Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Revival Churches > The Revival Fellowship (TRF) Discussion Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Pastor Buck
  • Rank:Lurker
  • Score:170
  • Posts:7
  • From:Belize
  • Register:09/04/2007 8:55 PM

Date Posted:22/01/2009 2:52 AMCopy HTML

Hi all I like to visit this site now and again to see what is going on for the Ex revivalist.

I read with interest the articles that are written on here and wonder if everyone is still confused and searching for the way to at one with God?

it seems that no one has an opinion that everyone agrees with.

I would also Like to ask what came first unhappiness with the oversight or issues reagrding salvation?

Sea Urchin Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:9110
  • Posts:436
  • From:Australia
  • Register:15/02/2007 7:34 AM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:22/01/2009 4:03 AMCopy HTML

Hello 'Pastor' Buck

I don't think that 'everyone' here is confused at all PB. What you are seeing (reading) are various people's views on various topics - this process shouldn't be mistaken for 'confusion'. When people are free to think for themselves instead of only believing what they're 'told' to think by oversight, they will explore and discuss and search out matters for themselves.

And when it comes to an individual's relationship with God, it can't be done corporately (ALL who attend revival are not necessarily in a personal relationship with God), we need to have a personal relationship with Him. Some of us choose to fellowship with other Christians, some do not, some are still searching for happiness after these organisations have finished with them. Some have been hurt beyond repair but the majority of folk are just getting on with their walks and finding that God has never left them or forsaken them at all  (contrary to what rev. told them). Another interesting point too, I have yet to find people who have become '7 times worse' after leaving revival although this was constantly preached about. It's great to see folk getting on with their lives and rejoicing in the Lord without bitterness but obviously this is not the case for all.

I would also Like to ask what came first unhappiness with the oversight or issues reagrding salvation?

This would be different for everyone I would have thought!  Maybe there are even other reasons for leaving apart from the two you've suggested??

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.
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:22/01/2009 4:15 AMCopy HTML

Hi all I like to visit this site now and again to see what is going on for the Ex revivalist.

Hi to you too. You should realise, though, that only a tiny percentage of 'ex-revivalists' post here!!

I read with interest the articles that are written on here and wonder if everyone is still confused and searching for the way to at one with God?

Bzzz... nope and it's probably never been true that 'everyone is ... confused and searching for the way to at one with God' [sic]

it seems that no one has an opinion that everyone agrees with.

... much like RF oversight and their understanding of the trinity and christology

I would also Like to ask what came first unhappiness with the oversight or issues reagrding salvation?

Why bother? RF soteriology is uncriptural, unorthodox and 'another gospel', however individuals may answer that question. (Personally, I made it clear to my RF overseers that it was salvation ldoctrine rather than praxis that was the decider for me - although the two are linked.) I highly recommend you prayerfully read the articles at PleaseConsider.info

I could similarly ask you: when RF'rs came along, which came first, unhappiness with there lives or a revelation that if they didn't speak in tongues there was no guarantee they had the Spirit.

The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Jojo the Lion Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Rookier II
  • Score:1870
  • Posts:83
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:09/02/2004 9:29 AM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:23/01/2009 8:24 AMCopy HTML


I would also Like to ask what came first unhappiness with the oversight or issues reagrding salvation?


Pastor Buck,

Almost everyone in RF is probably already unhappy with the oversight.

However it is because of the beliefs in getting saved and staying saved that they feel obliged to put up with a lot of bs.  When you stop believing in what RF says about getting saved and or staying saved then there is no more reason to put up with the bs anymore and so naturally a lot of people will come on here and get a lot of things off their chest that they for years had to keep to themselves.

I think you'll find that most oversight can always cover their asses by just holding their hands up and saying "we're just human and we make mistakes.  The important thing is to not let any man rob you of your salvation."  This is another way of saying "yes I admit that a lot of what we do is ludicrous but .... you have to accept it anyway!!"
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: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:23/01/2009 12:09 PMCopy HTML

Hi, Buck.

Hi all I like to visit this site now and again to see what is going on for the Ex revivalist. I think we probably all do. I find that I personally derive considerable satisfaction coming here to learn of an ever increasing number of Revivalists who are waking up from their previous religious stupor, to discover the grace of God first-hand.

I read with interest the articles that are written on here and wonder if everyone is still confused and searching for the way to [be] at one with God? Sure. But if you think there is confusion here, then perhaps you should really visit your average Revivalist assembly? The situation is far worse there.

it seems that no one has an opinion that everyone agrees with. Perhaps, but at least here people are encouraged to actually think through the issues for themselves.

I would also Like to ask what came first unhappiness with the oversight or issues reagrding salvation? That's easy. For me it was definitely the latter. I'd never placed a great deal of faith in the clearly flawed group of men who go by the quite inappropriate title of 'Oversight'.

Blessings,

Ian

email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:27/01/2009 3:41 AMCopy HTML


Reply to Pastor Buck (21/01/2009 20:52:14)

Hi all I like to visit this site now and again to see what is going on for the Ex revivalist.

Welcome! I am glad that you take an interest in whats happening with us, hope you find that indeed we are doing well!



I read with interest the articles that are written on here and wonder if everyone is still confused and searching for the way to at one with God?

Personally for me, there was while I was in the fellowship I was always confused. As soon as I started to let go of all the Revival ideas, what the Pastor and Everyone says and all  I found the way to be at one with God.



it seems that no one has an opinion that everyone agrees with.

Lets read what Romans 14 says:

1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone Else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written:
   " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord,
   'every knee will bow before me;
      every tongue will confess to God.' "12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

 19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

 22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.


I would also Like to ask what came first unhappiness with the oversight or issues regarding salvation?
Mainly issues regarding salvation. But there's so many other things I don't even know where to begin.

Peace my friend.


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:confusion

Date Posted:27/01/2009 6:12 AMCopy HTML

Escaped: The yellow font was only used by WC for pastor whats-his-name's comments - so you can always go back and read it.

Westcoast:  Well said indeed! Romans 14 is a great chapter and I think verse 13 sums it up well -

"
Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another"

God bless, 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.
Pastor Buck Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Lurker
  • Score:170
  • Posts:7
  • From:Belize
  • Register:09/04/2007 8:55 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:22/12/2009 5:53 AMCopy HTML

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.

Nice to say but when it come to a revivalist lets shoot him down in flames and tell him how wrong he is.

Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:22/12/2009 7:08 AMCopy HTML

Hi Buck

For myself I'm quite happy to apply Ro 14 to RF'rs, since its referring to cultural issues such as not being upset that RF tradition is to not raise hands during singing.

When it comes to the RF "salvation message", however, Ga 1:6-9 is applicable.
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #9
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:07/12/2010 2:52 AMCopy HTML

 I received this the other day in my email and hope that no one ever believe this b.s.
The anti-semites must be stopped before they ruin it for everyone
God help us all
So good Christians make sure you report this as spam in your in box when you receive it.
Good Bless you all

IRELAND: Does 'Protocol 20' sound familiar?

.http://kevboyle.blogspot.com/2010/11/ireland-does-protocol-20-sound-familiar.html

How much coincidence can intelligence reasonably bear?

Read below and ask yourself......Is it not clear that Ireland's 'venal ministers' (verse 33) have sacrificed their country on an altar of destruction?

Is it not also clear that this is the fate intended for all nations in order to bring us under the absolute control of some single authority?

You can guess the nature of that 'authority' for yourself.

Here are some extracts from just one chapter of 'the Protocols of Zion'.

Protocols of Zion, Chapter 20

27. .......Thanks to such methods, allowed by the carelessness of the GOY States, their treasuries are empty. The period of loans supervenes, and that has swallowed up remainders and brought all the GOY States to bankruptcy.

28. You understand perfectly that economic arrangements of this kind, which have been suggested to the GOYIM by us, can never be undetaken by ourselves (i.e. we will always lend, never borrow).

29. Every kind of loan proves infirmity in the State and a want of understanding of the rights of the State. Loans hang like a sword of Damocles over the heads of rulers, who, instead of taking from their subjects by a temporary tax, come begging with outstretched palm to our bankers. Foreign loans are leeches which there is no possibility of removing from the body of the State until they fall off of themselves or the State flings them off. But the GOY States do not tear them off; they go on in persisting in putting more on to themselves so that they must inevitably perish, drained by voluntary blood-letting.

TYRANNY OF USURY

30. What also indeed is, in substance, a loan, especially a foreign loan? A loan is -an issue of government bills of exchange containing a percentage obligation commensurate to the sum of the loan capital. If the loan bears a charge of 5 per cent, then in twenty years the State vainly pays away in interest a sum equal to the loan borrowed, in forty years it is paying a double sum, in sixty - treble, and all the while the debt remains an unpaid debt.

31. From this calculation it is obvious that with any form of taxation per head the State is baling out the last coppers of the poor taxpayers in order to settle accounts with wealthy foreigners, from whom it has borrowed money instead of collecting these coppers for its own needs without the additional interest.

32. So long as loans were internal the GOYIM only shuffled their money from the pockets of the poor to those of the rich, but when we bought up the necessary persons in order to transfer loans into the external sphere, all the wealth of States flowed into our cash-boxes and all the GOYIM began to pay us the tribute of subjects (i.e. their taxes are paid to us who are, therefore, now their real government).

33. If the superficiality of GOY kings on their thrones in regard to State affairs and the venality of ministers or the want of understanding of financial matters on the part of other ruling persons have made their countries debtors to our treasuries to amounts quite impossible to pay it has not been accomplished without, on our part, heavy expenditure of trouble and money.........

....36. How clear is the undeveloped power of thought of the purely brute brains of the GOYIM, as expressed in the fact that they have been borrowing from us with payment of interest without ever thinking that all the same these very moneys plus an addition for payment of interest must be got by them from their own State pockets in order to settle up with us. What could have been simpler than to take the money they wanted from their own people?

37. But it is a proof of the genius of our chosen mind that we have contrived to present the matter of loans to them in such a light that they have even seen in them an advantage for themselves.

38. Our accounts, which we shall present when the time comes, in the light of centuries of experience gained by experiments made by us on the GOY States, will be distinguished by clearness and definiteness and will show at a glance to all men the advantage of our innovations. They will put an end to those abuses to which we owe our mastery over the GOYIM, but which cannot be allowed in our kingdom. (This means that this parasitical system will come to an end when the globalist international bankers [or whoever this gang of degenerates actually are] achieve their 'kingdom'. Read later 'Protocols' for more about this).......

What kind of genius could write such a document......and before 1900?

The writer explains, with casual mastery, mechanisms and outcomes of the processes that direct national and international finance.

He forsees the kind of collapses with which we are now familiar throughout 20th and 21st century history.

He also knows how politicians will behave in these crises. Presumably, understanding that they would never have arrived in their positions of responsibility had they not first proved their venal corruptibility to the people that matter.

We are all falling into a great hole that these people have dug for us.
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #10
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:07/12/2010 9:18 PMCopy HTML

Oh, well Guest. Hopefully the Martians from Outer Space will come and take us all away to Never Never Land before the hole gets too big.



'Believe in the true Jesus and all ridiculous ideas will seem as unnecessary and disappear.'
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #11
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:11/12/2010 11:09 PMCopy HTML

Do not confuse corrupt oversight, of whom I know several, with incorrect doctrine.

Many people actually leave RF and find doctrinally correct fellowship elsewhere. This is a relatively new phenomenon. People who left used to go into compromised doctrine, or none at all, drawing the illogical conclusion that if one man, and maybe his cronies, were rotten and corrupt, then the Lord was not real. There is no correlation between the two. There were good and bad Christians in the New Testament, and just look at the good and bad priests, or prophets, or even kings, in the Old Testament. None of their wrongdoings was an excuse to fall into unbelief.

I still believe things which I have reason to think that my former pastor does not. Someone even wonders if that particular sad little man even believes in God, as there is little evidence that he does. But that does not diminish God in any way, only that one pathetic imitation of a pastor.

The likes of ASW (OK, not RF, nor ever, but an example we know) knowingly misuse sound doctrine (with, in his case some improper embellishments) to control the flock and wield power. Good pastors, of whom there are many, simply get on with preaching the gospel. Their flocks remain, and indeed grow and flourish.

Don't drop your bundle if your pastor turns out to be rotten. Try asking the Lord to lead you to a place of truth and righteousness.
Talmid Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #12
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5980
  • Posts:293
  • From:Australia
  • Register:21/04/2008 10:04 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:12/12/2010 12:45 AMCopy HTML

 "Do not confuse corrupt oversight ... with incorrect doctrine."

I certainly agree with you there. The "no tongues => no Holy Spirit => no salvation" message is truly "from the pit". It seems to lead to members not even being taught who the biblical Jesus is, and certainly innoculates them against the biblical godspell of salvation by grace through faith.
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #13
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:12/12/2010 4:22 AMCopy HTML

Sardius,

Do not confuse corrupt oversight, of whom I know several, with incorrect doctrine. Don't worry yourself, petal; I think most of us can clearly differentiate between these two forms of idiocy ('personalised' versus 'canonised').

Many people actually leave RF and find doctrinally correct fellowship elsewhere. 'Yes'. They certainly do. Often in Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Lutheran churches, for example. In point of fact doctrinally correct fellowships are available all over the place. It's just the case that you won't encounter them where you like to 'hang out', in quirky little Revivalist sects. This is a relatively new phenomenon. People who left used to go into compromised doctrine, or none at all, drawing the illogical conclusion that if one man, and maybe his cronies, were rotten and corrupt, then the Lord was not real. 'Yes', and such unbelief in spite of the 'fact' that you fellows have 'the truth with proof', eh? There is no correlation between the two. There were good and bad Christians in the New Testament, and just look at the good and bad priests, or prophets, or even kings, in the Old Testament. None of their wrongdoings was an excuse to fall into unbelief. The only 'unbelief' and 'compromised doctrine' that Revivalists should worry themselves with is the rubbish that they uncritically imbibe week in, week out in the RCI, the RF, the CAI and the GRC. It's nonsense of this sort that prevents you fellows from ever experiencing the grace of God in Christ which leads to life everlasting. And that is just plain sad.

The likes of ASW (OK, not RF, nor ever, but an example we know) knowingly misuse sound doctrine (with, in his case some improper embellishments) to control the flock and wield power. Good pastors, of whom there are many, simply get on with preaching the gospel. Their flocks remain, and indeed grow and flourish. 'Sound doctrine', huh? Which bit? Anyway, perhaps you should visit a university library and review the ABS census data on the decline of the various Revivalist sects over the past fifteen odd years? Clearly we understand what's implied by the words 'growth' and 'flourishing' a little differently, you and I.

Don't drop your bundle if your pastor turns out to be rotten. Try asking the Lord to lead you to a place of truth and righteousness. That's actually very good advice. I'm personally acquainted with hundreds of former Revivalists who did precisely as you've suggested, to then find themselves saved by God's grace in Christian churches. Penny for your thoughts! (anything more would be a waste of good money).

Goose.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #14
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:12/12/2010 9:28 AMCopy HTML

So how can, for example, Anglican and Baptist cults both be doctrinally correcty simultaneously? It was those very conflicts which set me searching for the truth in 1976.

As for the Beast of Rome, how do you reconcile confessing your sins to a priest, who you call father, with any semblance of Christianity?
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #15
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:12/12/2010 9:30 AMCopy HTML

Oh, and by the way, I challenge you to justify your statement "I'm personally acquainted with hundreds of former Revivalists..." Can you name 100? 50? 10? No, I thought not. Liar.....
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #16
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:12/12/2010 11:14 AMCopy HTML

Alan,

So how can, for example, Anglican and Baptist cults both be doctrinally correcty simultaneously? It was those very conflicts which set me searching for the truth in 1976.  Quite simply, actually. Both denominations (your own is much closer to what's implied by the term 'cult', than are they) preach the biblical Christ crucified. Both denominations preach that salvation results from God's grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. Yours, of course, doesn't. As for the Beast of Rome, how do you reconcile confessing your sins to a priest, who you call father, with any semblance of Christianity? Well, (1) the Roman Catholic Church isn't the 'beast of Rome'. (2) I don't confess my sins to a priest, even though doing so is perfectly acceptable and is in perfect accord with the biblical direction outlined in James 5:16, 'confessing one's sins, each to the other'. (3) Did you ever refer to your dad, as your 'father'? Matthew 23:9 applies just as well to this circumstance ... unless what is implied is something altogether different, which, of course, it is.

Oh, and by the way, I challenge you to justify your statement "I'm personally acquainted with hundreds of former Revivalists..." Can you name 100? 50? 10? No, I thought not. Liar.....  'Liar'? Nope. I can name quite a few hundred, actually. Very easily. Browsing my email address book just now has identified over 400 current and former Revivalists who I've corresponded with over the past 10 years; men and women who've approached me for advice, help and answers.

It is duly noted that the pompous major once again failed completely to answer the point. There is in fact no evidence of any association between RCI and ASW in the last 20 years, and he knows it. If you'd been keeping up, then you would know that I hadn't claimed that such was the case. In fact, that it wasn't even the point. But you hadn't kept up, so ...

When Jesus Christ walked this earth, the theologians of the day were the scribes, pharisees, saducees etc. Did Jesus Christ ever have a good word for any of them? Check the scriptures..... Thank you, but I had (I know them much better than you, you see). Paul was a theologian. John was a theologian. Peter was  theologian. In fact, Jesus was the theologian par excellence. As an exercise in learning, why don't you pull out a dictionary and look up the term 'theologian'? 'Theologian', as with the word 'theology' itself, is both inclusive and neutral. Consequently, if you speculate on what Scripture teaches about God, Christ or the Spirit, which you do, then you too are a 'theologian'. The trick is whether one is a good theologian, or a bad one. Care to guess what sort I think you and your lot are?

Theology is a pseudo-science which distracts seriously from the truth, and has no relevance to saving souls. And so says the man who knows nothing about theology or the saving of souls.

What was ridiculous about the web site? I know it became ridiculous later, when a usurper took over, with numerous bugs, broken links and copyright violations, but in my day it worked correctly. The content of your website was ridiculous. So too were your childish threats back in the late '90s to 'spam' those who dared to investigate and discredit your 'church'. Remember?

Goose.

Ian
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #17
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:12/12/2010 11:20 AMCopy HTML

Alan,

So how can, for example, Anglican and Baptist cults both be doctrinally correcty simultaneously? It was those very conflicts which set me searching for the truth in 1976.  Quite simply, actually. Both denominations (your own is much closer to what's implied by the term 'cult', than are they) preach the biblical Christ crucified. Both denominations preach that salvation results from God's grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. Yours, of course, doesn't. As for the Beast of Rome, how do you reconcile confessing your sins to a priest, who you call father, with any semblance of Christianity? (1) The Roman Catholic Church isn't the 'beast of Rome'. (2) I don't confess my sins to a priest, even though doing so is perfectly acceptable and is in perfect accord with the biblical direction outlined in James 5:16: 'confessing one's sins, each to the other'. (3) Did you at any point ever refer to your dad as your 'father'? If so, then how do you reconcile Matthew 23:9 to your own circumstance? Perhaps it's more the case that what that passage implies is something altogether different to what you think it does? Hint, hint.

Oh, and by the way, I challenge you to justify your statement "I'm personally acquainted with hundreds of former Revivalists..." Can you name 100? 50? 10? No, I thought not. Liar.....  'Liar'? Nope. I can name quite a few hundred, actually. Very easily. Browsing my email address book just now has identified over 400 current and former Revivalists who I've corresponded with over the past 10 years; men and women who've approached me for advice, help and answers. There's probably a score or more who'd put their hands up here, were you to 'pop' the question, 'did Ian help any of you when you were Revivalists'. Such a quiz isn't even necessary; you can go through threads from each and every Revivalist sub-sect here and read such 'testimony' for yourself.

It is duly noted that the pompous major once again failed completely to answer the point. There is in fact no evidence of any association between RCI and ASW in the last 20 years, and he knows it. If you'd been keeping up with the contours of the discussion, then you'd know that I hadn't claimed that such was the case. In fact, that it wasn't even the point. But you hadn't kept up, so ...

When Jesus Christ walked this earth, the theologians of the day were the scribes, pharisees, saducees etc. Did Jesus Christ ever have a good word for any of them? Check the scriptures..... Thank you, but I had (I know the Scriptures much better than you, you see). Paul was a theologian. John was a theologian. Peter was  theologian. In fact, Jesus was the theologian par excellence. So, as an exercise in learning and edification, why don't you pull out a dictionary and look up the term 'theologian'? As you will soon discover 'theologian', as with the root word 'theology', is inclusive and neutral. Consequently, anyone who speculates on what Scripture teaches about God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit, is a 'theologian', yourself included. The trick is whether one is a good theologian, or a bad one. Would you care to guess just what sort of theologians I think you and your lot are?

Theology is a pseudo-science which distracts seriously from the truth, and has no relevance to saving souls. And so says the man who knows nothing about either theology or the saving of souls.

What was ridiculous about the web site? I know it became ridiculous later, when a usurper took over, with numerous bugs, broken links and copyright violations, but in my day it worked correctly. It was the content of your website that was ridiculous. So too were your childish threats back in the late '90s to 'spam' those who dared to investigate and discredit your 'church'. Move forwards a decade and I find you still struggling to provide a rational defence from Scripture for your silly Revivalist beliefs.

Goose.

Ian

P.S. Better to log on than not.
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
MothandRust Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #18
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:41380
  • Posts:1877
  • From:Australia
  • Register:27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:12/12/2010 12:18 PMCopy HTML

Oh, and by the way, I challenge you to justify your statement "I'm personally acquainted with hundreds of former Revivalists..." Can you name 100? 50? 10? No, I thought not. Liar.....

Yeah... I'm sure they'd all appreciate their names listed here. Think about it. You're not very bright are you? No? No answer? How about now? No? Now?

Now?





How about now?




now?










... and now?

No?

I thought not. Not very bright...
[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
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #19
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:12/12/2010 4:41 PMCopy HTML

Get your facts right. I did not threaten to spam anyone. I only ran the web site for a year. Just where did you get that ridiculous story?
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #20
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:15/12/2010 2:31 AMCopy HTML

Oh, Godddddd!

Catholics confess sins to God and the priest acts as intermediary. It's not rocket science.
Also, 'Confession' is not just about confessing sins. It's also a time to seek advice about problems from, yes, the Priest.

Also - you cannot equate the Anglican and Baptist Churches, which have existed for hundreds of years, with a warped cult like RCI/CAI which exists solely to corrupt God's word and is a place where Satan has his throne.

The Anglican Church is the established church of the entire English nation! And you call it a 'cult'????

The Baptist Church arose out of very specific political and social circumstances in the 16th century and you call it a 'cult'???

In contrast, RCI/CAI etc. are nothing. They are modern corruptions of God's truth and are there to feed those who don't want to hear the truth - read Timothy and Peter, although I expect you'll already have your own warped interpretation of these letters at the ready.  RCI/CAI are there to lead people away from the truth and in to darkness.

You'll never learn will you?


Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #21
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:15/12/2010 11:03 AMCopy HTML

As for the Beast of Rome, how do you reconcile confessing your sins to a priest, WHO YOU CALL FATHER with any semblance of Christianity?

 

Revivalist teaching of the anti-Christ points to the erroneous proof-texting of Holy Scripture. Again here is something of a misnomer. Revivalists single out Matt.23:9 and because Catholic Priests have the title of ‘Father’ they say it is referring to them.

The word Father is used in the New Testament to mean a teacher of spiritual things, by whose means the soul of man is born again into the likeness of Christ. (Catholic Encyclopedia).

 

Matthew 23 reads: Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:  “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.  So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.  They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.  “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;  they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;  they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

 

The Pharisees, according to Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible, were a lay (not priestly) association who were thought to be expert in the laws; they were in a sociological sense, “retainers” who brokered power between the aristocracy and the masses; they promoted a special living tradition in addition to the laws; they were very interested in issues of ritual purity and tithing;…….

 

If one was to “mirror” any of these scriptures, then perhaps one needs consider which group today does represent the Pharisees?

 

What I am trying to point out here, that when scripture is read in its context and a little knowledge concerning facts of genre, Revivalist ignorance really is exposed.

Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #22
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:02/01/2011 1:20 AMCopy HTML

The Revival Fellowship still preaching this rot; “The Pope being the man of sin” http://www.trf.org.au/Bible_Numerics_and_the_number_6.asp

 

The number 666

The triple crown placed upon the head of the Pope at his coronation bears the following inscription : VICARIUS FILII DEI which translates as VICAR OF THE SON OF GOD. The numerical gematria of this title (in Roman numerals) is as follows:

  V =   5    F =   -    D = 500
  I =   1    I =   1    E =   -
  C = 100    L =  50    I =   1
  A =   -    I =   1 
  R =   -    I =   1
  I =   1
  U =   5 
  S =   -
  

      112    +    53    +   501   =  666
I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #23
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:02/01/2011 2:37 AMCopy HTML

Note the writer has added the letter ‘U’ in Vicarius to make up the numerical gematria of 666.

 

I was unaware that there was also another Roman numeral equating to number 5

 

My calculation for the numerical gematria comes to 661

Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #24
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:02/01/2011 2:39 AMCopy HTML


V =   5    F =   -    D = 500  I =   1    I =   1    E =   -  C = 100    L =  50    I =   1  A =   -    I =   1   R =   -    I =   1  I =   1  U =   5   S =   - 


      112    +    53    +   501   =  666


Note the writer has added the letter ‘U’ in Vicarius to make up the numerical gematria of 666.

 

I was unaware that there was also another Roman numeral equating to number 5

 

My calculation for the numerical gematria comes to 661

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Didaktikon Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #25
  • Rank:Forum Oracle
  • Score:62130
  • Posts:2958
  • From:Australia
  • Register:29/08/2007 7:54 AM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:02/01/2011 3:19 AMCopy HTML

Ralph,

The Latin alphabet doesn't have a letter 'u'. 'V' functions for both letters, just as 'i' also functioned for 'j'. You're off running down a dead-end path with this one.

Blessings,

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #26
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:02/01/2011 3:48 AMCopy HTML

They score some brownie points on that one then, Hey?

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
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:confusion

Date Posted:02/01/2011 4:03 AMCopy HTML

Ralph,

They score some brownie points on that one then, Hey? Only if, (1) you're stupid; and, (2) have no idea concerning the facts behind the matter. You can make just about any name/title add up to '666' or '777' or '888' if you try hard enough. As there was no such thing as a 'pope' when John penned his Apocalypse, clearly historical context hasn't been considered. And given that a better translation of the passage is, "the number of man" rather than "the number of a man" (the clause is anarthrous, after all), clearly linguistic context hasn't been considered. I could also target literary context, social context and religious context if I could be bothered. But, to be brutally honest, I can't be at this point.

Ian
email: didaktikon@gmail.com
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #28
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:02/01/2011 8:25 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Didaktikon
Ralph,

They score some brownie points on that one then, Hey? Only if, (1) you're stupid; and, (2) have no idea concerning the facts behind the matter. You can make just about any name/title add up to '666' or '777' or '888' if you try hard enough. As there was no such thing as a 'pope' when John penned his Apocalypse, clearly historical context hasn't been considered. And given that a better translation of the passage is, "the number of man" rather than "the number of a man" (the clause is anarthrous, after all), clearly linguistic context hasn't been considered. I could also target literary context, social context and religious context if I could be bothered. But, to be brutally honest, I can't be at this point.

Ian

FWW, I used the phrase in light of thinking I had found an obvious error but it turned out I was the one that's wrong.

One could almost say all clauses the Revs preach are 'anarthrous'

Does get monotonous I know.
I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #29
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:02/01/2011 9:15 AMCopy HTML

You can make just about any name/title add up to '666' or '777' or '888' if you try hard enough.

 

That’s easy, here are some examples

 

MARIA QUEEN OF HEAVEN< 18 letters< 3x6 or 6 6 6

 

HIS HOLINESS THE POPE< 18 letters<3x6< or 6 6 6

 

SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS< 18 letters<3x6< or 6 6 6 (Title of Jesus also)

 

VICAR OF JESUS CHRIST< 18 letters<3x6< or 6 6 6

 

PATRIARCH OF THE WEST< 18 letters<3x6< or 6 6 6

 

ANNUARIO  PONTIFICIO< 18 letters<3x6< or 6 6 6

 

THE GREATEST PONTIFF (Pontifex Maximus) < 18 letters<3x6< or 6 6 6

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
prezy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #30
  • Rank:Poster Venti II
  • Score:7160
  • Posts:343
  • From:Scotland
  • Register:06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:02/01/2011 9:15 PMCopy HTML

I =1
V=5
X=10
L=50
C=100
D=500

Total of these is 666. I believe M (1000) was added later.
Doesnt make the Roman Catholic Church the bride of Satan though.
There are plenty of other things could be read into this, especially if you are a Longfeild or a Hollins. Hollins even explained how decimal measurements were evil! If we avoid those Satanic Roman numerals and decimal numbering systems and look for a Salvation message in the dimensions of  an Egyptian pyramid of all things and make up our own funny language we will be saved the Bible way . Think I will stick with what my Bible says, and put my trust in our Lord Jesus Christ.
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
Uncoolman Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #31
  • Rank:Poster Venti III
  • Score:10080
  • Posts:324
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:03/01/2011 12:53 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Biblianut

You can make just about any name/title add up to '666' or '777' or '888' if you try hard enough.<!--?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /-->

 

That’s easy, here are some examples

 

MARIA QUEEN OF HEAVEN< 18 letters< 3x6 or 6 6 6

 

HIS HOLINESS THE POPE< 18 letters<3x6< or 6 6 6

 

SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS< 18 letters<3x6< or 6 6 6 (Title of Jesus also)

 

VICAR OF JESUS CHRIST< 18 letters<3x6< or 6 6 6

 

PATRIARCH OF THE WEST< 18 letters<3x6< or 6 6 6

 

ANNUARIO  PONTIFICIO< 18 letters<3x6< or 6 6 6

 

THE GREATEST PONTIFF (Pontifex Maximus) < 18 letters<3x6< or 6 6 6

JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD< 18 letters< 3x6 or 666 
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #32
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:confusion

Date Posted:03/01/2011 1:53 AMCopy HTML

To Guest,

 

Note verse three 'Sun of Righteousness' also a title of Jesus.

 

The whole thing just backs up what Ian stated; "You can make just about any name/title add up to '666' or '777' or '888' if you try hard enough.”

 

It’s all cracked doctrine  the way Revival present it..

 

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.