Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Speaking in Tongues Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Didaktikon
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Date Posted:03/09/2007 9:45 AMCopy HTML

Brett and/or Sabrina,Just a quick question to satisfy my curiosity: do youstillbelieve that a personmustspeak in 'tongues' to give 'evidence' of having received God's Spirit?Blessings,Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
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:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:04/09/2007 2:53 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Good afternoon, Pilinut.

The initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Is that right? Would you extrapolate for me just what that means, please? In your schema of beliefs, can a person be saved and not be baptised in the Spirit?

Question for you, Ian,

Certainly

Do you still believe that only the 12 apostles spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost?

Absolutely, as that's precisely what Scripture says! And you do realise, don't you, that the apostles' didn't speak in the modern 'Pentecostal' variety of 'tongues'? And I'm hoping that you do understand why the apostles' spoke in the specific languages that Luke records?

Do I want to get into a debate about this with you? No.

Why not? Don't you like testing your views with others?

Blessings,

Ian

P.S. Who am I talking to? Pili? Or Nut?
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Lahad Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Member IV
  • Score:1530
  • Posts:69
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2003 5:48 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:07/09/2007 10:53 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon


Do you still believe that only the 12 apostles spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost?

Absolutely, as that's precisely what Scripture says! And you do realise, don't you, that the apostles' didn't speak in the modern 'Pentecostal' variety of 'tongues'

Yes I agree and there would have been a specific reason why only the 12 at that point of church history. Part of that reason would have to do with the role the apostles were fulfilling and performing. But I step into debateable territory here because from scripture it shows that God does not entrust every gift to everybody but he does make available every gift through His own set and appointed persons in the church and with whom He does entrust certain giftings to. From Ephesians 4: 11:

"..... kai autos edoken tous men apostolous, tous de prophetas, tous de evanggeliotas tous de poimenas kai didaskalous"

and the following verse clearly explains why:  "pros ton kataptismon ton agion etc etc etc eis metron helikias ton pleromatos ton Christon"

Yes fire spreads but it would only have been entrusted by God to flow through those 12 Apostles whom God had already prepared and trained for it. The Day of Pentecost event would have been a horrible mess and an unimportant event otherwise and hence might not have been recorded in our Bibles at all...

and were not all the epistles including Ephesians recorded in text  BEFORE PRAXEIS APOSTOLAON ??

and finally Paul does say "kai" before "didaskalous" thus giving him an equal weighing too :-p

blessings

Lahad

 

Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:09/09/2007 9:35 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Reply to : Ian Absolutely, as that's precisely what Scripture says! No. It doesn't. Don't you think it's puffed up to call yourself "One who is apt to teach"?

Pilinut, I read this recently and have copied & pasted for your info.

The human body is an amazing arrangement of many quite different functions. We are astounded at the smoothness with which the body articulates a great many functions. There are the major senses of seeing, hearing, speaking, etc., all functioning as a unit in one body. The various organs all work together sharing in a marvelous harmony and yet each one doing something different. That is the characteristic that is so remarkably evident in God's intention for the body of Christ. In the human body every organ is a distinct and peculiar thing, having a function different than anything else in the body. You cannot substitute one organ for another. Did you ever see a surgeon try to replace a defective stomach with a pair of lungs? It cannot be done. Every organ must exercise its own function. So every truly converted Christian has a special gift or gifts from God called charismata, graces, that God gives him when he becomes a believer in Jesus Christ. That gift is your privileged function within the body of Christ. No one else can do it. Others may have similar gifts but they cannot do what you can do. No one else can do what you can do in the body of Christ.

The Scriptures are very explicit about this. In the passage that is before us, we read in Verse 7, "But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ's gift," {Eph 4:7 RSV}.   Each of us! In 1 Corinthians 12, the apostle reminds us again that it is the prerogative of the Holy Spirit to divide these gifts among his people severally, i.e., to each one, according as he will. So if you are a Christian you have a gift. You do not have to question that, there is no doubt about it. You have a least one, and perhaps more. If you have genuinely come to know Jesus Christ by receiving him as your Lord and Saviour and the Holy Spirit of God has taken up his residence in your heart, you have a gift that is your privilege to exercise within the body of Christ.

Your gift may fall in one of the two major divisions within the body. There are certain gifts which might be called general support ministries, from which the whole body receives benefit. There are four of these. Then there is another division of gifts which might be called specific working gifts. We can only take a rapid survey through these now but I want to return to this and go through these carefully and particularly in order that we might understand better what these gifts are, how to recognize them in ourselves and in one another, and how to put them to work. The support ministries fall into four major categories which are given to us in Verse 11. The apostle says that

...his [Christ's] gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers. [The last is one gift and should be hypenated, as pastor-teacher, or teaching pastor. These are given] for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood [Is that not what you want? Maturity? Manhood? Womanhood? As God intended human life to be lived? This is not talking about something religious, it is talking about the fulfillment and satisfying of human life.], to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children [immature], tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ... {Eph 4:11-15}

In order to accomplish this, a definite pattern is prescribed. It is only as we understand and recapture that pattern that the church as a whole, will ever become an effective, powerful, relevant, life-changing organism within human society.

This may help you to understand why these gifts are necessary to the church.How can it be 'puffed up' to be called  'one who is apt to teach' when that is exactly what Ephesians 4 says.

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.
RF_on_the_edge Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Regular Poster
  • Score:3180
  • Posts:156
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:09/09/2007 12:19 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Does this sound humble to you???

My immediate reaction is, "No, this does not seem humble."

 But then Jesus didn't mince His words and the bible tells us that He was without sin. Hmmm ... Ian would probably be uncomfortable even being compared to Jesus. What about Paul? "... Regard the Law I am blameless ... " That doesn't sound humble to me either, but the context indicates he was humbly admitting his need for Christ. And what about Pau'ls statements where he defends his credentials like (paraphrasing) ... I am not in any way less than the "super-apostles" ... let those who read my words acknowledge they are from God ... hey, I've put my life on the line for the sake of the gospel.

Having been part of, and hurt by. authoritarian "churches", we need to be careful that we don't equate boldness with arrogance. Even more importantly, we need to be careful that we do not give statements of fact unwarranted subtexts.

We are also pretty fed up with religious 'experts' who set themselves up as authority figures who cannot be questioned or challenged.

Amen!!!!! Yet I have not seen Ian say he cannot be "questioned or challenged". Indeed he has invited those who disagree with him to present their arguments - in this quite public forum, where all can see the outcome and make their own judgements about which side(s) are more convincing.

What I have also seen is words to the effect that when presenting arguments about the meaning of scripture they need to have more substance than "Liar, liar, pants on fire!". (I am not saying that you have used such arguments, just presenting my perspective on what seems to be Ian's approach here.)

In this case he says "Absolutely, as that's precisely what Scripture says!". If one wanted to question or challenge (or debate ) Ian, he has exposed a position where one could simply show that it's not  precisely what Scripture says. In fact I see such a clear statement as a specific claim which can be questioned, challenged and evaluated.

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:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:09/09/2007 12:38 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

You're entitled to your beliefs. If you feel that's what the scripture says that's up to you. I, myself choose to believe that there were 120 present on the Day of Pentecost and that they were all filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues. I also believe that in our day, the normal, expected and usual evidence of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. This belief has led to the world-wide Pentecostal/Charismatic which has been calculated to have some 600 million adherents. The Pentecostal movement is credited even by many non-pentecostal theologians as bringing into existence the most powerful movement in Christianity since the Reformation. Of course you can say the Pentecostals were deluded in their belief and so this experience and movement which has transformed global Christianity is a delusion. If that's what you want to believe...

pilinut, I have not read your previous conversation with Ian so cannot comment on it but can I ask a question? Do you believe that you must speak in tongues to be saved? Do you believe that speaking in tongues is the only sign (gift) of receiving the Holy Spirit? I realise now that I was mis-led into believing that the Holy Spirit was not even a person but was something we 'received with the evidence of speaking in tongues'.  I was taught for many years by men who had no real knowledge of scripture and no understanding of anything except the dozen or so scriptures relating to speaking in tongues (although usually misquoted).  I do still pray in tongues but I spend the majority of my prayer time (several times a day) praising God in English and just talking to Him as a friend.

As for Ian's qualifications, I'm happy for him that if by having that knowledge it has brought him closer to God. I most certainly do NOT have a degree in theology (but do have the utmost respect for Ian's dedication), however I know beyond a shadow of doubt that book learning alone will not necessarily bring one into relationship with Jesus Christ unless one wants that relationship. Having knowledge alone will not save you, but having relationship and desiring to see the heart of the Father certainly will awaken in us a desire to draw closer to Him and as we do this, He draws closer to us.

For too many years I did not realise that legalism in religion (as in RF etc) kills off the grace of God. Grace and legalism cannot dwell together, legalism always overides grace. I had no understanding of God's grace whilst in RF but am finding now that as I draw closer in my relationship with Him, so many things are revealed to me that were 'hidden' for so long.

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.
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:09/09/2007 1:25 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Don't you think it's puffed up to call yourself "One who is apt to teach"?
Is it 'puffed up' to call yourself  'one who is able to repair cars'  if you're a mechanic ????
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.
Lahad Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Member IV
  • Score:1530
  • Posts:69
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2003 5:48 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:10/09/2007 12:08 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Reply to :whoeverIanI think Ian's position about receiving the Holy Spirit is as follows:When a person believes in Christ as Lord and Saviour, they automatically receive the Spirit without any need to specifically pray to receive. It just immediately happens, the moment a person truly accepts and trusts in Christ.No need to speak in tongues or any other kind of outward immediate "sign" to confirm the Spirit's coming.If you believe, it just happens,even if you feel nothing or are not conscious of any "experience"at all.So once you believe, you have it all, the Spirit, in all his fullness is there in your heart already, so there's nothing more to receive.You may get some gifts later, such as tongu

 "Their teaching that one is immediately baptised in the Spirit at the moment of conversion is against the teaching of Christ himself."    

I am not going to speak for Didaktikon. He is a big boy and quite capable..... but your statement that I have pasted, is sheer utter nonsense !!!!....  Secondly your statement about Luke 11 is commonly called Eisegeses and finally The Bible tells us in Acts 1:8 that you shall receive " dunamin"  NOT tongues and "dunamin" simply means "ability".

The Text says " Alla lempsesthe dunamin eppelthontos tou aglion pneumatos eth umas" =" But  you will receive ability having come the Holy Spirit upon you" and interestingly Luke has used the conjunction " alla " which is highly emphasizing the whole sentence ie "BUT" you will receive etc etc.

Sadly the emphasis on tongues has led to its abuse and unfortunately a lot of people who make claims to speaking in tongues are doing it out of an exercise of the flesh rather than an ability of the Holy Spirit. The RCI are one such example of abusing tongues. For example I know from first hand that a lot if not all new converts are made to repeatedly say Halelujah over and over again and as soon as their tongues starts to make mistakes, they are persuasively by the leaders of the RCI deceived into thinking they have received the Holy Spirit..

My whatever happened to good old repentance and whatever happened to he that has clean hands and a pure heart receiving the blessing of the Lord. In hindsight from my own experience of RCI, the leaders of the RCI were too busy trying to tell the Holy Spirit how to do His job rather than let Holy Spirit do the job Himself... so sad because people are being robbed of the genuine article.

 

blessings

Lahad  

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:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:10/09/2007 10:26 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Good morning, Brett and/or Sabrina.

Absolutely, as that's precisely what Scripture says!

No. It doesn't.

Actually, 'yes', it does. I've addressed why in considerable detail at 'PleaseConsider', and also in various threads on this site, so there's no need for me to rehearse the same again. You simply need to find what I've written, open your Bible, and then read (oh, an open mind would probably help too).

Don't you think it's puffed up to call yourself "One who is apt to teach"?

So you have an issue with my Greek 'handle' meaning, "good teacher", huh? To be honest I don't see why, unless, of course, it has something to do with "sour grapes" on your part. After all, I'm someone who is actually able to theologise at a professional level of competence: one university, three theological/Bible colleges and six Christian denominations consider me "apt to teach" (nevermind the countless number of current and former Revivalists who have sought me out over the years). All boasting aside, I think it a settled matter that I know more about Revivalist theology (and it's implications) than any other person, Simon Longfield, Scott Williams and Noel Hollins included. So I suppose didaktikon is as appropriate a 'tag' as any other.

You're entitled to your beliefs. If you feel that's what the scripture says that's up to you. I, myself choose to believe that there were 120 present on the Day of Pentecost and that they were all filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues.

Actually, as a professing Christian you're not entitled to believe something that is contradictory to Scriptural teaching, and Scripture clearly presents that it was the apostles alone who manifested the sign of languages at Pentecost. I've fully explained why (according to the Greek text), so you're going to have do a little better than simply saying, "no it doesn't" over and over (and over)

I also believe that in our day, the normal, expected and usual evidence of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues.

Yes you do, but what a pity for your position that Scripture doesn't

This belief has led to the world-wide Pentecostal/Charismatic which has been calculated to have some 600 million adherents.

As opposed to the some 1.4 billion non-Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians? This isn't a 'numbers game', Brett; it's an issue pertaining to, and dependent upon, fidelity to biblical teaching. Disprove me from Scripture, if you think you can

The Pentecostal movement is credited even by many non-pentecostal theologians as bringing into existence the most powerful movement in Christianity since the Reformation.

And it did. But it also caused untold misery and division along the way, before Pentecostalism eventually generated a mature and biblically-informed theology (the last 20-odd years).

Of course you can say the Pentecostals were deluded in their belief and so this experience and movement which has transformed global Christianity is a delusion. If that's what you want to believe...

That's neither what I've stated or believe, actually. The Pentecostal 'experience' that you vaunt so highly is, quite realistically, no different to many other forms of religious 'experience' that Christians enjoy from time-to-time (including feelings of 'warm-heartedness'). It's simply an 'experience', nothing more. Your error, as I see it, is severalfold. First, you've read your 'experience' back into biblical passages that neither teach, nor support what you believe they do (ignorance). Second, you've failed to discern the relevance of the passages that do provide support to the 'tongues' phenomenon (also ignorance). Third, you've elevated personal experience above Scriptural witness; or to put matters another way, you've demoted the Bible to being less authoritative than what you happen to believe (but that, my friend, is arrogance)!

I think Ian's position about receiving the Holy Spirit is as follows: When a person believes in Christ as Lord and Saviour, they automatically receive the Spirit without any need to specifically pray to receive. It just immediately happens, the moment a person truly accepts and trusts in Christ.

Pretty much. Oh, and by the way, such isn't "Ian's" position at all. I just borrowed it from the apostle Paul!

No need to speak in tongues or any other kind of outward immediate "sign" to confirm the Spirit's coming. If you believe, it just happens, even if you feel nothing or are not conscious of any "experience" at all.

Absolutely. The "sign" of the Spirit's reception is inward and transformative, not outward and 'showy'.

So once you believe, you have it all, the Spirit, in all his fullness is there in your heart already, so there's nothing more to receive.

Look at it this way: one either has God's Spirit or one hasn't. He doesn't come in 'pieces' like a jigsaw puzzle.

You may get some gifts later, such as tongues,or others, but they will only be "gifts".

Now 'fess up, Bro'! You've been reading 1st Corinthians, haven't you?!

Obviously, with such a view, speaking with tongues cannot be the evidence of being baptised in the Spirit, because the moment you "accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour" you are baptised in the Holy Spirit, even if you are unaware of it happening. I.e,baptism in the Spirit, or receiving the Spirit,automatically happens at the moment of conversion. Not after conversion and belief, but only at the time of conversion.

And it's at this point that you demonstrate your general ignorance of the matter. Pentecostalism as a movement also teaches that one receives the Holy Spirit at conversion. Where the Pentecostal movement errs is to presume, based on a faulty understanding of the differences between the Acts passages and 1 Corinthians, that one must have a 'baptism of the Spirit' subsequent to one's conversion experience of receiving the Spirit, in order to make sense of the reality of such experiences in the lives of believers. But such a position is completely at loose ends given Paul's directive to "continue to be filled with the Spirit" as an ongoing reality (see Ephesians 5:18, Greek text)!

So there cannot be a receiving or baptism of the Spirit AFTER you are converted and trust in Christ.

How many passages are there in the entire Bible that refer to the words: "baptised/ism in/of/by the Holy Spirit?" I can tell you, but I'd rather you devoted the 3 minutes necessary to finding and reading them all. Check the context for yourself

I think that's what Ian believes, according to what he wrote on his website. Is that right Ian? Is what I've said what you believe about receiving the Spirit?

More or less (I'd nuance things a little differently, but you're apparently struggling with simple facts at this point, so I won't press the whole 'nuance' issue too closely, at this time).

If it is, you subscribe to the Baptist, Evangelical, non-Pentecostal churches' view.

Or, it is if you subscribe to the historic, orthodox and ecumenical position held to, taught, promoted and believed by the Christian Church from the first century onwards. But here's the titilating bit: if the current movement within the American AOG denomination is any indication, it is apparently also (or soon will be) the official position of the largest Pentecostal denomination in the world

I have nothing against Baptist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ or similar individual believers.

Excepting, of course, that they are spiritually 'deficient' according to your view

There are sincere, honest people in those churches who are trying to live the Christian life as they understand it. But I happen to think that the theology of those churches, which you subscribe to, (it seems), is seriously flawed and wrong.

Yes, you 'happen to think' that. But then you don't know any better, do you?

Their teaching that one is immediately baptised in the Spirit at the moment of conversion is against the teaching of Christ himself.

Is that so?

I say that because of what Jesus himself tells us about receiving the Spirit in Luke 11 verses 9 to 13. He tells us that we need to "ask" "seek" and "knock" in order to receive the Spirit. "How much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ASK Him!"."

Seriously?! Brett, you do understand, don't you (a rhetorical question: clearly you don't understand at all) that Jesus was speaking of a reality that hadn't been grasped by the Judaism of his day? The Jews of his time believed that the Spirit only overshadowed selected people, and then temporarily. In effect, they had failed to grasp much that was central to the message of many of their Prophets, a message which they should have understood! Jesus was providing the necessary corrective!

So we need to spcecifically pray to our heavenly Father to receive the Holy Spirit. We have to ASK to receive the Spirit.

Rubbish, read the context again, and have a look at who was being addressed. In every case where the Spirit is spoken of as being given in the NT, the 'middle voice' construction is used. Here's some homework for you: why is this fact significant exegetically? (note to Lahad: I don't want you answering this please, let Brett work it out for himself)

I don't think you can avoid the fact that Christ is saying that God will bestow His Spirit on those who pray for it to happen.

Actually, Christ said that God would bestow his Spirit on all those who were contrite in spirit, andwho confessed their need for Jesus Christ as Saviour.

A person who is not a believer in Christ will not pray to God in Jesus's name to receive the Holy Spirit, will they?

Huh?

So as people ask, seek and knock in earnest prayer for God to "give" them the Spirit, as they continue to ask in prayer, at what point do they know the Spirit has been given to them? How will they know?

People will know that they have been indwelt by God's Spirit through two principle media, one objective and one subjective. Objectively, they have God's word on the matter ('nuff said). Subjectively, they will begin to see (as will others also) spiritual fruit in their lives. It's all quite simple, really

They are already believers, that's why they are asking and seeking in prayer for the Spirit to come.

According to Scripture, no Spirit equals no salvation.

The position that Ian and others like him have about receiving the Spirit, is against the clear teaching of Jesus himself.

Ins't it funny, then, that the entire Christian Church, from the first century until the early 20th, apparently got the most crucial of all doctrinal teachings wrong? FWIW, I don't think so, amigo

You DON'T automatically receive the Spirit when you are converted to faith in Christ, if that is so why does Jesus tell us to pray for the Spirit's coming?

Try reading "all those passages" again. And if you're referring, above, to Jesus' words to the apostles concerning the day of Pentecost (Acts 1), then reflect on the fact that he said, "...you will receive power when the Spirit comes upon you...". He mentioned nothing about them becoming 'converted' at that time. In fact, the entire context of his post-Resurrection ministry to the apostles prior to Pentecost speaks against this weird idea.

Ian shares the view of churches such as the Baptists, Presbyterians,the old Methodists, Salvation Army, etc. that totally opposed the Pentecostal movement long before Noel or the Revival Centres came on the scene.

Again let me repeat, mine is the historic and orthodox position that has been taught by all churches, in all places, at all times before the Pentecostal movement came on the scene. And, of course, the Pentecostal movement has 'grown-up' a fair bit over the years, and no longer makes statements of the sort that it once did

Ian is not just against the GRC and the other RCs, he is against the Pentecostal movement as a whole.

'Nope'. Ian (I love referring to myself in the third person) is against biblical illiteracy and doctrinal ignorance in all its forms--including your own.

The GRC, RCI and RF are part of the extremist, lunatic fringe of the world wide Pentecostal movement, and unfortuanetly for us, that was where we got stuck.

Newsflash, Brett: you're still stuck! There seems to be quite a bit of the old Revivalist still in you, if what I've read is any indication. And that's sad

Ian, despite all your impressive Greek learning, your view on receiving the Spirit IS TOTALLY WRONG, and in direct conflict with the clear teaching of Jesus himself.

'No', Brett, it's not. You'll need to marshal considerably more biblical argument in support of your novelties than you have done to date if you're to sway me. FWIW, I doubt very much that many people with open minds, who read your musings alongside my own, will be swayed to your beliefs. You simply haven't been able to make much of a scriptural defence for what you believe. Nor will you be able to given that what you believe isn't scriptural.

Do you tell people they need to ask and seek in prayer to receive the Holy Spirit ,after they've become believers in Christ?

I tell people that they will receive God's Spirit when they become believers. And I got this from no less an authoritative source than the Christian Bible. You should try it sometime

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:10/09/2007 1:16 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Reply to : Sea Urchin


You're not doing Ian any favours by keeping him on this pedestal. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled.

Hi Pilinut, I most certainly do NOT put Ian on a pedestal, I'm not sure why you would even think that? I was merely pointing out to you that Ephesians 4 states quite clearly that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers. Not my words but God's!

For your information, I do not agree with Ian about a quite few things actually, but that's OK, I accept that although we are all different parts, we are ONE BODY. I put no man on a pedestal, I bow down to no man except my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. However, I do honour (as it is scriptural to do so) e.g. my husband, various teachers, and those in authority over me and I certainly respect Ian's knowledge of scripture but this doesn't mean I always agree with him on other matters. Hope this clarifies my previous post.

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.
Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:10/09/2007 1:28 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Lahad

My whatever happened to good old repentance and whatever happened to he that has clean hands and a pure heart receiving the blessing of the Lord. In hindsight from my own experience of RCI, the leaders of the RCI were too busy trying to tell the Holy Spirit how to do His job rather than let Holy Spirit do the job Himself... so sad because people are being robbed of the genuine article.

Amen to that Lahad, the Holy Spirit does not have any influence in RF/RC meetings because MAN had to have total control. They have no understanding whatsoever of  the Holy Spirit as a person who is there to guide us, to lift up the name of Jesus and to help to us to see Jesus more clearly. In reflection, perhaps it was partly the absence of the Holy Spirit that made the (RF) meetings so 'dry' and boring - man, they couldn't even get the announcements read out professionally!!

Since leaving RF (voluntarily and with no bitterness, just immense sadness for them) I have come to know the person of the Holy Spirit and am blessed now to have an awesome relationship with Jesus that I didn't even know about or understand before. However, through God's amazing grace, I am now making up for lost time ! 

God bless, 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.
Lahad Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Member IV
  • Score:1530
  • Posts:69
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2003 5:48 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:11/09/2007 12:23 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

You haven't explained what Jesus said in Luke 11 - about asking for the Holy Spirit

The passage begins in verse 1. Go back to verse 1 and start from there. The passage finishes in verse 13. Jesus is not telling them to ask for the Holy Spirit at all. He is telling them to ask for something else. Hint read verse 4 .

blessings

Lahad 

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:11/09/2007 8:58 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Good morning, Brett.

Let's take a brief walk through your latest offering, shall we?

Well, your position is very clear now Ian.

I should hope so. I've been sharing it at forae such as this for almost a decade now!

You are anti Pentecostal, not just anti GRC or RCI. You state that the Pentecostal movement has caused "untold misery And division".

Well now. And here's me having an active role in the teaching of theology and biblical studies for a Pentecostal Bible College, and with an open invitation to to the pulpit of two Pentecostal churches to boot! 'Yep', I guess I must be anti-Pentecostal

Bloke, if you are so completely naive as to have absolutely no idea of the division caused within the Body of Christ by the Pentecostal movement during the early through mid twentieth century, then you're probably not worth educating.

So your real motivation and intention is clear. You want to discredit the Pentecostal experience and turn as many people away from it as you can.

Actually, my intention is much simpler: it's to educate people on precisely what and where the 'tongues' experience 'fits' according to Scripture.

No doubt, people coming out of the Revival Centres, having seen and experienced the evil and wickedness of those places, will find you interesting and even persuasive. When you come out of such places it's only natural to question everything you heard there, especially the teaching on tongues.

Yes, no doubt. Please drop me a 'line' when you decide to 'come out' of the Revival Centres (meant inclusively), and I'll make some time for a chat.

I think that if us ex GRC, RCI, and RF members had gone along to a "normal" non cultic Pentecostal Church and become Christians and experienced tongues there, we wouldn't have so much rejection and negativity towards the experience that we see on this forum from so many ex members.

Actually, if you became a Christian in a normal church to begin with, Brett, then likely as not you wouldn't have an unbalanced opinion on a whole range of issues. But you didn't, and so you do.

As I said before, the Revival Centres are only a very small segment of a world wide movement involving hundreds of millions of believers.

Yes, and if you do want to play the 'numbers' game, then you've got 1,900 years worth of catching-up to do, and you're still outnumbered almost four-to-one by non-Pente/Charismatic Christians in any case!

In such a huge movement, there will be fanatics, legalists, extremists and lunatics here and there. but they are the minority, the extremist, lunatic fringe.

Are you actually accepting your 'fringe' status, then?

The majority of leaders and churches in the world that believe in a post conversion experience of being baptized in the Spirit with the EVIDENCE of tongues are NOT like the GRC, RCI or RF.

Actually, the majority of leaders and churches in the world that believe (and teach) in a post-conversion experience of being 'baptised in the Spirit' don't equate it with the gift of 'tongues' at all. You need to 'bone' up on your history of theology a little more. You might start by studying Arminianism (specifically, beginning with Wesley), and how the 19th century 'holiness' movement impacted what was to follow. You could then reflect on the fact that over three quarters of the Christian faith doesn't subscribe to an Arminian 'slant' at all, and consequently, has nothing whatsoever to do with theories of 'second blessings'. You might then like to consider the fact that towards the close of the 20th century, the so-called Pentecostal 'second-blessing' gave way to the 'third-blessing' of laughing hysterically and mooing like a cow! What's next? A 'fourth-blessing' of running around flapping one's arms as if they were wings?!

The problem, in a nutshell, is this: Arminian theology is basically semi-Pelagian -- it's centred around human effort to 'stay good' in order to 'stay saved'. How does one 'know' that one is 'staying good/saved'? Through religious 'experience' (or even better, through a series of religious 'experiences'). Ipso facto, 'garden-pot' variety Christians are saved by grace through faith. But the 'truly' spiritual get to experience something 'extra': they get to speak in 'tongues'! Sadly, that wasn't enough during the last two decades of last century. Then the 'truly, truly' spiritual (to be contrasted with just the 'truly' spiritual) laughed like comedians and barked like dogs! Do you see where this is headed, eh?

Unfortunately for all us GRC survivors, our views of the Pentecostal experience and movement were formed by our time in Noel's cultic group.

Let's be frank for a moment, okay? Your Revivalist past, models of leadership and junk theology are all that you know. Every new 'thing' that you consider and/or embrace is filtered through that experience. Unfortunately, and I don't think you even realise this, the filter itself is broken.

And that is why some of us find your attacks on the experience and movement plausible.

I'd suggest that the majority who find my critiques plausible do so because I'm able to marshal very strong scriptural support for my views. And further, unlike some (most?), I even give the 'workings-out' so that others can check my 'sums' for themselves. But you, well, you just keep parroting "no it's not, no it's not" over and over. You, quite simply, are incapable of defending your views from what Scripture teaches.

I really can't understand why certain ones find your (Ian) postings informative.

Perhaps, then, you should ask some of those 'certain ones'? I'm sure they'd be happy to share.

You may have impressive educational qualifications, but it is not the wisdom of your learning that strikes me when I read your words, rather the thing that strikes me is your PRIDE.

Ah, yes, the old 'pride' trump card again! Brett, I left a Revivalist organisation too. But I didn't just sit on my 'date' bemoaning the fact, year after year. Nor did I presumptuously assume that a spiritually 'sick' man could automatically function as a physician to other spiritually 'sick' people. I had to become healthy, so I did something about it. I expended some time, effort and dollars learning, studying, sitting exams, writing essays and papers, and so forth. And as I did so, God began to bring people sharing my background to me, and I was able to help. And the more capable that I became through God's blessing, the larger the number of people He brought to me to help.

When all is said and done, Brett, I have a fairly good idea of my strengths and my weaknesses. You, if I might be so bold, really haven't a clue concerning your own. I'm very confident because I have a honest appreciation of my gifts and abilities, which have been tested well enough, coupled with an honest appreciation of my failings and my foibles (which have been equally well tested). So you presume to label my confidence as arrogance. Well, I know what I'm talking about when I discuss Revivalist and general theology. You, however, don't even know that you don't know

"I'm more clever than you, so if you disagree with my interpretation of scripture, you just can't be right". That's how you come across to me, and no doubt to others as well.

Well, when you've committed yourself to one tenth of the labours that I have to get where I am today, and when you have one tenth the learning that I have in this field as a consequence, then you might be entitled to holding such an opinion. Until then, well ...

It seems to me that you think of yourself as the resident, reigning theologian of the Revival Centre's Forum.

I do, given that such is why I was invited here by the forum owner, and further, I'm the most suited to the task

At least your true colors and intentions are obvious.

So you keep saying.

If you weren't so arrogant and pompous about your superior wisdom and learning I would be quite willing to enter into dialogue with you, but your reaction to those who disagree with your interpretation is demonstrated by your dismissal of anything you disagree with as "rubbish". E.g, my wife recommended a book written by a Pentecostal theologian with 50 years experience in teaching and ministry, with a Doctor of Divinity degree. You just dismissed the book as "rubbish".

Two things: my 'wisdom' and 'learning' is far superior to yours (not a boast, simply a statement of fact). Second, the book your wife recommended is rubbish. And just so that you do appreciate the fact, the 'Doctor of Divinity' is an honorary award, and not and earned degree; it requires absolutely no theological training whatsoever.

Even though that author is more qualified and experienced than you, because she is Pentecostal, any insights or thoughts she has after 50 years of teaching and ministry can only be "rubbish".

Boom, boom! She is not more qualified than me (my theological qualifications and training eclipse hers), but I shan't pass judgment on either her teaching or ministry experience. What I will suggest is this: what she presented in that 'penny-dreadful', and which you have clearly 'swallowed' without even a little 'chewing', deserves to be dismissed out-of-hand. Her views are naive, tendentious and lacking in scriptural support. Her findings stand at complete variance to those of world-renowned Pentecostal scholars including: Gordon Fee, Max Turner, Craig Keener, Rikk Watts and others, scholars whom I thoroughly respect, and whom I would recommend to enquiring minds in a 'heart-beat'.

That kind of reaction to others who don't agree with your interpretation is exactly what I saw in Noel Hollins.

Quite possibly

No different.

Very different. Noel Hollins is clueless about this stuff. I'm far from being so.

You say that I'm not "entitled to believe something that is contradictory to scriptural teaching". What you're really saying is that I have no right whatsoever to believe something that is contradictory to YOUR INTERPRETATION of scriptural teaching.

Nope. Just that if you want me to take your views seriously, then you first need to be able to demonstrate that they are, in fact, biblically defensible. To date, well, you haven't.

Of course you will say that's it not your interpretation, but the view of the "historic, orthodox " Christian Church that I have no right to disagree with. You seem to be saying that the professing Christian church has been proclaiming the same view you have about salvation and the Holy Spirit for most of the last 2,000 years.

What I'm suggesting is that if you can't find any support for your views from throughout the long history of the Christian Church, then chances are, you're on the wrong track altogether. After all, the Holy Spirit is a corporate safeguard, not an individual one

I suppose you are familiar with the fact that for most of that 2,000 period the professing church was teaching that a person could not be saved unless they were baptized in water, usually by sprinkling, and for most, experienced as infants.

Two things, I'm certainly familiar with this this misunderstanding, but it ain't a fact.

It was not "faith alone", as Luther and the other 16th century reformers said.

You're perfectly correct. For a few hundred years, one part of the Christian Church taught that it was faith plus works. Luther railed against this legalistic imposition, just as he would again were he alive and confronted with your 'doctrine'.

The belief of the "historic, othordox and ecumenical" church from around the 2nd or 3rd centuries until 16th and 17th centuries was that when a baby was baptized by a priest, that infant received the Holy Spirit, was regenerated, born again, saved and a member of the Holy Catholic church, outside of which there was no salvation. That, of course, is still the teaching of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Not quite, Brett That was how an infant was accepted into the believing community of faith. You've altogether neglected to consider or mention to fundamentally important rite of confirmation, when the child at around 12 years of age makes a personal profession of faith, and is 'confirmed' with the Spirit at the hands of the Bishop.

Do you agree with the theology supporting infant baptism and baptismal regeneration?

'Yes' to the first, 'no' to the second. If you understood what baptism signifies and represents, then you'd understand why I'm just as comfortable baptising a child by sprinkling as I am in baptising an adult (even by sprinkling, if necessary)

If you don't, then you don't subscribe to the "historic, orthodox and ecumenical" church's teaching for most of the last 2,000 years.

But I do, so I do.

I wouldn't be surprised if you defend Roman Catholic or Orthodox teaching.

It's easier to defend something when you understand it adequately

You say you have the same belief that the Apostle Paul had about receiving the Spirit. That means that he believed that as soon as someone believed in Jesus, they automatically received the Spirit.

Yep.

If that's what he believed, why did he ask the Ephesian disciples in Acts 19, " Have you received the Holy Spirit since you became believers?" Why would he have asked such a question to people he considered believers, if he thought that believers automatically got the Spirit when they believed?

Have a read of my article on Acts 19 at 'PleaseConsider', and all will become plain.

Obviously, his question implies that in his thinking it was possible to believe and yet not have received the Spirit.

Nope.

So, no, Ian, Paul didn't believe what you believe Neither did the Apostle John or the Apostle Peter Because when they came to Samaria, they met people who had "received the word of God", who had accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, and as a result, had been baptized.

I've written an article on that too. You'll also find it at 'PleaseConsider'

Yet, despite all this, John and Peter DID NOT believe they had received the Spirit, even though they had become believers. So they prayed for them to receive the Spirit. Why did they do that? The Samaritans were believers, were baptized, yet the Spirit hadn't come.

Read my essay, digest its implications, then come back to me.

John and Peter would not have agreed with your teaching, Ian.

Oh, but they did!

Finally, you evaded answering my question about Luke 11, by putting me down. "(a rhetorical question: clearly you don't understand at all") You response was just an evasion with personal insult thrown in. How arrogant you are.

I did answer your question, and you clearly didn't understand the point I sought to make. But I do apologise if my flippant and cavalier approach offended your sensibilities. It's just that it's somethimes very hard for me to take you seriously when I read some of the rubbish that you 'spruik'.

Jesus is talking about God giving the Holy Spirit to those who ask him. Are you saying Jesus is not telling us to ask, seek and knock in prayer so that the Father will give us the Holy Spirit? Are you?

I think you need to read my response again, and also heed to very sage advice that Lahad has offered in his own response

I am not impressed by your boasting and patronizing approach. To me , you are most definitely NOT the teacher at all.

Well, the truth be told, I'm not all that impressed by your ignorance and stubbornness myself, and to be honest, I doubt that you would recognise a biblically valid teacher were he or she to walk up and smack you right between the eyes with the 'Good Book'

I will continue to say what I think on this forum, but in contrast to you, I will not say to anybody that they have no right to disagree with my interpretation of the Bible.

Well, you're certainly welcome to state what you like here. And I will continue to present my own views on your rubbish, fully confident in the abilities of the general reader to be able to discern a good and sound argument from a weak one.

Of course, you will object that it is not your interpretation only that you are presenting, but that it is God's truth,

Of course, such is the 'curse' of being a minister of the Word (*sigh*).

I suggest that when the next vacancy for the Papacy comes up, you apply because the world needs an infallible Bible teacher.

Naaah. I'm happy enough tending to my own patch. Besides, I look horrible in a cassock! (I've checked)

Back to the Word for you my pseudodidaktikos.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Lahad Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:Member IV
  • Score:1530
  • Posts:69
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2003 5:48 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:12/09/2007 12:32 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Reply to : LahadYou said: "Jesus is not telling them to ask for the Holy Spirit at all, he's telling them to ask for something else"So Jesus is not telling us to ask for the Spirit, even though he concludes his teaching on asking and receiving by saying "how much more will your heavenly father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!".What does that sentence mean?He actually is saying that God will give the HOLY SPIRIT to those who ASK him, but you tell us he's not talking about the Holy Spirit!? He's not talking about asking for the Holy Spirit, even though he says he is.Even though Jesus says "the Holy Spirit", that's apparently not what he had in mind at all. According to you, He meant something else.Well, if he wasn't talking about asking for th

You did not take the hint.. Your answer shows that you did not read verse 4....  Now first things first... The Greek text is the authority NOT THE ENGLISH YOU READ THROUGH A TRANSLATER....  so since you did not take the trouble to read your Bible let me type out the verse for you:

" And forgive us the sins of us. for indeed we ourselves are forgiving everyone being indebted to us and may you not lead us into temptation." 

So what do you think Jesus is telling the disciples to ask for ???   FORGIVENESS !!!  GOT IT !!!  FORGIVENESS !!!   So lets spell it out for you :

" Ask ( for forgiveness) and it ( forgiveness ) will be given to you, seek ( forgiveness) and you will find ( forgiveness ) , knock and it ( forgiveness) will be opened to you. For everyone asking ( for forgiveness) receives ( forgiveness) and the one seeking (forgiveness) finds (forgiveness) etc etc etc ..... How much more the Father from Heaven will give the Holy Spirit to ones asking him ( for forgiveness).

Read the WHOLE PASSAGE from verse 1 to 13 and you will quickly realize that the whole passage has the underlining theme of repentance. It is quite clear from scripture that the impartation of the Holy Spirit IS CONDITIONAL UPON REPENTANCE - always has been and always will be .. I have yet to meet someone who has been filled with Holy Spirit whose heart hasn't been prepared in the sin bin of repentance.

And if you are going to base your argument on English grammer, let me ask you when does a personal pronoun in the nominative case ever preceed the object  ??? and a pronoun in the third person neuter gender at that !! When I learnt English at school many long years ago we were taught to give or quote the noun or the subject first that the pronoun is nominating and the whole subject of the passage we are referring to is from verse 2 to verse 4 which we call the "Lord's prayer" which is really only a statement but an important statement that sets the context for the entire passage.    

But you must take the WHOLE PASSAGE (Verses 1 to 13) AND KEEP IT IN CONTEXT !  To quote a prooftext and one that has been handed down over many decades is just not good enough. Personally I think that if Didaktikon wanted to do some research on ALL the theology that is espousedby  the " Revivalist " stream, he would more than likely find that it is all hand me down prooftext that began long before there was even a Lloyd Longfield.  

Lahad

 

Glad-to be out Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:Posterior Maximus
  • Score:15160
  • Posts:701
  • From:Faroe_islands
  • Register:07/04/2006 8:57 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:12/09/2007 8:11 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : big girl   It is the black and white mentality of the Revivalists that has caused followers so much grief over the years.

Recovering GRCers find it difficult to grasp doctrines other than the twisted way they were presented and rammed down our throats for years.

A more mellow approach and trying to have an open mind that is receptive to at least listening to other points of view and contemplating that point of view, before having the usual ex or recovering GRC knee-jerk reaction is what I aspire to now.

I think that someone who has actually studied and debated scripture with other scholars, has a knowledge of biblical history and puts it all in perspective may have a better understanding of doctrinal beliefs and scripture  than the self appointed pastors of a church that have beliefs in so many flawed theories and blindly follow the teachings of so many flawed men. 

The way to knowledge is to study and educate yourself. I see nothing wrong with theological colleges or the people who have graduated from them. In fact, I would rather be ministered to by a graduate from a theological college than one of Noel's minions.

I think that if you are cloned in the image of the GRC leader then it is impossible to break free from ALL the GRC beliefs and doctrines.

The filters are so strongly impregnated into the old grey matter, that information still goes in and comes out a degree or two away from the way a "normal" person would interpret the information. I honestly think that we will be like that for the rest of our lives, depending on how long we were in the GRC and how willingly we embraced the bullshit.

Cheers,

Glad  


Funny how we all see things differently. I don't particularly believe anything at the moment, but i feel exactly the opposite. The gospel the pilinuts defend is a breath of fresh air. He/she quotes the bible, black and white. Makes sense to me.
"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
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:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:12/09/2007 9:51 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Good morning, Brett, Sabrina, 'Pili' and/or 'Nut'.

Well Ian, in your latest posting your humility comes shining through again.

My humility, or supposed lack thereof, isn't the issue or what's at stake here. But nice of you to try so simple and obvious a redirect.

Such statements from you as the following clearly demonstrate the humility you have:

"I am the resident reigning theologian of this forum",


I didn't say this, you did. But in any case, I am.

"My wisdom and learning IS far superior to yours"

'Yep', it is.

and of course the usual dismissals of the thoughts of those who disagree with you as "rubbish". People like me who dare to see scripture differently from you just don't know what we're talking about, do we?

People like you who clearly lack the skills, knowledge and attributes needed to responsibly handle God's Word don't know what you're talking about. You could try to prove otherwise to me, but you've not done so yet.

You are so clever and I'm so dumb, you know what you're talking about, and I don't, whatever you say about scripture must be believed, what others say musn't.

I've not once called myself 'clever', nor have I once called you 'dumb'. But clearly I do know what I'm talking about, just as clearly as you don't.

Ian, you are such a humble man! James tells us in chapter 2 verse 13 that if there is somone among us who is wise and understanding, he will demonstrate the "gentleness of wisdom".

Sure, when one is attempting to sway an errant brother who is weak in the faith. However, when dealing with heretics who are intent on undermining the faith of the simple, well, then I guess I'm a little more inclined to follow Paul's lead, and "tell it like it is".

Well, the "gentleness"of your wisdom comes shining through in your approach to those who you disagree you: "That book is just naive rubbish", "what you're saying is rubbish", "I know what I'm talking about and you don't", "I understand the Bible and you don't", "I'm learned and wise and you're not", "I know more about the theology of the Revival Centres and it's implications than any other person".

You could at least try to quote me a little more accurately, rather than seeming so intent on putting your words into my mouth.

Your problem, Ian, is that you clearly have an exalted opinion of yourself. Of course you would say that my problem is that I'm an ex Revivalist dunderhead who doesn't know anything, wouldn't you?

Nope. I'd suggest that the problem is your inability to properly interpret and expound Scripture. That, my friend, is the 'core' issue here.

It must really disturb you that I don't sit at your feet and respectfully receive all the wisdom you impart as "the" teacher of our forum.

Hardly. What disturbs me is that you're apparently 'hell-bent' on racing towards destruction through the preaching of a false gospel, whilst dragging along as many people as you can, with you.

You get here on the forum and announce yourself as the great expert and teacher, and expect us all to meekly sit at your feet and accept your wisdom.

Nope. I simply expect those people who are sincere in their desire to follow and learn from God's Word, but who have been wounded by Revivalist heresy, will take the time and trouble to check my statements against the 'source'.

Well, some, it seems, have believed your claims about yourself,and instead of meekly and unquestionably sitting at the feet of Noel Hollins, Simon Longfield and Scott Williams as they used to, they now have substituted you for the role of the all knowing, all wise, and infallible teacher of scripture.

Now you're being funny. I'm certainly no substitute for the local church, nor do I engage in the pastoral ministry here, that one will find in a local church. At this forum I'm simply something of a 'Bible Answer Man'.

Anyway, I will stop commenting on your obvious lack of humility,and will respond to some of the points you made in your latest posting.

That would be nice, and would certainly make for a refreshing change.

You say that I have "absolutely no idea of the division caused within the Body of Christ by the Pentecostal movement", and because of my ignorance I'm "not worth educating" regarding this episode of church history. Contary to your arrogant dissmisal of my ignorance, I have read extensively about the early history of the Pentecostal movement, from both Pentecostal and non Pentecostal writers.

Do tell.

Generally speaking, those first Pentecostals were professing Christians who considered themselves members of the traditional, orthodox Protestant churches. When they had their speaking in tongues experience, they were thrown out of their churches. The fact is that all the "orthodox" churches that you so admire, had a policy that if any member was found to be speaking in tongues, he was excommunicated from the church.

Actually, 'no'. The nascent 'Pentes' were generally asked to leave their churches because they made 'highfalootin' and unbiblical claims concerning their 'tongues' experience, claims which caused division and misery within the churches.

Those early Pentecostals had no desire or intention to separate from their denominations, but wanted to stay in their churches and introduce the Pentecostal experience.

Actually, what they wanted was for their existing churches to conform to their 'new' beliefs. What they didn't want, however, was for their churches to biblically and methodically examine their 'new' claims against the 'old' Word of God and the 'old' experience of the Church Universal.

The only reason that independent Pentecostal churches came into existence was because the Protestant churches rejected TOTALLY the experience of tongues and did not want the practice in their churches.

You really are ignorant of the history of Pentecostalism, aren't you?

So those who had had the experience and wanted to continue in it, had no choice but to leave and reluctantly form their own separate, independent churches.

Do you want to know a remarkable thing? The 'catch-cry' of Pentecostalism during the 1920s through 1940s was "...come out and be ye separate..." In other words, they appropriated a Scripture that dealt with separation from unbelievers, but then applied it to other believers!

It was not the Pentecostals who caused that division, but the "orthodox" Protestant churches,who were absolutely against any one speaking in tongues. If somone spoke in tongues at that time,the "orthodox" Protestant churches would say that it was either maddness, delusion, gibberish or demonic.

And in many cases, they were probably right! (insofar as the delusion and gibberish is concerned)

You say the Pentecostals caused "untold misery and division". I'm wondering just what that great "misery" was those first Pentecostals caused. After all, they were the ones who were driven out, rejected, hated and called deluded, dangerous and even demonised by the entire "orthodox" Christian community.

Let's see? How about the division of families within churches, and division within the churches themselves? Or what about the claims that non-Pentecostals were "old wineskins" incapable of receiving the "new wine"? And what then of the statement that non-Pentecostals clearly hadn't the Spirit of God, for if they had, then surely they would have embraced the Pentecostal message? Brett, the 'Pentes' set about trying to create a two-tier division within Western Christianity: the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. They saw the 'have nots' as being far less spiritual then they were, and, in effect, they set about reigniting the very ancient Montanist schism.

Was the "misery" the Pentecostals caused the same as that caused by your beloved "orthodox" churches in the past?
Just a few examples:The "orthodox" Catholic church setting up the inquisition and torturing and murdering many innocent people for hundreds and hundreds of years. Roasting men, women and children alive in public for the edification of all, and it went on century after century after century. A bit of "untold misery" there don't you think?


Geez, you're sharp! Brett, we...are...not...discussing...the...sins...of...the...Roman...Catholic...Church. Stick with the program a little better, and we'll get along fine.

The "orthodox" Lutheran church drowning anyone who was baptised by full immersion.

Are we discussing Lutherans, now?

The "othodox" Anglican church killing people who didn't believe in the Trnity.

Clearly not! We're obviously discussing the Church of England.

That great champion of "orthodox" Christianity, John Calvin, ordering the death by burning of those who didn't believe the Trinity.

Oops, 'nope', we must be discussing the Reformed!

You no doubt think John Calvin was a great and inspired "orthodox" teacher of Christianity. Mr. Calvin was the religous ruler of the city of Geneva in the 16th century, and tried to set up a theocracy. The result was that over a 60 year period over 150 people considered "heretics" by Calvin were burnt alive. At Calvin's orders people were beheaded or burnt for a variety of offenses. It was a crime to laugh at his sermons, it was a crime to argue with him in the street.

History records Calvin as a first-rate theologian, but, alas, also a man of his times.

The good old Presbyterians who followed Calvin's theology advocated murder for "heresy" and for unfortunate women considered witches.

Ditto with respect to John Knox.

The fact is the "orthodox, historic" church you seem to think was much better than the Pentecostal movement includes the Roman Catholic church, the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglican, the Lutheran, the Presbyterian.

Absolutely! But what you've failed to realise is that the sins and foibles of the above-listed groups occurred during a very dark time in Western history, 300 plus years ago.

All these churches have a lot of innocent blood on their hands.

Sinful humanity remains sinful humanity.

All of them have practiced or supported murder, torture and human rights abuses on a truly massive scale. That is the "orthodox, historic"church you point to and would have us believe was so much better and biblical than our modern Pentecostals.

Rubbish! None of them practised the crimes that you charge them with on a universal scale; further, such (sadly) were the result of that particular time in history. You, my fiend (oops, 'friend') have demonstrated why it is that you are such a poor historian--you fail to appreciate issues of context.

You deplore the "division" the Pentecostals caused to the church.

I do, indeed.

Maybe it was better back in the pre-Reformation days, when there was no division. Just one church, with one doctrine, with one supreme leader, the Pope. No division then. Unity prevailed, along with the Inquisition. What do you think Ian?

I think you are remarkably naive and simplistic, Brett.

I say that you're anti Pentecostal, because you're against the teaching of the Pentecostal movement, which is that after a person has become a Christian, they need to seek to have an experience of being baptised in the Holy Spirit, which is always evidenced by speaking in tongues.

Oh, I'm against that nonsense alright. I suppose I must resign myself to being 'pro-Bible', even if such makes me 'anti-Pentecostal' in your eyes.

That is the classic Pentecostal position, and still is the position of major Pentecostal churches, and you know that.

I like that term, 'classic' position. 'Classic' but less than a century young! I suppose its age alone really makes such a 'nouveau' position. Anyway, I digress. Clearly my being closer to the 'centre' of current-day Pentecostal theology places me at something of an advantage over you. Your 'classic' Pentecostal position has been under significant debate over the past decade plus, and is in the process of being revised.

They may not be emphasising it, and may even be debating it in some quarters, but that is the PENTECOSTAL position.

See my previous comment.

You are against that doctrine, and that is why I describe you as anti Pentecostal. When I say that you want to turn people away from the Pentecostal experience, what that means is that you want to convince people that speaking in tongues IS NOT the evidence of being baptised in Spirit. Pentecostal doctrine says it is, but you want to turn people away from that belief, don't you?

Absolutely!

Yes, you are anti Pentecostal, that is part of your agenda.

My 'agenda' is biblical and theological literacy. Clearly such puts me at odds to you.

You're saying that I'm incapable of defending my views "from what scripture says", and that instead of trying to refute your view that only 12 spoke in tongues at Pentecost by using scripture, all I do is "just keep parroting, no it isn't, no it isn't".
That's not true.


Of course it is.

On this same forum (we used to believe) in various threads (I think the main one was "Pilinut-the miracle of tongues") I responded to your view about the day of Pentecost with a number of very long posts in which I use scripture and go into great detail saying what I think is wrong with your view.

Yes, and as I recall, I refuted your 'long-windedness' with much shorter, and far more incisive scriptural rejoinders.

So I have dealt head on with your position, using scripture extensively to defend my case. That discussion was in 2005, and all those postings are still there if anyone wants to check it for themselves and see my scriptural arguement against you.
Of course, you will dismiss whatever use I make of scripture as nothing but rubbish, won't you? But I would ask others to check it out for themselves and make up their own mind.


Clearly you fail to appreciate that you were unable to sustain and/or defend your case, then. Nothing much has changed in the intervening two years. I'm glad, however, that you've pointed others to what remains on the permanent record, here.

So, your pro Catholic tendencies are coming out now Ian.

I'm not 'pro' Catholic at all, Brett. Simply anti-ignorance.

You believe in infant baptism. If that's the case,you will surely have to tell me that infant sprinkling is clearly and precisely (you seem to like that word) taught in the New Testament, won't you?

Once we've finished our current discussion, I'd be more than happy to improve your understanding of the purpose, nature and role of baptism.

Because you are so dogmatic that whatever you teach and believe is the precise teaching of the N.T,i.e, exactly what the original Apostles taught, please tell us all where do the Apostles CLEARLY and PRECISELY teach the need for infant sprinkling?

Are you being 'simplistic', again?

We don't want anything ambiguous now, you have to give us the exact chapter and verses that clearly teach infant baptism.
We must be precise, and nothing less, in proving our doctrines from scripture, don't we?


Well, now. I've been accused of many things, but being 'ambiguous' certainly isn't one of them!

Don't mention any verses that "indirectly" point to the correctness of sprinkling babies, we need clear and precise references.
If you can't give us a defense of this Catholic practice, just supply us with a theological defence of the doctrine from the Pope himself, since it appears that you believe what he does.


You do cause me to smile!

I suspect that not only are you anti Pentecostal, but that you may be an apologist for the Roman Catholic church and the Papacy.

Drat! My secret is out! Okay ... I confess ... I'm really a Jesuit bent on verting you all to Rome!

How about it Ian, is the Papacy a legitimate office in the Christian church, is the Catholic church a good old "orthodox" Christian church?

'Yes' and 'yes'.

The Catholic church has caused murder, suffering and misery on a grand scale, not to mention anti Biblical false doctrines and superstitious traditions and practices that corrupted christianity. Is it Christian, Ian?

Absolutely!

Finally, I need to comment on your incredibly arrogant statement "I know more about Revivalist theology and it's implications than any other person, Simon Longfield, Scott Williams and Noel Hollins included". So you are the greatest authority on the Revival Centres on the face of this planet we live on!

The Revival Centres? Probably not. Revivalist theology, probably.

No one comes near you in insight and reflection on the subject of the RCs!

Probably not. As far as I can tell, I'm the only person who has ever undertaken a directed, thorough and systematic study of the ever-evolving Revivalist dogma, and compared the same against historic Christian belief. I'm certainly the only person to have done so at University doctoral level, which kind of makes me the 'acknowledged' expert on the subject.

Well, I taught Revivalist theology for 13 years as one of the leaders and pastors of Noel's world wide cult.

So? The fact that you did so for 13 years whilst inside said 'cult' speaks volumes concerning your capacity.

So I think I know something about the theology and it's effects and implications.

No doubt.

I'm actually not proud of my years as a GRC pastor and teacher, in fact I'm downright ashamed of things I said and did.

Rightly so. However, you still have much to be ashamed of, now.

What did I learn from all those years as a teacher and spiritual guide in Noel's group?

I can tell you what you didn't learn, and that was Christian theology.

I didn't learn Greek, I didn't learn Bible Hermeneutics, I wasn't taught how to give proper Christian counselling, I didn't learn how to be a servant of God's peole, but instead how to be a lord over them, a lot of things I should have been taught about how to be a true Christian Pastor, I never heard, in fact the opposite.

Yes, that much is obvious.

But I did learn one thing and I learnt it well. How church leaders can intimidate,manipulate, control and brainwash their followers. I saw it happen in other "pastors", and I learnt how to do it myself, and I did it.

And still do.

So, Ian, this is one thing I may possibly know more about than you. How church authority figures are set up on a pedestal, and once up there on that pedestal far above all the "ordinary" members,those under your pedestal come crawling and sit at your annointed, wise feet, and accept whatever you say about anything in the Bible. They sit there under your exalted "pastoral" pedestal,gazing up at you adoringly,because you are THE teacher, THE one, the one who has all the answers.

Sure. But what's all that got to do with me?

So up there on that pedestal you really start to think that you are indeed "exalted", because of the superior knowledge and insights you have. The result is that you end up having your own disciples who stand in awe of you. And the result of that is you get on an obscene, non-Christlike power trip and get FULL OF YOUR OWN IMPORTANCE. I was there, up on that obscene, disgusting, anti-Christ pdestal,and one day I realised I had to get off it and come back down to earth among the so called "ordinary" people. I got off my pedestal, came back down to earth, and had to confess that I had been a puffed up, obnoxious Noel follower, not a servant like, humble Christ follower. Falling off such a pedestal and landing back on earth, finding yourself back on earth with a big "thump", and discovering that you were only one of the "ordinary" people down below you all along, is very painful. To use Biblical language, I was "humbled". Being humbled is such a terribly terribly painful experience. It really does hurt so much.

Good. Now to 'humbled', try to add 'learned'.

But that's where you have to be if you're ever going to have any genuine wisdom and understanding. Listen Ian,you are not superior to me or any one else. You're just still up there on a pedestal of your own making. That's all. I was once up on such a pedestal, but I got down from it. I did learn one thing from all those years, and it's this. When somone else is up on a pedestal as an authority figure, I can see it and recognise it. I know when it's happening, because I was there myself and know exactly what it feels like, sounds like, and looks like. Come down to earth mate,down among us "ordinary"believers and human beings. That's the only way you or I or anybody is going to be exalted by God.

That was certainly long-winded!

Now, I must apologise for not inserting my usual ensemble of 'emoticons'; however this post is long enough as it is, and I simply couldn't be bothered.

God bless,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:12/09/2007 10:17 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Hi, Sabs.

Yes, it's ALL about learning isn't it, Ian - Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth -
The truth is that you have to be humble to be exalted by God. What did Paul say about all his considerable expertise = I count it but dung that I may win Christ . But you... take every opportunity to boast about it. YAWN


Of course, there's also James 3:1-2 to consider!

I didn't know arrogance and pride was a fruit of the Spirit. Obviosly we're not the first people to point out to you that you are arrogant and proud - but it is like water off a duck's back to you.

Sure, 'cause I'm neither 'arrogant' nor 'proud'

Moth and Rust: We did not initiate this thread. I didn't want to get into a debate with Ian about it - scroll up and see. Sometimes flies get into our house. I open the windown to let them out. Brett gets out a fly-swat.

Okay, but you might want to point out to Brett that he's supposed to use the flyswatter to 'swat' the flies! Not himself!

Ian, is there a Hell?

Absolutely!

God bless,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Glad-to be out Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:Posterior Maximus
  • Score:15160
  • Posts:701
  • From:Faroe_islands
  • Register:07/04/2006 8:57 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:12/09/2007 10:30 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut   I really love the "banter" between you guys and Ian!!!

I must admit that it is good to "with an OPEN mind" read all the exchanges, Ian certainly is an expert at laying a bait, and you guys still have the classic "black and white mentality" and follow through with some good "knee-jerk" reactions which so perfectly fits with the exGRC psyche.

Have you experienced any "mainstream" church services or theology since leaving the GRC? I don't mean AOG.

Revivalists are not the only ones who have the answers. We were indoctrinated for so long to believe that ALL the other churches were not preaching the Word ,as God intended it to be preached, that it is hard to get past this stumbling block.

I still have a hang-up about the Roman Catholic Church.

It isn't being disloyal to Jesus, or your own belief system, to see that some of the mainstream churches and their leaders are doing a wonderful job, just as some of the new Pentecostal churches are doing likewise. ALL NATIONS church in Fiji is exploding and growing so quickly. Noel always raved about the Welsh Revival, well there is another one happening closer to our own doorstep. They have it all, at the moment. While the Lautoka Revival Centre stagnates and moulders away, this new group is spreading like wildfire. They are creating followers who are inclusive, kind, compassionate and who have a zeal for following the Lord that takes your breath away. They are EVERYTHING that the GRC isn't. They also do some pretty amazing good works.

Some of the AOG churches (depending on the leader) are also doing well. By doing well, I mean that they are preaching a very simple basic message of salvation and they are moving out amongst the masses with humility, compassion and generousity of spirit that is truly humbling to see.

I am very cycnical when it comes to any religion or religious leader and have a "wait and see" attitude, but I do not dismiss out of hand doctrines and theories just because they aren't compliant with the old GRC/Revivalist stuff.

Everyone has a place on this Forum and it is stimulating and exciting to read the various posts that are flying thick and fast.

If Ian wants to be the so-called resident  theological expert , great !! You can always have a shot at shooting him down in flames. At least the Forum isn't boring and we have more than one point of view to mull over!!!!!

Cheers,

Glad


Reply to :Ian (from Sabrina)Don't you think it's puffed up to call yourself "One who is apt to teach"?So you have an issue with my Greek 'handle' meaning, "good teacher", huh? To be honest I don't see why, unless, of course, it has something to do with "sour grapes" on your part. After all, I'm someone who isactually ableto theologise at a professional level of competence: one university, three theo ... blah blah blahAll boasting aside, I think it a settled matter that I know more about Revivalist theology (and it's implications) than any other person, Simon Longfield, Scott Williams and Noel Hollins included. So I suppose didaktikon is as appropriate a 'tag' as any other.Yes, it's ALL about learning isn't it, Ian - Ever learning and never able to


"Faith is not about everything turning out OK; Faith is about being OK no matter how things turn out."
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:12/09/2007 1:02 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : big girl

Hi, 'BG'.

Funny how we all see things differently. I don't particularly believe anything at the moment, but i feel exactly the opposite. The gospel the pilinuts defend is a breath of fresh air. He/she quotes the bible, black and white.

Why am I not surprised?

Makes sense to me.

Of course it does

I can always rely on you, 'BG' (to give me a chuckle).

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:12/09/2007 4:05 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon



I can always rely on you, 'BG' (to give me a chuckle).Ian





yeah, well...it takes all types I suppose.

Just thought I'd drop in my view that I can still see the pentecostal position there in scripture. (not rf, but AOG etc)


I Shouldn't have said Pilinuts position is a breath of fresh air, that was stupid to say, I'll admit. I just know quite a few people who had a genuine experience with speaking in tongues, which changed their life. (Mine wasn't)
And the bible clearly shows that the holy spirit comes separately to belief.

Am I allowed to say on this forum that I struggle to see my way through that?
In anticipation of your scorn,
big girl
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:12/09/2007 4:18 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : big girl

Helloooo, 'BG'.

yeah, well...it takes all types I suppose. Just thought I'd drop in my view that I can still see the pentecostal position there in scripture. (not rf, but AOG etc)

Well, I'm sure you can

I Shouldn't have said Pilinuts position is a breath of fresh air, that was stupid to say, I'll admit. I just know quite a few people who had a genuine experience with speaking in tongues, which changed their life. (Mine wasn't)

So? The issue isn't with 'tongues' per se, but the place that such is to be found within Scripture.

And the bible clearly shows that the holy spirit comes separately to belief.

It 'clearly' shows that, huh? I must've somehow missed that little piece of 'clarity' in and amongst all the other 'unclear' stuff (not to mention that the entire Christian Church seems to have missed your 'clear' gem too, beginning in the 1st and continuing through the 21st centuries)

Am I allowed to say on this forum that I struggle to see my way through that?

You're allowed to say whatever you wish, whether valid or not, factual or not.

In anticipation of your scorn

I would be wasting my 'scorn' on you, methinks. There are probably many far more deserving characters amongst the 'usual suspects'.

Cheers,

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

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:12/09/2007 6:56 PMCopy HTML

Reply to Ian

 fficeffice" />

I've noticed that people are saying that I'm still a Revivalist in thinking and theology.

Maybe those people didn't carefully read my posting in which I answered the question Lahad asked "Do I believe that people must speak in tongues to be saved?".

I admit that my explanation was rather long, and probably people don't bother to read it all the way through.

But, if you're going to say that I still subscribe to what I learnt in the GRC, you ought to read what I said before you say that.

I still believe in a baptism in Spirit with tongues as evidence, but I DON'T subscribe to the idea that without that experience it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to be "saved", and yet I still believe every believer needs it for their spiritual journey, and in that sense it is necessary for "salvation".

I tried to explain how I understand the word "salvation".

So maybe before you jump to a conclusion, that because I defend baptism in Spirit evidenced by tongues, I must still be a Revivalist at heart, please just check what I really said.

Believing that tongues is the evidence of baptism in Spirit, is PENTECOSTAL doctrine, not just GRC doctrine.

 

Here is my response to Ian's latest posting.

 

 

Brett: You believe in infant baptism. If that's the case, you will surely have to tell me that infant sprinkling is clearly and precisely (you seem to like that word) taught in the New Testament, won't you?

Ian: Once we've finished our current discussion, I'd be more than happy to improve your understanding of the purpose, nature and role of baptism.

 

Brett: Because you are so dogmatic that whatever you teach and believe is the precise teaching of the N.T, I.e, exactly what the original Apostles taught, please tell us all where do the Apostles CLEARLY and PRECISELY teach the need for infant sprinkling?

Ian: Are you being 'simplistic', again?

Brett: We don't want anything ambiguous now, you have to give us the exact chapter and verses that clearly teach infant baptism.
We must be precise, and nothing less, in proving our doctrines from scripture, don't we?


Ian: Well, now. I've been accused of many things, but being 'ambiguous' certainly isn't one of them!

Brett: Don't mention any verses that "indirectly" point to the correctness of sprinkling babies, we need clear and precise references.
If you can't give us a defense of this Catholic practice, just supply us with a theological defence of the doctrine from the Pope himself, since it appears that you believe what he does.


Ian: You do cause me to smile!

What kind of answers are they? They are pathetic.
I asked Ian a simple question, as you can see.

He believes in baptizing babies, and I simply asked him to quote the scriptures that teach it.

He didn't. Instead, he just replied with witty one liners to avoid the issue.

If baptizing babies is taught in the N.T, why can't Ian just give us the scriptures?

Instead of witty, evasive comments, it'd be better if Ian simply answers the question.

 Or, could it be, that infant baptism is actually NOT supported  by any "clear" and "precise" N.T scripture?

Ian accuses me of believing doctrines that are not in the N.T, well, where is infant baptism?

You shouldn't accuse others of doing what you're doing yourself.

Ian won't produce a scripture that teaches infant baptism, he'll just fob me off again.

If Ian denounces me as a "heretic", and says I believe unbiblical doctrines , what if he is doing the same thing? Isn't that somewhat hypocritical?

__________________________________________________________________________
Brett: I suspect that not only are you anti Pentecostal, but that you may be an apologist for the Roman Catholic church and the Papacy.

Ian: Drat! My secret is out! Okay ... I confess ... I'm really a Jesuit bent on converting you all to Rome!

Brett: How about it Ian, is the Papacy a legitimate office in the Christian church, is the Catholic church a good old "orthodox" Christian church?

ian: 'Yes' and 'yes'.

Brett: The Catholic church has caused murder, suffering and misery on a grand scale, not to mention anti Biblical false doctrines and superstitious traditions and practices that corrupted christianity. Is it Christian, Ian?

Ian: Absolutely

 

I asked Ian if he was an apologist for the Catholic church. But why does he joke about it, when you can see from his next two answers that he does believe in the Catholic church.

He says that the Papacy is a legitimate office So, the Papacy has been put on earth by Christ, has it?

If the Pope's office is legitimate, I suppose that means his claims are too.

Maybe Ian thinks the Papacy is a biblical office. How can it be legitimate for Christians if it isn't?

 So here's another question for Ian; Is the office of the Papacy biblical? I.e., Has it been set in the church by Christ? If it hasn't, then how can it be a legitimate thing for Christians?

Can you answer that Ian?

Unfortunately, I think he probably won't answer at all, or just fob me of again with some sarcastic put down.

 

As you can see from my last question, and Ian's answer, the murder, torture, violence and suffering that the Catholic church inflicted on the people of Europe for so long, does not take away from it's Christian character one little bit., according to Ian.

I suppose that means that if an individual abducts an innocent child, tortures the child horribly, then murders the child, and then says to us "I am Christian, I am a true Christian, I am the only true Christian in this city", we'd have to believe him.

Because, as the Catholic church murdered and tortured anybody it considered "heretical", it claimed to be the one and only true church of Christ.

Ian says that even though it was murdering and torturing, it was "absolutely" Christian.

What does he mean by "Christian"?

Does "Christian" mean "following Christ" or not?

In what sense does Ian think this monstrous, violent and bigoted institution was "Christian"?

It has been argued that the evil of Rome during those times was because the church was acting according to the "spirit of the times", that that's the way people were back then.

But that's not true, because no matter what period of history we live in, Christians are not to follow the "spirit of the time", but rather the "Spirit of Christ". So there's no excuse, is there?

People on this forum can't stand it when anyone defends the revival centres in any shape or form.

It makes them angry and upset.

And so it should.

But they are total amateurs compared to all those "Holy Fathers" who presided over the Inquisition.

They caused far more misery, suffering and pain than the Revs ever have or could.

If anyone knows the history of the Papacy and the Catholic church, and yet still calls it "Christian", defends it, and doesn't like it being attacked and denounced

And at the same time, absolutely attacks and denounces the revival centres, calls them unchristian, false Christians, cultic. etc,   there's only one word for that, HYPOCRISY.

How on earth can any honest, informed person attack the revival centres, and defend the Catholic church?

Ian, if you're going to criticize me or any one else, for believing or defending what is unbiblical, make sure you're not doing it yourself.

 

Ian himself said that you no one is entitled to believe anything contrary to scripture - and that  HIS interpretation is the ONLY one that is right. So if he can come up with scriptures supporting his belief in infant baptism, the Catholic Church is absolutely  Christian and that the Papacy is a legitimate Christian office let him.

 

Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:13/09/2007 8:49 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Brett, once again.

I've noticed that people are saying that I'm still a Revivalist in thinking and theology.
Now I wonder why they would do that?!

Maybe those people didn't carefully read my posting in which I answered the question Lahad asked "Do I believe that people must speak in tongues to be saved?". I admit that my explanation was rather long, and probably people don't bother to read it all the way through. But, if you're going to say that I still subscribe to what I learnt in the GRC, you ought to read what I said before you say that. I still believe in a baptism in Spirit with tongues as evidence, but I DON'T subscribe to the idea that without that experience it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to be "saved", and yet I still believe every believer needs it for their spiritual journey, and in that sense it is necessary for "salvation".

I certainly read it, and I came away with the very distinct impression that you believe: (1) in the possibility of being saved without 'tongues', in the early stages at most, but (2) if one doesn't go on to get 'tongues', then one's salvation is in jeopardy. In other words, you still preach that one must speak in 'tongues' to be saved!

I tried to explain how I understand the word "salvation". So maybe before you jump to a conclusion, that because I defend baptism in Spirit evidenced by tongues, I must still be a Revivalist at heart, please just check what I really said.

So riddle me this, Batman: if I person accepts Christ, but rejects the need to get 'tongues' afterwards, how secure is such a one's salvation according to your beliefs, eh? Or, what if such a one chooses not to be baptised? What happens then?

Believing that tongues is the evidence of baptism in Spirit, is PENTECOSTAL doctrine, not just GRC doctrine.

But your doctrine is still the Revivalist one-two-three, isn't it?
and now onto the rest)

Brett: You believe in infant baptism. If that's the case, you will surely have to tell me that infant sprinkling is clearly and precisely (you seem to like that word) taught in the New Testament, won't you?

Ian: Once we've finished our current discussion, I'd be more than happy to improve your understanding of the purpose, nature and role of baptism.

Brett: Because you are so dogmatic that whatever you teach and believe is the precise teaching of the N.T, I.e, exactly what the original Apostles taught, please tell us all where do the Apostles CLEARLY and PRECISELY teach the need for infant sprinkling?

Ian: Are you being 'simplistic', again?

Brett: We don't want anything ambiguous now, you have to give us the exact chapter and verses that clearly teach infant baptism.
We must be precise, and nothing less, in proving our doctrines from scripture, don't we?

Ian: Well, now. I've been accused of many things, but being 'ambiguous' certainly isn't one of them!

Brett: Don't mention any verses that "indirectly" point to the correctness of sprinkling babies, we need clear and precise references. If you can't give us a defense of this Catholic practice, just supply us with a theological defence of the doctrine from the Pope himself, since it appears that you believe what he does.

Ian: You do cause me to smile!

What kind of answers are they? They are pathetic. I asked Ian a simple question, as you can see.

They are the answers your questions warranted. As I pointed out to you, we weren't discussing paedobaptism, or Roman Catholic dogma, but altogether another issue. I'm more than happy to address the above concerns with you, but in a separate thread (I don't want you dodging and weaving down 'rabbit trails' because you find it inconvenient to respond to issues I raise on the subject at hand)

He believes in baptizing babies, and I simply asked him to quote the scriptures that teach it. He didn't. Instead, he just replied with witty one liners to avoid the issue. If baptizing babies is taught in the N.T, why can't Ian just give us the scriptures? Instead of witty, evasive comments, it'd be better if Ian simply answers the question. Or, could it be, that infant baptism is actually NOT supported by any "clear" and "precise" N.T scripture?

Again, and more slowly in the hope that you will finally understand: Brett...we...are...not...discussing...paedobaptism...but...your...contention....that...'tongues'...is...essential...and...is...the...evidence...of...'baptism...in...the...Spirit'.

Ian accuses me of believing doctrines that are not in the N.T, well, where is infant baptism?

Start another thread and I'll humour your ignorance (again).

You shouldn't accuse others of doing what you're doing yourself.

*sigh*

Ian won't produce a scripture that teaches infant baptism, he'll just fob me off again.

Brett. Seriously, try to fight just the one 'battle' at a time. You haven't the resources, or the capacity, to be waging 'war' on several fronts at once

If Ian denounces me as a "heretic", and says I believe unbiblical doctrines , what if he is doing the same thing? Isn't that somewhat hypocritical?

Nope, 'cause unlike you, I've not made any heretical statements
and yet more 'stuff')

Brett: I suspect that not only are you anti Pentecostal, but that you may be an apologist for the Roman Catholic church and the Papacy.

Ian: Drat! My secret is out! Okay ... I confess ... I'm really a Jesuit bent on converting you all to Rome!

Brett: How about it Ian, is the Papacy a legitimate office in the Christian church, is the Catholic church a good old "orthodox" Christian church?

ian: 'Yes' and 'yes'.

Brett: The Catholic church has caused murder, suffering and misery on a grand scale, not to mention anti Biblical false doctrines and superstitious traditions and practices that corrupted christianity. Is it Christian, Ian?

Ian: Absolutely

I asked Ian if he was an apologist for the Catholic church. But why does he joke about it, when you can see from his next two answers that he does believe in the Catholic church.

'No', I said that the Roman Catholic Church is orthodox, and that the papacy is a legitimate Church office. As to the former, it is. As to the latter, if the Catholic Church is legitimately Christian, and the papacy is an office of the Catholic Church, then clearly (and logically), it is a valid Christian office. Just like the Primate of the Anglican Church, the Moderator of the Presbyterian church, and the respective Patriarchs of the national Orthodox, etc

He says that the Papacy is a legitimate office So, the Papacy has been put on earth by Christ, has it?

Well, he is a Christian minister, and Jesus is the one who "...gave some to be apostles, prophets, etc."

If the Pope's office is legitimate, I suppose that means his claims are too.

How do you figure that, Brett? Is one the corollary of the other by logical necessity, or must it be so in your simplistic reasoning process?

Maybe Ian thinks the Papacy is a biblical office. How can it be legitimate for Christians if it isn't?

Geez, mate, you are rabidly anti-Catholic, aren't you?! I bet you still believe that the pope is the Antichrist, too?

So here's another question for Ian; Is the office of the Papacy biblical? I.e., Has it been set in the church by Christ? If it hasn't, then how can it be a legitimate thing for Christians?

I'd suggest that it's a perfectly legitimate 'thing' for Roman Catholic Christians.

Can you answer that Ian? Unfortunately, I think he probably won't answer at all, or just fob me of again with some sarcastic put down.

Look above, I've answered your childish challenge with typical aplomb. And by the way, I find it very difficult not to be sarcastic towards you, given your profound ignorance of the subject matter, and your typical Revivalist bigotry towards that which you simply don't understand.

As you can see from my last question, and Ian's answer, the murder, torture, violence and suffering that the Catholic church inflicted on the people of Europe for so long, does not take away from it's Christian character one little bit., according to Ian.

Read my responses again. You've very clearly failed to consider my actual position.

I suppose that means that if an individual abducts an innocent child, tortures the child horribly, then murders the child, and then says to us "I am Christian, I am a true Christian, I am the only true Christian in this city", we'd have to believe him.

There's a lump of squishy 'stuff' that fills out your skull, Brett. It's generally referred to as a 'brain', and a significant function that it plays involves cognition. Now I'm not for one minute suggesting that you haven't got one, or that yours is somehow incapable of functioning as it should. But I will suggest this: you clearly aren't using it to its fullest potential. And if the above example is the best that you're capable of in the way of intelligent argumentation, then perhaps you should make sure that you're seated, and that you're not playing with sharp objects at the same time! Seriously, you've made a lot of pretty 'dumb' statements over the years, but this one borders on 'stupid'

Because, as the Catholic church murdered and tortured anybody it considered "heretical", it claimed to be the one and only true church of Christ.

Study history better.

Ian says that even though it was murdering and torturing, it was "absolutely" Christian.

Study theology better.

What does he mean by "Christian"?

I'll get to that in a second.

Does "Christian" mean "following Christ" or not?

'Not'. It means a 'follower' of Christ. Jesus Christ functions as both the object and the subject. It's for this reason that a Christian can take comfort in the fact that, in spite of his or her fallen-ness; in spite of his or her sinful weakness; in spite of his or her capacity for evil by virtue of being human under the influence of sin; he or she can rest in the assurance that he or she belongs to Christ! Again, your ignorance of this very key theological concept speaks volumes concerning your legalistic beliefs with respect to righteousness!

In what sense does Ian think this monstrous, violent and bigoted institution was "Christian"?

'Is' Christian, Brett. Try having a look at the positive things the Catholic Church has achieved over the past 1,900 years, instead of focusing exclusively on the negative. Well, if you can at any rate

It has been argued that the evil of Rome during those times was because the church was acting according to the "spirit of the times", that that's the way people were back then. But that's not true, because no matter what period of history we live in, Christians are not to follow the "spirit of the time", but rather the "Spirit of Christ". So there's no excuse, is there?

Now consider yourself, your own circumstances in the GRC, and your own actions therein. Still believe yourself capable of 'hefting' rocks in preparation for throwing them at others' failings? Hmmmm?

People on this forum can't stand it when anyone defends the revival centres in any shape or form. It makes them angry and upset. And so it should.

I won't presume to speak for 'people', but I will for myself: I can't stand ignorance that masquerades as 'knowledge', or arrogance that masquerades as 'pastoral concern'. You, my dear fellow, fit both categories, and fro what I've seen you are probably one of the least equipped people to be playing the 'shepherd' for others!

But they are total amateurs compared to all those "Holy Fathers" who presided over the Inquisition. They caused far more misery, suffering and pain than the Revs ever have or could. If anyone knows the history of the Papacy and the Catholic church, and yet still calls it "Christian", defends it, and doesn't like it being attacked and denounced And at the same time, absolutely attacks and denounces the revival centres, calls them unchristian, false Christians, cultic. etc, there's only one word for that, HYPOCRISY.

Amazing

How on earth can any honest, informed person attack the revival centres, and defend the Catholic church?

You've just answered your own question. One needs to be both honest and informed

Ian, if you're going to criticize me or any one else, for believing or defending what is unbiblical, make sure you're not doing it yourself.

Trust me. I'm very sure

Ian himself said that you no one is entitled to believe anything contrary to scripture - and that HIS interpretation is the ONLY one that is right.

Really?! When did Ian (there's that third person stuff, again) say that HIS interpretation is the ONLY one that is right? I clearly remember him saying that YOUR interpretation was obviously WRONG, but ...

So if he can come up with scriptures supporting his belief in infant baptism, the Catholic Church is absolutely Christian and that the Papacy is a legitimate Christian office let him.

... sorry, it took me a moment to wipe the grin off of my face!

Brett, I can see why Noel Hollins selected you to be a 'pastor'

Repent.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:13/09/2007 9:57 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Brett,

"sticks and stones"

Your last reply was exactly the sort of thing we expected from you. You don't answer questions, you're evasive and self-important. All your post is is insult and stupid googly icons. You say nothing but exalt yourself. Not a single scripture to support any of your positions that we asked you about. Again, pathetic.

Well, here's the thing: I've re-read the too-ings and fro-ings on this thread. I've re-read your silly claims and your multiplied ad hom attacks. But you have altogether avoided responding to my very clear, very open and very obvious refutations of your nonsense. Why should I trouble myself humouring you, when you very clearly have no intention of engaging with the issue at hand? Clearly you're very comfortable in your ignorance.

You are a cloud without water. All puff with nothing in it. Is this what you learned at theology school? - How to throw insults while sounding important.

'Nope'. I learned how to handle the Word of God responsibly. You shouldtry it sometime, it's very liberating

You said you paid a lot of money to get your degrees. Did you bribe your way through? Because if the depth of your "expertise" with the Bible on this thread is anything to go by you wasted your money.

Okay

As 'resident theologian' you'd think you'd say more than paste icons. that's so deep.

Well how about this? Brett, you're very clearly out of your depth in the current discussion, and thus far we've gone no further than wading in theological puddles. Forgive me for suggesting as much, but you actually deserve to be scorned

Again, repent.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:14/09/2007 11:18 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : brolga

Is addressing priests "father," an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade? "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

Again, mum loves this topic. I used to throw it in her teeth all the time. She never got angry and she always studied and followed up my angry Revival Catholic venom I'd throw at her. I'm sure Ian has some interesting point, but here's where mum directed me:

There's a good write up at the following website and I'll follow it with some exerpts. After some reading of it, it would seem to be clutching at straws to denounce the Catholic church as a viable and credible part of Christianity through the use of this Revival cliche.

http://www.catholic.com/library/call_no_man_father.asp

1. To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn't forbidding this type of use of the word "father."

2. There are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term "father" being used as a form of address and reference.

3. Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn't intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ?rabbi,' for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ?masters,' for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8-10).

i.e. --- To follow though on this accuation we would not be able to call any bible teacher a teacher??? or any parent, dad... or anyone's boss, boss.

So What Did Jesus Mean?

Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ?rabbi' by men" (Matt. 23:6-7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees' proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father?else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such?we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.

[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
Lahad Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #25
  • Rank:Member IV
  • Score:1530
  • Posts:69
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:06/04/2003 5:48 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:15/09/2007 11:30 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Didaktikon

Reply to : pilinutBrett,"sticks and stones"Your last reply was exactly the sort of thing we expected from you. You don't answer questions, you're evasive and self-important. All your post is is insult and stupid googly icons. You say nothing but exalt yourself. Not a single scripture to support any of your positions that we asked you about. Again, pathetic.Well, here's the thing: I've re-read the too-ings and fro-ings on this thread. I've re-read your silly claims and your multipliedad homattacks. But you have altogether avoided responding to my very clear, very open and very obvious refutations of your nonsense. Why should I trouble myself humouring you, when you very clearly haveno intentionof engaging with the issue at hand? Clearly

My venerable friend Diktaktikon,

Page 94 of  "Greek Grammar - Beyond the Basics (An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament)"  Daniel B. Wallace 1996: Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan

"all were filled with the Holy Spirit and they began to speak in other tongues

         It is to be noted that neither the verb nor the case following the verb are the same as Eph 5:18 (here, πιμπλημι; there πληροω; here, gen.; there [ εν +] dat.). The command there to be filled by the Spirit has nothing to do with tongues-speaking. The Spirit - filling ( with πιμπλημι ) in Acts is never commanded, nor is it related particularly to sanctification. Rather, it is a special imbueing of the Spirit for a particular task (similar to the Spirit's ministry in the OT).  Futhermore, every time the case used to indicate the content of filling is the gen., never the dative. Cf Acts 4:8,31 ; 9:17; 13:9 (cf. also Luke 1:15,41)

 

Awesome isn't it ?!! Been doing some reading up on the genitive and I happened to stumble across this and just goes to show you learn something new everyday. So the command in Ephesians 5:18 is a completely different context to Acts 2 being in a different case altogether ! WOW ! -- oooops there goes another revivalist foundational theology down the gugguler

 

Thanks buddy

blessings in mega abundance

Lahad

 

Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #26
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:15/09/2007 3:39 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Lahad


It is to be noted that neither the verb nor the case following the verb are the same as Eph 5:18 (here, πιμπλημι; there πληροω; here, gen.; there [ εν +] dat.). The command there to be filled by the Spirit has nothing to do with tongues-speaking. The Spirit - filling ( with πιμπλημι ) in Acts is never commanded, nor is it related particularly to sanctification. Rather, it is a special imbueing of the Spirit for a particular task (similar to the Spirit's ministry in the OT).  Futhermore, every time the case used to indicate the content of filling is the gen., never the dative. Cf Acts 4:8,31 ; 9:17; 13:9 (cf. also Luke 1:15,41)
That's great Lahad, but for the simple souls like myself     could you please explain/enlighten further.  The majority of us do not study theology but (I'm sure I speak for others) would like to ' tap into'  your knowledge! 

Thanks in anticipation

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.
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:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:16/09/2007 7:56 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : pilinut

Good morning Brett and/or Sabrina.

Ian says that I am showing "revivalist bigotry" towards the Catholic church. I might even be committing the horrible sin of believing the prophecies about Antichrist have been fullfilled by the Papacy.

'Yep', you have

Here is a short list of prominent theologians and teachers that believed the Papacy was Antichrist. Martin Luther, John Calvin (who Ian thinks was a brilliant theologian), Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Charles Finney, Charles Spurgeon, William Tyndale, and John Huss. There were many others.Were those men infected with"Revivalist bigotry"?

'Nope'. They were good and just men who lived during the 'evil' times that they did, and so who identified the religious system of their day with the prophecies of Revelation. However... Christians have been identifying this person or that, this system or that as the 'Antichrist' since the mid 2nd century! It seems that whenever things get really bad for one segment of Christianity or another, that 'millenarianism' suddenly is elevated to the fore, with the result that the Antichrist is found to be hiding under every rock and/or bushel! But what they, and you, have failed to appreciate is this: (1) Scripture can't mean something today, that it didn't or couldn't mean back then, for the original audience. (2) The Reformers didn't have a good 'handle' on the genre of apocalyptic. Consequently, they tended to misinterpret much of Revelation. (3) If the Papacy is intended to be identified with the Antichrist, then why has the identification of the same some 400 years ago not precipitated the promises of Revelation?

Were they Revivalists?

'Nope'. They were Christians

In the confessions of faith of the Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches there were statements that the Papacy was the predicted Antichrist.

See above

Why did all those theologians and churches believe that the Papacy was Antichrist?

Again, see above

If you're going to label me or anyone else as "bigoted", because we identify the Papacy as Antichrist, you'd better put that label on all those men I listed before as well.

'Nope', they were sincere albeit naive men who lived during times which might warrant such a false association. You, however, are simply an ignorant man, one who clearly hasn't the 'smarts' to be able to see through the religious bigotry for what it is.

Ian says about the Pope: "well, he is a Christian minister,and Jesus is the one who"gave some to be apostles, prophets, etc". Read that scripture abit more carefully Ian, it doesn't say that Christ gave Popes to the church.It doesn't say that Jesus set the Papacy in the church, because he didn't.

Really?! I must have missed that one! Try looking at things this way: the Pope is simply the Patriarch of Rome. A Patriarch is simply a senior bishop. A bishop is simply an Elder in the church, and the Bible does mention 'elders', doesn't it? Put simply, you're just be overly simplistic, yet again. You've apparently failed completely to grasp the simple fact that church structures are refined and develop to meet the needs and requirements of the times. And this is perfectly biblical (consider, the apostles instituted the role of 'deacons' when they appointed the seven, see Acts 6). A rejoinder: did the GRC of your time have Sunday School teachers? If so, then where do you find such being mentioned in the Bible? Or what of Home Group leaders?

You claim to be such an expert on the Bible, such an authority, yet you are trying to defend an institution that has ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS IN SCRIPTURE WHATSOEVER, in fact the existence of the Papal institution is AGAINST what scripture teaches.

The institution is perfectly valid, and is a valid development of biblical principles and precedence.

One example suffices: Didn't Jesus forbid leaders in His church to have the title "Father"?

This is a really dumb argument that you're offering up

The Pope means "the Father".

For starters, the papacy didn't even exist when Jesus uttered those words, so clearly he didn't have the Roman Catholic Church in mind! What he did have in mind, however, was the practice of the day of deferring to the oral law as interpreted and promoted by the Rabbans--the 'fathers' of the Synagogues! It was they who 'worked out' ways of 'skirting' around the moral obligations of the law of Moses, to their own benefit, and it was this that Jesus was condemning. You really haven't a clue about this stuff, do you?

If Ian knows the Bible better than any of us, why is he defending an institution that is AGAINST what the Bible says about church leadership?

Perhaps because Ian does know better than you? Perhaps Ian has a grasp of this important consideration called 'context', and so doesn't seek to level Scripture to the one-dimensional plane wherein you stumble about, thinking more highly of your biblical interpretative skills than is clearly warranted? Think about it

About changing the topic of this thread? It is called "To Pilinut" . So that does not mean it has to be restricted to one topic. It is not called "Speaking in tongues".

Go back to my original post, number one in the thread. Read it again, and try answering the question, eh?

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #28
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:16/03/2008 12:46 AMCopy HTML

Hi, guys.

Now that my 'definitive' essay on Acts, the Holy Spirit, tongues and all that is available online, here; I was wondering whether you'd care to read the thing, and then review our discussion re: Pentecost and the 12/120? After all, as I recall, the issue is fundamentally one of fidelity to the biblical witness.

Care to rise to the challenge?

Blessings,

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

Re:To Pilinut (Must one speak in tongues as evidence)

Date Posted:19/03/2008 1:43 AMCopy HTML

Yoo, Hoo! Brett and Sabrina! Are you there? Laughing

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.