Good morning, all.

The following is young Tony's attempt at a response to my comments. In the interest of doing what he seems incapable of doing, that is, carrying a conversation, I thought I'd offer a breezy rejoinder.

THE FOLLOWING WAS RECENTLY POSTED ON UNCOOLMAN'S ANTI-REVIVAL FORUM. AS I HAVE FOR SOMETIME BEEN UNABLE TO POST THERE I THOUGHT I WOULD RESPOND POINT BY POINT HERE: MY COMMENTS WILL BE IN RED FONT FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY.

IAN SAID:  'Truth is surely stranger than fiction', if I may paraphrase Samuel Clemens.

During the fourteen odd years that I've been active with on-line counter-Revivalist forums, I've attracted my fair share of the loopy, the kooky, the loony and the goonie end of the spectrum. However, few have presented as being quite so unbalanced as has one Mr Tony Barton, the self-appointed 'pastor' of a very small RF breakaway sect based in the Illawarra.

Note here that I am labelled as "unbalance" this is due to my adherence to the Revivalist salvation doctrine and my proclivity for several logins. The several logins was born of uncoolman continually banning me and inhibiting cohesive responses to Ian's fragile, lukewarm doctrine and even more fragile ego. Your continued adherence to Revivalist doctrine, despite it being conclusively proved unbiblical, doesn't make you 'unbalanced', Tony, simply stupid. Similarly, your proclivity for adopting multiple identities doesn't necessarily define you as 'unbalanced' either, but it does prove you deceptive. However, the reason that I described you as being unbalanced was spelled out in simple English in the subsequent paragraph; should I really be surprised that you missed it?:

I state this noting that Tony is a man who has single handedly created a cottage industry of online 'I Hate Ian Thomason' Aimoo forums; I think he had seven of them running at last count. Of course, they're all as lifeless as a dodo or a Revivalist on Judgment Day, but one surely must credit his passion!

I can't say that I hate anyone much less someone I do not even know. My purpose is and has always been to expose the erroneous teaching of false teachers. I will demur by pointing out that ignorance has not prevented you from 'hating' before. Consider, your ignorance of the Word of God hasn't stopped you from hating orthodox, biblical teaching. And ignorance of your ignorance certainly hasn't prevented you from hating correction from Scripture either.

But it will probably do for me to point out what seems patently obvious to most here: that you're holding onto the wrong end of the stick vis your comments about 'erroneous teaching' and 'false teachers'.

For the uninitiated, young master Barton spent a few years here as well, posting his over-long, multi-coloured, cut-and-pasted theories; ...

Ian says this supposing that I have copied others work (i think?).....My doctrines are for the most part copy pasted straight from scripture anyway :) So you 'think' before you write?

... chopping and changing between his many and varied aliases as regularly as most feel inclined to change their underwear.

yup I still don't see what this has to do with rights and wrongs of the content of the debates. It speaks volumes about not only your honesty, but also to your general credibility. However, I think it an established matter that I've adequately demonstrated the paucity of facts in your various posted fictions.

Two examples of Tony's capacity for theological discussion/debate can be accessed here: http://forum1.aimoo.com/revival/Didaktikon-debunks-Revivalist-Theology/Tongues-The-Rest-and-Isaiah-28-1-703525.html and here: http://forum1.aimoo.com/revival/Didaktikon-debunks-Revivalist-Theology/For-Luke-an-opportunity-1-1557162.html

The above represents about 1% of my posts that have been altered in any case. Ian is a deceiver of the highest order. I used to think he was simply deluded but experience has proven that he is a wannabe who craves the adulation of his little flock of groupies on uncoolman's forum. Apparently It means everything to him. First, the other '99%' of your posts constitutes equally uninformed, and downright embarrassing-to-read, drivel. But what of your latest claim, that said posts were 'altered'? Anyone who cares to review them will discover that they remain precisely as you penned them: there are no caveats advising that the content has been edited, i.e. along the lines of the automatically generated (Message edited by .... On ../../2012 12:21 PM) statement. Finally, as my Christian ministry extends well beyond this simple forum, and as people come here to both learn from, and challenge, my views, I'm left thinking that it isn't me who is the 'wannabe' ;)

Anyway, a member of this forum emailed to let me know that Mr Barton has adopted yet another persona in the last few days, that of 'ExposingIanThomason', complete with an avatar comprising a photograph of me that appeared in a regional Australian newspaper a couple of years ago. As it took some serious searching from him to find that particular happy snap, to 'passionate' I reckon we should also add 'driven'!

No not really Ian, Just Google "Major Ian Thomason" and bob's your uncle there it is :) So it is. But your actions still begs the questions: (1) why were you trawling the world wide web looking for information on 'Major Ian Thomason' in the first place? (2) What on earth possessed you to adopt yet another online identity for use at your forums? And, (3) having done so, why would you employ my image as your avatar? The answers to these three questions seem obvious enough: you continue to harbor an altogether unhealthy f-i-x-a-t-i-o-n with me.

BTW I do not spend much time on you at all Ian. As much as you may like to think I do. Happy to disappoint ;) The only thing that disappoints, Tony, is your continued failure to acknowledge the truth when it's presented to you. Your carryings-on here and at your many bizzarre forums, demonstrates that I remain the very 'apple of your eye'.

Now here's the thing: to claim the nom-de-guerre in the way he has implies that Tony has definitively identified grievous error in my various published theological positions. Of course, our friend has long maintained such a boast, but for whatever reason he seems wholly unable to validate or establish it :)

If you remember Ian when I tried to publish said works however you threatened legal action (which I was not at all interested in having to defend and in turn deleted them from the forum (citing copyright breaches and all that) short memory hmmm! 'No', my memory is fine. However, your own can be questioned given that you've failed to recall the reason that I provided to you. Which was that I had no intention of allowing you to create an entire forum based on my scholarship. I knew that you lacked the intellectual capacity to provide informed critique of my essays, a fact which you've conclusively demonstrated time and again over the past five years.

I suppose I should feel honoured that Tony Barton has made it his life's work to celebrate me; that he would willingly devote hours and hours of his precious time ruminating about me.

As I said five minutes before bed to put me to sleep, hardly an effort...again happy to disappoint. Noone is particularly disappointed, methinks.

Still I'm left thinking that I should probably heed the rather creepy impression that his picture, a link to which is provided below, provokes.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OvrV5dvZOe0/TQGm1anmMSI/AAAAAAAAADI/2IdA_tNqvq0/S220-h/29-11-2010%2B2-22-09%2BPM.png

I pondered the question: does his photograph present this man as an inspirational, über-informed, spiritually-enlightened leader of men? I'll leave it up to y'all to judge.

As for me? Well, I reckon I just might be inclined to follow the chap for a bit. But then only out of idle curiosity and a sense of adventure! ;)

OKaaaaayyyyy You are a weird little man aren't you Ian. Weird? Would that be weird as in: creating six or seven person-focussed, personality-based and driven, separate hate forums? Weird as in: the creating of thirteen or fourteen separate identities in order to have online conversations with myself both here and elsewhere? Weird as in: continuing to propagate a range of ridiculous and indefensible beliefs, including 'British-Israel'? Or had you something altogether different in mind?

In closing, I've seen bowling shoes that are 'sharper' than you, Tony. Consequently, I despair that a handful of people would willingly allow you to lead, spiritually guide and teach them. Of all people you are probably the least suited, gifted or equipped for the role of pastor.

Goose.

Ian

Good evening, all.

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.'" John 11:25

Every so often someone writes a post at this forum that makes you stop and think, " ... surely s/he didn't really mean to say that?!" For several years Mr Tony Barton, the self-professed and self-appointed 'pastor' of a small RF breakaway sect in the Illawarra, has provided considerable entertainment for me by engaging in these 'surely not' moments. His posts have given me ample opportunities to explore biblical truths in sharper, and more focused ways, hopefully to the benefit of Revivalists seeking information or answers to questions they may yet have.

During a discussion that took place on the ChatBox last night, Tony introduced his belief that Jesus' ascended body is incorporeal; that it differs from his 'resurrection body'. He based his position on a clear misunderstanding of what was intended by the comment about Jesus' glorification in John 7:38; and how such related to Jesus breathing the Spirit into his disciples post his resurrection as recorded in John 20. I had stated, "Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but John 7 comes BEFORE John 20. And in John 20, Jesus WAS glorified (note the events took place AFTER his resurrection)". Tony responded, "Yes I did notice and I also noted here that Jesus was in his physical form still bearing the marks of the crucifixion when he breathed on them in stark contrast to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost that they (The Apostles) received subsequent to Jesus being seated “ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE THRONE OF THE MAJESTY” So I ask the question: How is that you say that Jesus had been Glorified in John 20 when he was still in Physical form?"

I should probably begin by pointing out that Mr Barton has obviously confused 'glorification' (the taking of a resurrection body), with 'exaltation' (the seating of Christ at the right hand of the Father). Further, I'm convinced that he has failed to come to grips with what Scripture properly presents about the issue.

So what does the Bible teach?

In the Garden God breathed life into Adam and he became, in the words of Genesis 2:7, " ... a living soul." The Hebrew: לְ·נֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה indicates a spiritual/physical living, with true life being conceived of as a psychosomatic reality: a unity comprising body and soul/spirit. We soon learn that Adam was forbidden by God to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He was told, "... in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die" (2:17). The Hebrew of this text: אֲכָלְ·ךָ֥ מִמֶּ֖·נּוּ מ֥וֹת תָּמֽוּת, with the imperfect form of the verb 'you shall die' being intensified by the infinitive absolute of the same verb (i.e. 'dying'), quite literally means, " ... in dying you shall die." This grammatical construction points to the fact that the spiritual death that occurred immediately the couple ate, would inevitably lead to their physical deaths also. Our passage teaches that both life and death are psychosomatic realities. One can't be alive without both body and soul/spirit on the one hand, and that death involves both body and soul/spirit on the other.

In the Book of Job we encounter a brief, yet pregnant statement of faith. When considering what he believed would be his soon demise, Job announced, " ... And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God!" (Job 19:26). Job understood that he would eventually die physically, and yet he longed for the resurrection of his body to life as a psychosomatic reality. In his flesh, with his eyes, he would see his Redeemer God!

Naturally the New Testament speaks more to this issue than does the Old Testament. As I have no wish to make an unecessarily lenghty post, I will limit myself to just two key passages.

We all recall that Scripture teaches Jesus suffered physical death, and that he was physically resurrected (the Greek word ἀνάστασις, translated throughout the New Testament as 'resurrection', properly means 'a raising up from death to life'). On the third day our Saviour presented himself alive to his disciples, allaying their fears that he was a disembodied spirit: "Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord ... Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you.' Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe" (John 20:19, 20, 26, 27). Jesus demonstrated to his followers that he was resurrected by presenting to them his resurrection body. It was corporeal, it was something they could see; he allowed himself to be handled (see Luke 24:39, 40) and he ate food with them (see vv 42 and 43).

After spending a period of time with his chosen apostles, teaching them, Jesus physically ascended to return to his Father. Scripture notes, "'But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.' And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.'" (Acts 1:8-11)

It seems clear that Christ's resurrection must be understood as being both physical and visible in nature. Jesus' interaction with his disciples over 40-odd days must also be understood as being similarly physical and visible. And finally, according to Luke, the Lord's ascension was both physical and visible. Whilst Scripture presents that Jesus Christ suffered a human death, it also teaches that he possessed a superhuman, immortal, albeit still physical body at his resurrection. And, of course, the Bible expressly informs us that Jesus' Second Coming will be physical and visible.

Tony Barton's position concerning Christ's current form parts company with what Scripture actually states. Barton has assumed that Jesus' physical body must have 'dissolved' as he ascended to God's presence, but he does so without Scriptural warrant. The Old Testament presented true life as a psychosomatic reality: a unity comprising both body and soul/spirit. Jesus demonstrated resurrection life as a psychosomatic reality: a unity comprising both body and soul/spirit. And we believers long for our own resurrections to life lived as a psychosomatic reality: a unity comprising both body and soul/spirit.

In the words of a much beloved hymn, "Though my body worms destroy, yet shall my flesh see God".

Blessings,

Ian

Good evening, 'pastor' Barton.

Given that noone apparently visits your vanity forum, I thought it best to move the conversation here, to a place where conversation is not only supported but allowed :)

It is sometimes quite hilarious to see that this small, insignificant group of half a dozen backslidden Christians congregate together on UNCOOLMAN'S very bitter forum to give each other verbal high fives every time one or other of them says anything that is in any way derogatory towards the Revivalist churches. I thought we, the below-named 'saved-from-the-errors-of-Revivalism-folk', were attempting to adjure you to explain and justify your beliefs through Scripture. And such must surely count as a wholly positive endeavour. Further, given that each of us is actively involved in Christian fellowship I sincerely doubt that the word 'backslidden' properly applies in any sense. And of course, given the remarkable success this forum has enjoyed in convincing people of the gross and unbiblical errors of Revivalism, I'm far from being convinced that the word 'insignificant' properly applies in any sense either.

These people are known by the names:

    Didaktikon
    Shoes
    Sin tax error
    Eric &
    Ralph

Strictly speaking 'Eric' and 'Ralph' are names; the remainder are noms-de-plume.

This behavior is known as “Parochialism” ... Parochialism means being provincial, being narrow in scope, or considering only small sections of an issue. You would accuse us of being parochial?! Five men, each of whom chooses to fellowship in different Christian denominations; each of whom maintains broad relationships with others outside of said circles, to your mind somehow constitutes parochialism?! I appreciate that you often struggle with grasping the meanings of words, but this latest charge of yours is likely to be the most ridiculous yet :) 

The term originates from the idea of a parish ([Late] Latin: parochia), one of the smaller divisions within many Christian churches. A parish can sometimes be excessively focused on the local scale (thus within a particular point of view), by having (too) little contact with the broader outside, showing meager interest for and possibly knowledge about the universal scale. You've just now described, and admirably at that, the sectarian heresy known as R-E-V-I-V-A-L-I-S-M. Well done!

As you can see these guys don’t actually address the key issues of the above posts they just make comments which in turn are supported (surprise surprise) by the next. Anyone who chooses to spend a little time browsing through the ChatBox will soon discover who has made a name for himself by avoiding the substantive issues; by attacking the man rather than the issues.

I think it is important to factor this reality into any discussion where there is one voice on one side of a discussion and a Parochial group with a pack mentality on the other. This is why in our legal system we have a jury system of UNBIASED observers. For those of you who are playing the role of the jury I this discussion I put it to you that it would be wise to wait for all of the arguments to be put forward before casting your vote. And I hope, for the "jury's" sake, that you eventually will provide answers to our questions, and then before the natural order of things results (i.e. 'ashes-to-ashes; dust-to-dust' and all that).

Also bare in mind that; like the legal system these debates are ADVERSARIAL BY DESIGN. Please do not take to heart any comments they are simply purposed to uproot the truth. As I've said one or twice to you before, Tony, you wouldn't recognise truth were I to slap you between the eyes with an open Bible ... thrice!

In closing it's clear that I credit our audience with greater sense than you do.

Goose.

Ian

Good evening, Tony.

Let's review your latest claims, shall we?

FOR THOSE ON THE SIDELINES:  The general tenor of some of the discussion on this forum may seem to be at times; quite unfriendly. For my part I do not personally know any of the individuals on this forum. Indeed they may be pretty decent (even exemplary) people. Why so much angst? You may ask. For my part I assumed it was due to you lacking in social skills.

I believe that the need for individuals to receive the indwelling Spirit of God is the principle reason for the Son of God to be sacrificed. The indwelling Spirit was prophesied in the Old Testament and reiterated in the New Testament. I also believe that individuals need to receive the indwelling Spirit of God. However, I disagree with you on what this implies; further, I disagree with your claim that such was the principle reason that Jesus died on the cross. Scripture is explicit in presenting Christ's death as necessary to achieve atonement between humanity and God; consequently, I'd recommend you undertake a little research into this centrally important theological concept. I'd also like to see you present the biblical basis for what you believe about Jesus having to die in order for the Spirit to be poured out on all.

Below are just two references:

A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put within you! and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh and I will give you an heart of flesh, and I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes and ye shall keep my judgments and do them.” EZEKIEL 36: 26-27

Indeed. And what did you make of verse 25?

“Behold the days come saith the Lord that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. Not according to the Covenant that I made with their fathers ... I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts: and will be their God and they shall be my people.” JEREMIAH 31: 31-33

Given your choice of Old Testament prooftexts, I take it that you've finally read my piece on John 3 :)

The following text is important to consider.

If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. JOHN 14:15-17

First point. What, do you think, were the commandments that Christ adjured them to keep? Second point. Can you explain for me the implication of the term another with respect to the Paraklete? Third point. The context of our passage was Jesus' promise to his closest disciples. Consequently, what makes you think the particulars of this passage were intended to be universal (especially given the thrust of 17a)?

Note in the text:

The Lord is speaking of the Spirit and how the “world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him” Further Jesus says “but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you”. Notice the distinction Jesus makes between the Spirit being “With them” and “Shall be IN you”. I wonder if you'd  actually 'noted the text', yourself? For example, what did the apostle John have to say about the Spirit being with the disciples before chapter 14? In other words, did you even bother to check the literary context before regailing us with your parochial opinions? ;)

This is the difference highlighted by the Lord himself.  The Spirit was with them but not IN THEM! That's right. THEM. What has this to say about YOU?

Now here is the point. Just as God has a plan for the deliverance of mankind from their sin. Satan also is very deliberate and strategic in his aim of attempting to destroy the work of Jesus in the Earth. It is pretty obvious if you think logically. Satan doesn’t need to stop people praying, going to church, reading their Bibles or anything like that. The focus need only be to stop people receiving the Indwelling Spirit. So salvation isn't dependent on Jesus, but the Spirit?!

SATAN’S PLAN I BELIEVE IS AS FOLLOWS:

1)      Counterfeit the church of God by providing an alternative to the true church that looks like the real thing however hinders or restricts the individual members from receiving the Holy Ghost.

2)      Because people who read the scriptures can see that the Holy Spirit is important Satan must convince people that they already have the Holy Ghost.

3)      Utilizing man’s pride to facilitate an army of natural minded teachers to promote this plan under the guise of theology.

4)      Ensure any and all church groups that preach the need to receive the Holy Ghost are ridiculed and relentlessly attacked.

That's all well-and-good, but Revivalism certainly doesn't look like the 'real thing' to me. Not if the 'real thing' is what we find in the pages of the New Testament, at any rate. Further, my reading of Christian Scripture finds Jesus Christ as the centrepoint, the Shepherd, the Cornerstone, the Comforter, etc. From this perspective the Holy Spirit obviously plays something of a lesser role. Third, if your recent performances in the ChatBox are any indication, then some sort of sound theology can only be seen as a positive thing!

The Bible warns us repeatedly that this scenario would indeed be in play in these last days. There are literally thousands of (So Called) Christian churches out there. The orthodox churches, like Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Uniting and so on that the Uncoolman’s forum so promotes is one such group of churches that are doing the work of Satan in the world. First, you're skating perilously close to the thinnest of ice with this latest comment. (you would do well to reflect that Jesus gave something of a dire warning to people who would ascribe his work to Beelzebul). Second, I don't think I can recall the Uniting Church ever receiving so much as the briefest of mentions on this forum.

The people in these 4 groups are the victims here. People like Ian however are advocating and proselytising innocent people into these groups and need to be opposed. This is why I am here. Actually, you're here to serve as an object lesson (and warning) of what results when 'arrogant' and 'ignorant' combine under the heading, 'Revivalist'.

At times I might sound a little condemning or judgemental toward those advocates of Ian’s orthodox views. This is because any way you cut it Ian’s doctrine is Spiritual Murder. Our Job as Christians is to expose this and fight against it. Not the man just the doctrine. That being the case let me point out that you 'suck' at refuting either the man or his biblical message :)

Please don’t be offended at my comments they are simply about the doctrine. Indeed they are. False doctrine. Indefensible doctrine. Unbiblical doctrine.

I hope this may give some measure of context to the demeanour of the discussions here.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. MATTHEW 10:34-36

Hmmm. So you're Jesus now?

Goose.

Ian

Hi Ian, please correct me if I am wrong, but our friend seems to be VERY close to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I would also like to add that a quick read of the book of James would show that Faith without works is dead. Maybe all the Bibles I have read are wrong, but isn't it by Faith we are saved? I am not saying that the RC church was right keeping the scriptures away from the average believer but this clown makes me think maybe they had a point! I hope the Lord can forgive him and his like from their error, but I guess without repentance they are heading for a bad place in eternity.

Hi, Rob.

Hi Ian, please correct me if I am wrong, but our friend seems to be VERY close to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Yep. I would also like to add that a quick read of the book of James would show that Faith without works is dead. Maybe all the Bibles I have read are wrong, but isn't it by Faith we are saved? Yep. I like to think of things this way: faith = cause, and works = effect. Clearly Tony thinks the reverse. I am not saying that the RC church was right keeping the scriptures away from the average believer but this clown makes me think maybe they had a point! The Roman Catholic Church was concerned about private Scripture reading leading to fanciful private interpretations. Go figure, huh? :P I hope the Lord can forgive him and his like from their error, but I guess without repentance they are heading for a bad place in eternity. Our friend does seem over keen to be rushing towards the chasm with his fingers inserted firmly in his ears.

Blessings,

Ian