|
|
| Title: To RF pastors and members: an open invitation | |
| Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Didaktikon debunks Revivalist 'Theology' | Go to subcategory： |
| Author | Content |
|
Didaktikon
|
|
|
Date Posted：21/05/2009 1:38 AMCopy HTML Good morning, all. Put simply, the whole affair presents of ostriches with their heads firmly buried in the sand hoping that no-one will ask the "hard" questions of them. My invitation is simple. To the pastors (you and I know who you are): engage. Take up the essay again, and this time read it through. Reflect on what I've alleged. Check the passages. Check my conclusions. All of the necessary data (including the "workings-out") are contained within the 42-odd pages, which makes your task relatively straightforward should you be prepared to put in the effort required. If you're convinced that I'm wrong in what I assert, then prove me wrong. To the members: when your 'pastors' tell you that I've made mistakes in what I've written, demand of them to explain comprehensively why. Given my appeal has been to Scripture itself, them simply stating, "...we know we're correct because we prayed to receive the Holy Spirit speaking in tongues and we did!" just doesn't measure up. Your pastors will need to categorically demonstrate that my conclusions are faulty because I've improperly handled and incorrectly considered the information that's contained within the biblical passages I've referred to. It's one thing to allege that I'm wrong, and another thing entirely to prove that I am. This is God's Word; consequently, your eternities hinge on the outcome. The RF claims the Bible is its sole authority in establishing doctrine; I'm comfortable I've proven my case from what Scripture actually says, so let's see your pastors attempt to prove theirs. Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
Jojo the Lion
|
Share to:
#1
|
|
Re：To RF pastors and members: an open invitation Date Posted：22/05/2009 12:38 PMCopy HTML The sad thing is, most Revivalists will assume you are 'one of them corrupted scholars' who argues against The Truth(tm). Some Pastors might justify a primae facea (sp??) rejection on the basis that "you haven't got the fundamental cornerstone correct (not jesus but the revival stance on tongues) and so anything else you say is invalidated, "clanging brass" and building on sand. Sad but true.
However hopefully there are enough members and maybe Pastors who are having doubts or are finding it hard to reconcile some inconsistencies and will realise the standard answers above are not satisfactory. As you suggest, it is hypocritical to hold such a strong belief in the authority of the bible and the importance of it to salvation as opposed to trusting in the authority of man (like them wicked catholics and pentecostalists), but at the same time put hands over ears and lalalaing and clapping along when someone makes a case from the bible that you might have screwed up your salvation message somewhere along the line. And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out what price / I have to pay to get out of going through all these things twice
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#2
|
|
Re：To RF pastors and members: an open invitation Date Posted：24/05/2009 7:11 AMCopy HTML Hi, Jojo. Agreed. You may be surprised to discover that a couple of RF pastors have done so already. Piet Visser from Holland wrote a particularly daft editorial on the subject of "Spiritual Gifts" a few months ago, which I briefly rebutted, and which was published widely through RF channels. Visser's subsequent email to the European "faithful" was typically Revivalist. He completely ignored the substance of my criticisms, instead choosing to label me a "Pentecostal preacher". Even more bizarrely, he claimed I was interested in defending the Pentecostal position on "word of knowledge", and "faith healing"! More recently Laurie Nankivell from Adelaide did pretty much the same thing. Faced with questions generated by my large Acts essay, he thought it best to devote an entire "talk" to the subject of qualifications. As well as proving his own ignorance beyond any doubt, he attempted to take a couple of "cheap shots" at: my qualifications, my person, and my spirituality. But like Visser, Nankivell didn't make a single attempt to address any of the points I raised in my essay. He simply ignored them, as if they didn't exist. I suppose in the RF hollow rhetoric is the best any pastor can marshal when faced with insurmountable proof that they aren't preaching the truth. But I wonder whether the people sitting in the seats are as stupid as the pastors clearly believe them to be? Given my engagement with a good number of them over the years, I know they aren't, so I guess I credit them with having more intelligence than do their own leaders. Who would have thought? Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
