|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：|
Date Posted：21/05/2009 1:38 AMCopy HTML
Good morning, all.
Over the past few months several RF pastors have attempted to discredit the thrust of my "Revivalist Dogma and the Book of Acts" essay. I've no problems whatsoever with these men closely scrutinizing my work and testing my conclusions; in fact I warmly encourage them to do so! However, it seems that not a single one has actually engaged with a single point that I've written! To the contrary, they're apparently far more comfortable ignoring the substantive issues that have been identified, resorting instead to an uncritical rhetoric that reinforces what they already believe (and what they hope you will also believe).
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 open 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 upon 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 that 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 that 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 that the Bible is its sole authority in establishing doctrine; I'm comfortable that I've proven my case from what Scripture actually says, let's see your pastors attempt to prove theirs.
|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
Agreed. You may not 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 responded to. His email to the "faithful" in Europe as a consequence of my piece was typically Revivalist: he ignored absolutely every point that I raised, preferring instead to label me a "Pentecostal preacher" (gaaak!), one who was apparently only interested in defending some novel ideas about the (Pentecostal) "word of knowledge" and "faith healers"! Yeah, that sounds like me.
More recently Laurie Nankivell from Adelaide decided to do 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 that his own ignorance was beyond any doubt or question, he tried to have a couple of "cheap shots" at not only my qualifications, but also my person, and my spirituality to boot! But just like Visser, Nankivell did not make a single attempt to address any of the points that 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 that any pastor can marshal when faced with insurmountable proof that they ain't preaching the truth! I do wonder 'though, 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 very that they aren't, so I guess I credit them with having more intelligence than do their own leaders! Who would have thought?