else wants to edify. As I recall, the very next bit has Paul stating that it's the responsibility of the Church to 'judge' such spontaneous offerings to discern whether they are 'of God'. What you've done just now is wrested Scripture once again through your illegitimate application of 'proof-texting'.

Torben, understand that spiritual 'edification' is what results when Scripture is authentically opened and displayed and discerned. 'Delusion' is what results when the same is misrepresented. Given your background you, of all people, should realise this.

(1) Why do you persist in using the King James Version? Is it because you yet believe that it's the most accurate of all English translations, per Gail Riplinger?

No - I do not only use the KJV, but am at this point the most familiar with it and I do not wan't do mix up my quote by memory ability. During bible study I use a compare view of six translations + commentaries and not yest the best greek dictionaries. Using a wide range of English versions is good, as is using commentaries (so long as the right commentaries are being consulted). However, given that you don't understand a word of Greek, I fail to see what you hope to achieve by consulting Greek lexica. I will head your advice by the way and ask an orthodox theologian (one who can demonstrate a christian attitude and life) for advice on the best to use for a non-academic like me. And I pray that you can muster sufficient humility to listen to such a one, if and when you do. I can recommend a few who live near you if you're ineterested.

I am not an KJV-Onlyist if you are trying to find that out - cast that away before leaving CAI when I realised a certain British Authoritative manipulative influence in it. People who say it is inspired in a similar way as the original bible manuscrips have suffered from BI brainwashing. Well KJV-onlyism is quite a separate issue to the promotion of the BI fable. Gale Riplinger: hmm.. in my view was able to point out quite a few dangers with many especially of the newer versions (even though I have also seen improvements in them). Then your view on the matter is completely wrong. Gail Riplinger is about as capable in Greek and Hebrew as you are, and one could write multi-volume works on what she doesn't know about textual criticism and it's application to Bible translation. but portayes the situation very lopsided. She protrays the situation completely incorrectly, actually. A lot of what she states is also...  simply rubbish. All of what she states is 'simply rubbish'.

I also stick to the KJV as it is what most ex revivalists know and it rings a bell with them. If I bring teachings to them that they do not know... why not at least use scriptures that sound familiar? For the simple reason that the KJV translation can very easily be manipulated to present the impression that Scripture supports the errors they've already accepted. Revivalists are indoctrinated to automatically associate certain passages with certain ideas. However, when the same passages are presented to them from the more modern translations, 'psychic dissonance' often results. This is because the true meaning of the passage is inevitably made clearer.

I point out pitfalls of the KJV whenever I can (like you would have noticed in one of my videos). What I noticed is that you made certain assumptions that aren't actually factual. For example, bracketed text in the KJV doesn't mean what you think it does. Enough justification Ian? My I please 'persist' in reading the KJV also? I hope this does not offend you? Your use of the KJV doesn't offend me in the slightest. I simply find it 'curious'.

(2) Are you now in fellowship in an orthodox church, one that's in no way 'staffed' by people previously allied with your former sect? A place where you can sit as a 'student' to 'unlearn' all of the doctrinal nonsense that you imbibed in the CAI, or do you see yourself more as a Bible 'teacher', instead?

I am currently searching for fellowship with other believers. That would be a definite 'no', then. You will certainly not see me in a church building with a nice organ that quickly playes once the big boss in the front has finished speaking so nobody else can contribute. Sorry, but I'm not personally acquainted with churches like the (imaginary) one you've just described. Do you know that the Bible clearly states that God has appointed some to be pastors and teachers? (see Ephesians 4:11. Verse 12 explains why). Do you also know that the qualifications of such men and women are also described in Scripture? The setup where you (God willing) will find me is one where Christians have true fellowship, are indeed kindly affectioned toward another, are hospitable, all strive to come to the come to the fullness of the measure of the knowledge of God (according to their gift and ability), the whole gospel is preached. Which would be an 'orthodox'  church then, the very sort that I asked if you had become part of. So what's 'wrong' with your local Church of Scotland fellowship? Or Baptist church? Or Congregationalist church? Or Anglican Church? Or Roman Catholic church? Why aren't you affiliated with one of them yet, what is it about them that you find so objectionable? Would it be correct of me to assume that you're currently 'fellowshiping' only with former CAI folk like yourself? Whether this is in a house, hall, bible study group or house meetings is of secondary importance to us at the moment. And what is of 'primary' importance to you (plural) at the moment? Is it finding people who think as you do? Who believe as you do? That would be a very serious mistake on your part, as all that such a situation would do would be to reinforce already incorrect beliefs and ways of thinking. You need to be challenged by those who don't think or believe as you do.

(3) do you still believe the British-Israel fables that Scott Williams promotes?

This was one of the issues which brought my conflicts with the other elders to confrontation level. Almost everything we learn about history in school is in one way or another represented to benefit the authorities that rule over us. BI is one of the most obvious and easiest traceble British propaganda doctrines feed into the religeous organisations a long time ago. Not that long ago, actually. Key target was never Europe (even though we had to sing God save the Queen during our wedding in bombed Dresden hahaha) but the United States. Nope. The plan has been pretty much abondoned today (but nobody ever told the revivalists) and the trilateral commission is now the key organisation to keep the US under Brithish Banking Interest control. So you're still into Revivalist 'conspiracy theories'?! Let the Americans think they are independent.. they will never seek to break free. Okay.

The idea that we can separate all peoples and tribes that came into central europe is bu....cks. The idea that Germany is Assyria is insane in sofar that one would first have to say which one of the 50 founding tribes one means :) and how one knows that all the 'israelites' that came out of 'Germany' and central europe, were not decendants of Assyria then. Again - propaganda for the mighty, so they can set up another 'true church - by racial inheritance' in England, rivaling with the other 'true church - by appointment and succession of/by Christ and Peter'. The difference being, of course, that the Roman Catholic Church actually is a 'true' Church, one built on apostolic authority.

Having said that, there may be some truth in some of the evidence that decendants of the 10 tribes came into the Western world - I am in no position to dismiss that.. neither am I interested. Simply because the bible does not seem to point to a theocracy in the time after 70AD... but the Kingdom that is to come and now is in us.. if we are grafted in. Indeed. That's the important point, isn't it? Being grafted into the vine.

(4) how much of a Revivalist are you still?

I am not a revivalist, nor a baptist, nor a protestant, nor a catholic. Well, I'm not so sure. You still seem to be holding close a heap of Revivalist paranoia, and your approach towards those who understand Scripture and doctrine better than you still reeks of misplaced Revivalist arrogance. That you're suspicious/dismissive of orthodox Christian churches is also very much of the Revivalist mould, and is concerning. I won't play that worldly game. I am simply a person who found grace and is privilleged to have access to the Word of God, seeks to understand it and enter into an ever deeper relationship with God. Good! Then please, stop getting offended at people who wish to help you to shake off the remaining vestiges of your heretical Revivalist beliefs, in order to enable you to grasp the Bible's teachings better.

These are the sorts of questions I'd like to see answered in your next round of 'Youtube' videos.

If you want videos on those subjects then get yourself a camera and plug it in :) Ah, but I already know what I believe. It's what you believe that is at issue, here.

Ian

Ah yes "the ranks", I remember those well from my revival days, but truth be told they exist everywhere, the sad proof that humans are incapable of living with anything more evolved than that outmoded way of controlling others.

I no longer have any interest in aligning myself with an organisation of people who continue to enable others to abuse people by their silence. The dishonesty of the church sickens me.

Now what is it that gives you that right and that obligation Ian? Has nothing to do with pride sunshine, that was beaten out of me before I even started school :) Has to do with realising who has my best interests at heart and who doesn't. Christians, like everyone else, have become expert at covering their own ass, jumping on the bandwagon. They get away with abuse no one else in this society does.

This reader would like to kindly request a little teaching/information from Ian Didaktikon.. in order to possibly speed up recovery... after a critical check (link to a previous post would do as well):

1) Would you be happy for ex revivalists to join the catholic church? Since you are obviously aware of this being a very strange thought most of us, maybe you could expose us to your key reasoning here. My un-informed opinion is that we would be exposed to a lot of erroneous doctrines there (please no blaming about our mother of harlots etc... let's leave prophecy out of this if we will). You mentioned the catholic church is a 'true' church based on the apostolic authority or so...

2) Seeing your disregard for somebody else's state of knowledge in history, may I ask what credentials/experience you have? Do you have a degree in history or is it a hobby? Just asking - so the readers here can evaluate how much we can rely on your expertiese more than on their own understanding/sources. Not that we end up mixing your reliable counsel in doctrine with areas in which are possibly not an expert and we might need further sources.

3)You have made several 'motivating' statements regarding fellowshipping in an orthodox church. Could you please elaborate on this a little from scripture. Also - what makes an orthodox church.. it being able to trace founding/ancestry to the early church or it holding to the orthodox beliefs of the apostles? Or do you think any congregation of believers that is baptised by the Holy Ghost into one body can form an individual administration in the body of Christ, with the Holy Spirit distributing the gift of being a teacher etc?

4) From recent statements I wonder whether you advise me to not say 'I checked the Greek' anymore. In my humble use of common English (which I am sure you could understand if you wanted - seeing your eloquence) I referred to the simple task of looking up the meaning of words in a foreign language. What would be your advice and guidance here? Should I abandon any attempt to establish what the Greek says with the humble tools and ability I have and rather depend on Theologians? What do you reckon the error rate would be in Thayers Greek Dictionary (very roughly) is it like less than 1% or over 10%? I am asking in order to evaluate whether a possibly low chance of getting a wrong translation would justify the abandoning of any attempt to understand it altogether... and be back to just trusting others for doctrine in this dangerous age of false teachers? Also - I know little about Greek rules of gramma and cases etc.. and rely on the suggestions of applications in diferent situations given in the dictionaries - which I had the impression worked quite well? Is this extreemly risky or just a little? I am also regularly cross checking my results with the works of notable theologians out of all camps of denominations and seem to get further insight by doing this - Is this a good idea? Or would it be better to trust one denomination's theology completely. Which is a reliable one. Any advice?

Many thank for your hard work! Love and Greetings, Torben

Hello, Torben.

This reader would like to kindly request a little teaching/information from Ian Didaktikon. Sure. in order to possibly speed up recovery... after a critical check (link to a previous post would do as well):

1) Would you be happy for ex revivalists to join the catholic church? 'Yes'. Doing so would amount to taking a good many steps in the right direction away from Revivalism. Since you are obviously aware of this being a very strange thought most of us, maybe you could expose us to your key reasoning here. It's strange to you because you fellows were fed loads of 'codswallop' about the Roman Church during your time in 'Revival'. I've written on the subject, and it's available elsewhere on this forum. My un-informed opinion is that we would be exposed to a lot of erroneous doctrines there (please no blaming about our mother of harlots etc... let's leave prophecy out of this if we will). Two things: (1) it's precisely for this sort of reasoning that your opinion is uninformed. (2) The way in which you believe the Roman Catholic Church 'fits' into the prophecies of the Revelation is also wrong. You mentioned the catholic church is a 'true' church based on the apostolic authority or so... 'Yes' I did, because it 'is'.

2) Seeing your disregard for somebody else's state of knowledge in history, may I ask what credentials/experience you have? You may. I hold a Bachelor of Theology degree (awarded with 1st Class Honours), a Master of Theology degree (awarded with Credit), and a Doctor of Philosophy degree (which is pending me successfully defending my dissertation in a few month's time). I am now, and have been for the past nine years a faculty member of an Australian evangelical theological college, where I tutor in a range of biblical and theological subjects (including Church History). Do you have a degree in history or is it a hobby? I took a minor in exegetical theology (historical theology) during my undergraduate days, so 'yes' my Bachelor degree addressed Church history. Just asking - so the readers here can evaluate how much we can rely on your expertiese more than on their own understanding/sources. Now you know. Not that we end up mixing your reliable counsel in doctrine with areas in which are possibly not an expert and we might need further sources. I'm happy to point you to a number of reliable College-level texts on this subject, if you doubt the information that I present.
 
3) You have made several 'motivating' statements regarding fellowshipping in an orthodox church. I did, indeed. Could you please elaborate on this a little from scripture. Also - what makes an orthodox church. An orthodox church is 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic'; or if you prefer, a church where the 'Gospel is faithfully preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and discipleship in evidence' (so Acts 2:42).  it being able to trace founding/ancestry to the early church or it holding to the orthodox beliefs of the apostles? Are the two necessarily mutually-exclusive to your way of thinking? Or do you think any congregation of believers that is baptised by the Holy Ghost into one body can form an individual administration in the body of Christ, with the Holy Spirit distributing the gift of being a teacher etc? If it stands separate from and exclusive to the remainder of Christ's Body, then 'no' such an 'administration' wouldn't qualify. There is schism enough in Christianity currently, without misguided people adding to it unnecessarily. My experience has been that people who start their 'own' churches are either too proud, or too ego-driven, to belong to already established ones.

4) From recent statements I wonder whether you advise me to not say 'I checked the Greek' anymore. Why? If you don't understand the language, then how would you be able to ascertain meaning? In my humble use of common English (which I am sure you could understand if you wanted - seeing your eloquence) I referred to the simple task of looking up the meaning of words in a foreign language. And how does looking up the meaning of individual words aid your understanding? Language, indeed communication more generally, doesn't function at the lexical level, but at the syntactical level. A dictionary, therefore, is of absolutely no use to you whatsoever if you attempt to understand the 'parts' without understanding how they fit togther to make the 'whole'. What would be your advice and guidance here? My advice? Try the following brief exercise. Consider how many 'meanings' there are for the simple English word 'cool'. Then ponder the implications with respect to how this word would function in a range of contexts determined by syntax. The same applies to Greek. Should I abandon any attempt to establish what the Greek says with the humble tools and ability I have and rather depend on Theologians? 'Yes'. That or commit around ten years to learning Greek properly. What do you reckon the error rate would be in Thayers Greek Dictionary (very roughly) is it like less than 1% or over 10%? The principle error of Thayer's dictionary is that it assumes Attic conventions apply to Koine Greek. That is roughly equivalent to referring to a dictionary of Elizabethan English when trying to make sense of modern, colloquial English. I am asking in order to evaluate whether a possibly low chance of getting a wrong translation would justify the abandoning of any attempt to understand it altogether... Thayer's won't give you a 'translation', it will simply provide you with a range of possible options. However, without knowing the rules of Greek grammar, or the structures of Greek syntax, how can you determine which option is the correct one for any given passage? The simple answer is, of course, you can't. and be back to just trusting others for doctrine in this dangerous age of false teachers? It has been my experience that the most dangerous of all false teachers, are those who presume to knowing more, or 'better', than the facts actually warrant.

Also - I know little about Greek rules of gramma and cases etc.. and rely on the suggestions of applications in diferent situations given in the dictionaries - which I had the impression worked quite well? The standard introductory exegetical Greek Grammar, by Wallace, runs to almost 1,000 pages. Robertson's grammar, which is the one preferred by seasoned Greek scholars, is almost half as long again. So 'knowing' some superficial information about the 'case' of nouns, or how verbs are conjugated, doesn't count for a great deal. Is this extreemly risky or just a little? It's extremely risky, obviously. If I had a dollar for every time some ignorant preacher said from the pulpit, 'the Greek means this', and then screws it up royally, I'd be independently wealthy. I am also regularly cross checking my results with the works of notable theologians out of all camps of denominations and seem to get further insight by doing this - Is this a good idea? It would be a great idea if you fully understood the nature of the various arguments, and so were able to adequately assess the claims of said theologians. If you can't, then what tends to happen is you would gravitate towards the views of the theologian who is closest in thought to what you already believed. Such is human nature. Or would it be better to trust one denomination's theology completely. Where all the denominations agree, one can be confident that what is being presented is correct. Getting hung up with the vagaries of respective adiaphora, however, is naught but a fruitless exercise. The 'trick' is in being able to identify the 'fundamentals' from the 'incidentals' to begin with. Which is a reliable one. Any advice? Plenty. I've written on this subject as well, and it can be found elsewhere in this forum.

Many thank for your hard work! You're welcome.

Ian 

...1) Would you be happy for ex revivalists to join the catholic church? 'Yes'. Doing so would amount to taking a good many steps in the right direction away from Revivalism.

Pilgrim: But my key incentive is not to simply move away from revivalism (even though this is an obvious consequence) but to get to a place of proper understanding of scripture and doctrine and fellowshipping with such minded. Are you not concerned that you would send me into an organisation where other erroneous doctrines persist? Or do you hold the view that the catholic (and I assume we are talking about Roman Catholic) do not hold unscriptural doctrines ... or promote their practices?

...It's strange to you because you fellows were fed loads of 'codswallop' about the Roman Church during your time in 'Revival'. I've written on the subject, and it's available elsewhere on this forum....

Pilgrim: But I do not base my un-informed opinion on revivalist doctrine, but common reformation history sources. I asked you to leave prophecy out of it, simply because I have always found a proper examination of taught doctrines a lot more helpful than someone's interpretation of prophecy. Others might find prophecy in revelations etc.. easy to interpret, I sometimes struggle to see very clearly what they apply to.

(2) The way in which you believe the Roman Catholic Church 'fits' into the prophecies of the Revelation is also wrong.

Pilgrim: This is obviously a presumteous statement, since you presume that I believe every revivalist view of prophecy. It is also prejudice, as seems to be your habbit to presume that anyone discussing here holds to in every way or form to what your view of revivalism is. It would help the discussion if we actually discussed the subjects without assuming that we know the others view based on their individual history, which we clearly cannot know in detail. You do not know what I always accepted in CAI, what never, when I started contending and waking up, was it a process... how long did it take? Did I wake up in one day and leave? Did I have pre-CAI views that influenced me all the time? Un-informed making of allegations does not help any discussion.

...I took a minor in exegetical theology (historical theology) during my undergraduate days, so 'yes' my Bachelor degree addressed Church history

Pilgrim: How many hours a week and over what period of time did this part of your education involve and how much of that time was used to address church history? And even more importantly - did you combine these lessons with a thorough study of secular history at the same time in order to evaluate the political implications of Europe at the time in order to get another angle? Or are you unaware of the immense political involvement, goodwill and support from the various nations inolved in all reformation historical events, the thirty year war and the resulting powershifts after that and in the following centuries?

...I'm happy to point you to a number of reliable College-level texts on this subject, if you doubt the information that I present.

Pilgrim: That would be nice - thank you. I am always happy to challenge my views with other views, facts and opinion. Which I can prove by drastic changes in a not a few previously held beliefs in the recent past. Therefore your presumtion to put your general opinion that everybody tends to hear what they want to hear in doctrine on everybody quickly, is not only prejudice but borders on a denial that the sheep do hear the voice of the sheperd and there are those who have received the love of the truth... and put this before their doctrinal feel-good preference.

An orthodox church is 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic'; or if you prefer, a church where the 'Gospel is faithfully preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and discipleship in evidence' (so Acts 2:42).  it being able to trace founding/ancestry to the early church or it holding to the orthodox beliefs of the apostles? Are the two necessarily mutually-exclusive to your way of thinking? Or do you think any congregation of believers that is baptised by the Holy Ghost into one body can form an individual administration in the body of Christ, with the Holy Spirit distributing the gift of being a teacher etc? If it stands separate from and exclusive to the remainder of Christ's Body, then 'no' such an 'administration' wouldn't qualify. There is schism enough in Christianity currently, without misguided people adding to it unnecessarily. My experience has been that people who start their 'own' churches are either too proud, or too ego-driven, to belong to already established ones.

Pilgrim: Sacraments? Can you please help my ignorance and speek to me in bible terms that I can recognise from scripture? Is this the greek for frood of the Spirit? Or the requirements for disciples? Could you please teach me in terms I can digest? I only know the term sacraments from catholic films. Maybe this is a good opportunity for me to learn these required sacraments finally.. since I have never been taught them and never seen the term in the (English/German) bible? Also how does a separate administration (there are differences in administration) necessarily stand separate and exclusive from the body of Christ? My un-informed opinion would be sofar, that just as my spirit residing in my body makes me my body - so Christ's Spirit residing in a congregation also makes them part of His body? I feel by just making one reference to Acts, you have not made a proper case from scripture that I can say I have been taught properly and now know what to do. How do separate administrations necessarily produce shisms? A proper exegesis of the contexts of such scriptures would lead to that assumption yes? Just by unreliable memory I somehow thought it may be carnality, false doctrine and (denominatioism?) groups who distinct themselves separate from others by being a follower of Apollos or Paul instead of agreeing to be followers of Christ? Could you please point out from scripture what leads you to the assumption that separate administrations split the body of Christ or add to it? Or are we simply back to the an increased likelyhood of uneducated teachers? Well - that would be a different subject.

Pilgrim: So your counsil is for me to not to attempt any understanding of Greek based on the fact that I do not understand it... which is kind of a strange idea in itself... if the solution to a problem is the acceptance of it... I would like to demonstrate that you may be wrong here in a practical (not just theory Ian) in a separate post.

Love and Greetings, Torben

Torben,

Apparently you need to go back and re-read my response to you a little more closely the second time around (all the answers you sought are contained therein). If you continue to experience trouble understanding some of the 'specialist' vocabulary, 'Google' might be a good place to start.

I've neither the time, nor the patience the truth be told, to be continually repeating myself. This forum is quite large, and I've commented on most of the issues that you're likely to raise elsewhere in it. A little searching on your part is therefore necessary.

Ian

oh... that is not a very forthcoming answer Ian. I am slightly dissappointed. teach me...

Torben,

The answers have already been given, so perhaps it's I who should be disappointed in your lack of personal application towards learning? ;)

Ian

 You do not really want me to point out all my questions that you clearly have NOT answered Ian do you? For doing so also take a lot of my time. If you have answered them elsewhere then I would at least appreciate a few links. Or do you find my questions uncomfortable? I am sorry - I did not mean to make you feel bad for any of your beliefs...

Torben,

I think you might be over-rating your capacities (again) :) Your questions are neither challenging, nor do they make me feel in any way 'uncomfortable' (I find them amusing more than anything else). Obviously your attitude is somewhat irritating, but you already knew that.

Given that you're the one seeking the answers, it's only right and proper that you devote a little of your time to searching the forum for the information that's contained therein. Whilst I'm more than happy to spend some of my spare time helping those seeking answers, I only do so when I believe their questions are sincere to begin with.

Now, given that it's 11:30pm here, and you've used up your quota of my largesse for one day, OTYBL ('Over To You Blue Leader'). I hope that reading your responses tomorrow will add to my amusement.

Ian

..but I thought I was your Padivan or however you spelled that.. oh great Jedi Master.

If you think the confrontation of Truth and error has anything to do with the capacity of the deliverer on either side, then you are wrong again Darth Vader no? In my un-informed view I would have thought that one can do nothing against the truth, and deceit is expelled by bringing it to the light/truth.

I only hear 'capacity, know more than you, know better, know everything, I know, I know, I know, I am this, I am that, you are nothing, you are unqualified' Ahem.. what does that NOT remind me of - Oh yes - the Apostle Paul's writings.

KJV 2Co 10:12  For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.
RV 2Co 10:12  For we are not bold to number or compare ourselves with certain of them that commend themselves: but they themselves, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are without understanding.

Fine - chose not to answer Ian and have a smart reason... but I think it is already sufficiently clear to 'some' of the many readers where you stand just by reading the last few posts. And that can only be good - for every student should be able to see where the teacher comes from before he signs up.

And please do not forget to NOT answer this post,as you have so little time to spend here, my dear Forum Oracle :)

Good morning, Torben.

..but I thought I was your Padivan or however you spelled that.. oh great Jedi Master. At the very least you seem to have the 'smarts' to recognise that I'm not a Sith Lord. That's a 'start' that I can work with.

If you think the confrontation of Truth and error has anything to do with the capacity of the deliverer on either side, then you are wrong again Darth Vader no? Well, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate to me where you think I was 'wrong' the 'first time', so you might be getting a little ahead of yourself in claiming that I'm 'wrong' again. In my un-informed view I would have thought that one can do nothing against the truth, and deceit is expelled by bringing it to the light/truth. But of course. The question then becomes, are you capable of recognising the 'light' of truth when you see it? You clearly weren't during the 17-odd years that you spent in the CAI, so what makes you believe your capacity to discern 'truth' has improved in the very short time since?

I only hear 'capacity, know more than you, know better, know everything, I know, I know, I know, I am this, I am that, you are nothing, you are unqualified'. Well, I do know more than you about biblical and theological studies, and I do know Scripture better than you, so these are simple statements of fact. Further as I recall it was you who asked me to provide the broad details of my qualifications and experience in teaching Scripture, so how does me doing so qualify as a boast? And, of course, there is also the fact that it was a direct result of my learning and skills in biblical exegesis that you had access to the information that convinced you of the errors of your fromer heresy about 'tongues'. Shall I go on? But when have I said that you were 'nothing'? And what is it that you think makes you 'qualified' to be offering opinions on biblical 'truth'? Until very recently you were a leader in a heretical pseudo-Christian sect, and by your own admission you currently stand outside the Christian Church. These factors pretty much disqualify you from presuming to 'teach' the Bible to others in any capacity. Ahem.. what does that NOT remind me of - Oh yes - the Apostle Paul's writings. Oh, I think even Tracey Santarelli would disagree with you there. However, two points: (1) I don't claim to being the apostle Paul, or to being his equal, so your entire point is, in fact, pointless.  And, (2) you really need to go back and re-read Paul's letters. In all but a handful of them he openly defends: (a) his qualifications as an apostle, (b) his right to the obedience of those in the churches he planted, and (c) his gifting and calling to teach.

KJV 2Co 10:12  For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.
RV 2Co 10:12  For we are not bold to number or compare ourselves with certain of them that commend themselves: but they themselves, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are without understanding.

There's a quote that Professor Don Carson attributes to his father, and it goes something like this: 'a text without a context is a pretext for a proof-text'. In short, this teaches the idea that when a verse or two of Scripture is lifted and considered apart from the range of contexts that imbue it with meaning (i.e. literary, historical, cultural, linguistic, geographical, religious, etc), it ceases to be a legitimate use of Scripture, and becomes instead a wresting of it. In quoting the one verse from 2 Corinthians 10 that you have, and as you have, you've clearly demonstrated that you have very little idea of how the 'part' (i.e. verse 12) fits and functions within the 'whole' (i.e. the pericope that ranges from verse one through verse seventeen). 

Fine - chose not to answer Ian and have a smart reason... but I think it is already sufficiently clear to 'some' of the many readers where you stand just by reading the last few posts. I'm sure it is. As I've pointed out to you previously, I'm a 'known quantity', one having a proven ministry. And that can only be good - for every student should be able to see where the teacher comes from before he signs up. Absolutely. In your case, however, It seems to be more a fact of the 'teacher' not being all that far removed from where he was, previously.

And please do not forget to NOT answer this post, as you have so little time to spend here, my dear Forum Oracle :) Oh, I make time when the situation warrants it ;)

In closing, do you recall my previous caution about you risking a fall from that high horse you currently sit astride?

Ian

Hi Ian,

thank you for your genuine concern. If you however look closer at my recent posts you will notice that I was not looking for things on the platter in order to learn (which Ian well recognised) but to apply some testing to Ian's interesting views, which go A a lot further than just de-revivalismitising people here and B sound everything but scriptural (even to non revivalist ears).

Unfortunately he refuses to answer, which is unusual for him, he certainly always has time  when answering e... uhh I don't want to talk like this anymore. I didn't really discuss for his nor my sake anyway, but so that the readers realise a thing or two. I'm done.

I hope he hasn't gotten you into the catholic church?

Love and Greetings,  Torben

Torben,

So still no answers to my questions? Which questions trouble you, specifically? Known entity? Indeed. Oh Ian - how sad to see a professed teacher write like that. Why? It's another simple statement of fact. My ministry is well known among all branches of Revivalism, your own included. Furthermore God has successfully used it in redeeming Revivalists and turning them into Christians.

I am outside the church because I have followed the Word of God and obeyed in leaving the wrong place? Your time in the CAI wasn't time spent in the Christian Church, so it doesn't count. The issue is that there are scores of Christian communions within your region, and yet you've decided to shun the lot. This speaks volumes about not only your attitude, but your level of spiritual maturity. And you condemn because I have not yet jumped into your catholic church? 'No', you condemn yourself by not seeking to become a part of Christ's Body. You withhold yourself from it, not the reverse. Moving on, your ignorance with respect to Roman Catholicism is a different matter, albeit an understandable one at this point given your background. Let's see whether you choose to continue in wilfull ignorance into the future. Do you fear God Ian? Intensely. It's why I seek to do his will. And it seems he's largely satisfied with my efforts.

I followed your advice and checked James 3:1 and was quite stunned what I found in a (probably to you entirely dismissable) commentary. I am taking my share in judging myself with it - maybe you can too... Probably.

I. Not to use our tongues so as to lord it over others: My brethren, be not many masters, etc., Jam_3:1. These words do not forbid doing what we can to direct and instruct others in the way of their duty or to reprove them in a Christian way for what is amiss; but we must not affect to speak and act as those who are continually assuming the chair, we must not prescribe to one another, so as to make our own sentiments a standard by which to try all others, because God gives various gifts to men, and expects from each according to that measure of light which he gives.

“Therefore be not many masters” (or teachers, as some read it); “do not give yourselves the air of teachers, imposers, and judges, but rather speak with the humility and spirit of learners; do not censure one another, as if all must be brought to your standard.” This is enforced by two reasons. 1. Those who thus set up for judges and censurers shall receive the greater condemnation. Our judging others will but make our own judgment the more strict and severe, Mat_7:1, Mat_7:2. Those who are curious to spy out the faults of others, and arrogant in passing censures upon them, may expect that God will be as extreme in marking what they say and do amiss. 2. Another reason given against such acting the master is because we are all sinners: In many things we offend all, Jam_3:2. Were we to think more of our own mistakes and offenses, we should be less apt to judge other people. While we are severe against what we count offensive in others, we do not consider how much there is in us which is justly offensive to them. Self-justifiers are commonly self-deceivers. We are all guilty before God; and those who vaunt it over the frailties and infirmities of others little think how many things they offend in themselves. Nay, perhaps their magisterial deportment, and censorious tongues, may prove worse than any faults they condemn in others. Let us learn to be severe in judging ourselves, but charitable in our judgments of other people.

So which really old devotional (as distinct from exegetical) commentary was that? JFB? Poole? Matthew Henry?

The word in Greek is 'teachers', and not 'masters', by the way. And the reason that James wrote that piece to begin with had to do with certain men arrogating to themselves a role and function for which they: (a) were not equipped, (b) to which they had not been appointed, and (c) in which they were not recognised by the Church. I think, then, that it applies for more to your situation than it does to mine.

Ian

P.S. (UPDATE) Included for your edification is an example of how an entry-level exegetical commentary discusses our passage:

The picture of James that emerges is of a reasonably well-educated Jew who knows his Old Testament thoroughly and who is well acquainted with Hellenistic-Jewish culture, language and literature.

1. James approaches the subject of the tongue by means of a warning about the teaching office. Teachers (didaskaloi) played a prominent part in the life of the early church. Paul singles them out as exercising one of the three most prominent ministries in the church, along with apostles and prophets (1 Cor. 12:28; see also Acts 13:1; Rom. 12:7; Eph. 4:11). Somewhat comparable to the Jewish rabbi, the teacher in the early church was entrusted with the crucial task of transmitting Christian doctrine (see 2 Tim. 2:2). A certain authority and prestige naturally adhered to the teaching ministry. Particularly was this so in a society where few people could read and where people in the lower classes had few opportunities for advancement in status. It is not surprising, then, that Christians were attracted to the teaching ministry. Concern about believers flocking to this ministry for the wrong reasons probably lies behind James’ warning: Let not many of you become teachers.

As a reinforcement of this warning, James points to another, less attractive, aspect of teaching: we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness. An alternative, more literal, translation of the Greek would be ‘we shall receive a greater judgment’, the word ‘judgment’ (krima) suggesting the idea of punishment or condemnation. Clearly, James cannot mean that Christian teachers will receive a more severe penalty than other Christians—few, indeed, would become teachers in that case! Probably we should understand him to be saying that the importance of the teaching ministry renders it liable to a closer scrutiny and that failure to discharge the ministry faithfully will bring a correspondingly more severe penalty. Jesus warned that ‘to whom much is given, of him will much be required’ (Luke 12:48). Those who have been given the teaching ‘gift’ bear an awesome responsibility for their exercise of that gift in nurturing people in the faith. Paul was very much conscious of this responsibility. As he bade farewell to the elders of the Ephesian church, he stressed that he had been faithful to his task as a herald of the gospel: ‘I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God’ (Acts 20:26–27). As an example of a failure to discharge this responsibility we may cite the insincere, rapacious Jewish scribes of whom Jesus said: ‘They will receive the greater condemnation’ (Mark 12:40). One who undertakes to lead others in the faith must be careful that his own life reflects what he is teaching. His greater knowledge brings with it a greater responsibility to live according to that knowledge. James’ intention is not to dissuade those from teaching who, like himself, have the call and gifts to teach. But he does want to impress upon his readers the seriousness of the ministry and to warn them that it must not be entered into frivolously or for selfish reasons.

2. The teacher places himself in greater danger of judgment because the main tool of his ministry is also the part of the body most difficult to control: the tongue. To highlight the peculiar danger of the tongue, James first acknowledges the prevalence of sin: we all make many mistakes. The verb James uses (ptaiō) means ‘to stumble’ and is applied figuratively to spiritual failure both in Judaism and the New Testament (cf. 2:10; Rom. 11:11; 2 Pet. 1:10). It may suggest sins of a relatively minor, even inadvertent nature. The emphasis is probably not on the number of sins (as the rsv may suggest), but on the variety of sins; cf. niv: ‘we all stumble in many ways’. In contrast to this, James says, is the one way in which we all sin—with the tongue. James is not the first to single out impure speech as a particularly widespread sin. Proverbs, for instance, has a great deal to say about the importance of and power of words (cf. 10:8, 11; 16:27–28; 18:7–8). Jesus ben Sirach, like James, highlights sins of speech in conjunction with inadvertent sins: ‘A person may make a slip without intending it. Who has never sinned with his tongue?’ (Ecclus. 19:16). James puts it positively: the person who never ‘stumbles’ in what he says is perfect, able to bridle the whole body also. So difficult is the mouth to control, so given is it to utter the false, the biting, the slanderous word, so prone to stay open when it were more profitably closed, that the person who has it in control surely has the ability to conquer other, less unruly, members of the body.

Since James continues to include himself in his strictures (‘we all make many mistakes’) he may also be continuing to think specifically of teachers in this verse. But the rest of the passage makes no reference to teachers, and James’ warning about the tongue certainly has general application. Probably, then, James intends to include all his readers in the first person plural of verse 2. His warning to would-be teachers has suggested to his mind the problem of the tongue; and this is a problem for everyone in the church.

Douglas J. Moo, vol. 16, James: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), p. 123.

Torben,

Goodbye Ian. Try not to slam the door on your way out.

Ian

 Hhmmmm.....looks like John Wayne spat the dummy and Moses continues to lead God's people home.

Some posts disappeared in transit to Galien's thread in the backroom. Sorry.

That would be great Moddy,

I tried to find the catholic topic on this site for about an hour and gave up. What folder would they be in any hint?

Greetings, Torben

Torben,

I find this very helpful in understanding Catholic 'dogma'. One needs to have a view from all sides before one makes a judgement.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/

@uncoolman

Thank you for the link. Seeing no substatiol agruments have been made in that discussio, would it be a bad idea to start a new thread within the CAI section here? GRC is not really my coner... as in hoping to sometimes meet people I know fro the past.

Greetings, Torben

Agreed, that thread was a bit light on. I'll have to dig a bit deeper.

my gosh.. I hope you figured the words were  substantial, arguments, discussion, corner and from lol. My apologies... it is a good combination of laziness to review and a horrible keyboard.

Hello Ian,

I noticed you edited your post... my apologies for allowing my reaction to your way of arguing cause me to lose sight of meaning or snese in it  (________splease fill in smart comment here_________)

Anyhow, back to business if we may:

Ian:Your time in the CAI wasn't time spent in the Christian Church, so it doesn't count.

Do you hold the view that the wrong teaching around the baptism of the HG taught in CAI was definitely able to hinder Jesus Christ from baptising me by faith?
We do not need to discuss the danger and the instructions of scripture on preachers of a false/changed gospel... but do you hold the view that the erroneous additions are in every case and always able to hinder Faith in Christ and the thereby resulting baptism into the Holy Ghost of the receipients of the message if it nevertheless contains what Christ has done in not little detail? Because obviously if I was baptised with the Holy Ghost.. then only into His body which is the church.

I believe there is only one body and only one church, but many administrations.
I believe no single organisation on earth has the power to make itself part of the body of Christ, nor all members within the organisation, nor can it prevent it's mebers from being part of the body, nor can it limit itself to being the body. This reminds of a wonderful organisation in heaven in which Christ is the King. The borders of the Church of Christ run right through many an organisation that might not gain our doctrinal approval as qualifying as a(?) 'church' congregation. So I do not presume that the body of Christ does not also include a part of the roman catholic 'church' congregation, nor do I presume that all revivalists are outside the 'church' gathering of the believers.

No I do not currently fellowship with ex-revivalists in a congregational way at all.. not even with those with who we currently stay. We disagree on to many issues and we do not seem to be accepted as brethren anymore.

I'll leave it at that. One hour before work finishes :)

Greetings, Torben

Regarding your statements on me not fellowshipping: I do trust God has a little mercy and understanding for the situation (as is common in a Love relationship) and knows that.. and want's me to make informed decisions .. not based on former unreliable knowledge and new knowledge does not come over night. If you feel you would like to reprove my attitude with scripture (!) please do.


Ian: Well, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate to me where you think I was 'wrong' the 'first time', so you might be getting a little ahead of yourself in claiming that I'm 'wrong' again

But you are waiting for a demonstration of being wrong on a point which you failed to demonstarte to me that I was in error with in the first place? Simply point out what you challenge from scripture and we can talk :) Silly talke he? (____Please confirm here____) (______further smart comments please turn over leaf _____________:)

Hi Torben. I think I finally found the thread you're after with more detail re Catholicism. 

http://forum1.aimoo.com/revival/The-Bible-Beliefs-and-Faiths/Ian-s-frank-convo-with-Frank-inc-Catholocism-1-307704.html

... I don't get paid enough for this job.

Indeed- I think we all spent much time in CAI with that warm glow of inner self righteousness, thinking we all had our "scriptural proof"- when what we actually had none- could not have been further from the truth.

I think God sees both your heart and mine, and I am in no doubt of my salvation just because he hasnt shown me the answer yet to many of the questions I have- or for attending a humble orthodox church instead of a pentecostal one which fed my spiritual abuse addiction.

I have no doubt you would be saved either if you give God a go at steering the metaphorical ship- not that I dont commend the fervour with which you seem to seek the truth but maybe, just maybe ( to quote one of Scotts favourite scriptures) you, like me- see through a glass darkly. How can God rip away any spiritual veil?

Did you take some time to study the psychology of cults and what they actually did to your brain? These things are all tied up in the language of it- and to deprogramme you need to give it time, without the daily imput of revivalist thinking.

With each year that I stay out, I think I am better. Then the next year I look back in mortification on how bad I really was, thinking I was ok.


These scars will not heal lightly- are you giving yourself some spiritual time? I know God would not begrudge you that. Arguing over doctrines and proof- is that healthy for you?

Hi '?'

thank you for your concern. Yes I have studied on cult psychology enough... after a while however I though it safest to return to scripture as a guide... and have given myself to the study of  uncounted theologist's works from all sorts of denominations and angles.

Yes - I find doing a mix of that, plus keeping studying/ meditating on the Word and 'arguing' here beneficial.

I agree - we all see through a dark glass...
I agree - I will need a lot more time for the scars to heal.
Knowledge of God is a process for everyone... regardless of current state or past... the remedy is the same for all.

Shame I do not know who you are... even though we might know eachother well from CAI?

I do not at all understand your comment regarding leting God steer the ship? Dear ? , I have heard a lot of empty (wellmeaning) advice here. What I would help is scriptural argument. I do not know what is so hard to understand with this simple request? People either do not knowtheir stuff or are too lazy to type... I don't know.

Greetings,  Torben / Pilgrim

And ?

just in case you thought my message to Ian above was a defence of CAI - it was not. It was a challenging of his generalising statement.

Pilgrim

  classic stuff this...

 classic stuff this...

I will attempt to be more entertaining from now on. I could wear a funny costume like some preachers of certain denominations do... no wonder they get the hall's filled :). Maybe I should film the next part on tongues in front of Pitversie House, my wife frantically trying to keep their gate closed in the background... we will move away from their neighbourhood in 9 days... and counting. A new life begins.

Ok - I admit it, I just wanted the tongues thread to move up to the top again... as this is a core issue to the revivalist debunkmentingmentismus.

Greetings, Pilgrim