Tony,

I don't think the people who read the material on this site are as credulous as you anticipate them being. Consequently, I doubt that too many would take your "explanation" as being in any way indicative of the truth. "Once bitten, twice shy", and all of that.

Anyhoo, I'd appreciate you doing me the service of posting the supposed "evidence" of me having lied from your vanity site to here. Let's get it out into the open, hey?

By the way, have the RF hierarchy contacted you about stealing their copyrighted material and passing it off as your own yet?

Goose.

Ian

Hi There; you said "I'd appreciate you doing me the service of posting the supposed "evidence" of me having lied from your vanity site to here. Let's get it out into the open, hey"?

I have posted the link in my previous post for all to see.

You also said By the way, have the RF hierarchy contacted you about stealing their copyrighted material and passing it off as your own yet"?

I doubt they will as we are very strong supporters of the Revival Fellowship. But if they take issue then I will be happy to "wordsmith" the pages. But for now the site will remain as is. Further to your claims that I have stolen the material. Who do you think wrote the source material anyway?

As I have said, I am a very strong supporter to the Revival Fellowship and will continue to help their cause where ever and when ever I can. Including web-design work.

If people here have had a bad experience in their local RF church I would suggest that it is an isolated case and not indicative of the whole. Just my opinion!

BTW: Once again we have a little glimpse at the nature of the Pharisee.

When Ian says “passing it off as your own” it demonstrates that it is important to Ian that material written by someone receives the due adulation. Again this shows that your (Ian's) motive is the reward in this life.

The content on my site is for the lost to be saved. Not to bolster my ego. In fact I do not have an ego – I’m dead!….Buried in Baptism 20 years ago.

Blessings,

Your friendly little wolfhunter.

Luke

Tony,

Tsk, tsk. Not very forthcoming, are you? I had a bit of a "looksie" at the link that you provided, and imagine that? You're still hanging your hat on the fact of there being different IP addresses on my posts. And this in spite of the fact that it was divulged that my ISP doesn't allocate static IP addresses.

Now, and with respect to the theft of the Shoalhaven RF website material you said: I doubt they will as we are very strong supporters of the Revival Fellowship. But if they take issue then I will be happy to "wordsmith" the pages. But for now the site will remain as is. Further to your claims that I have stolen the material. Who do you think wrote the source material anyway?

Do you think? You who publicly railed against the pastor of the assembly in question? So I'd suggest that we  wait and see. In any case the copyright for the material clearly belongs to the Shoalhaven RF, whether you had a hand in producing it or not. When scholars have work published in peer-reviewed journals, the articles become the intellectual property of the said journal, and approval must be sought by the author to reproduce it afresh. Your theft of copyright material belonging to the RF and published on the WWW is completely analogous (excepting, of course, that nothing that you've produced could be considered in any sense, "scholarly").

As I have said, I am a very strong supporter to the Revival Fellowship and will continue to help their cause where ever and when ever I can. Including web-design work. Interesting that you would label your forum "former-Revivalist" then, is it not? Hoping for a pastor's job in the RF one day?

If people here have had a bad experience in their local RF church I would suggest that it is an isolated case and not indicative of the whole. Just my opinion! Yes, and like all of your opinions, this one was based on sheer fantasy rather than fact. Such defines you it seems. But isn't it ironic that all of those people who left your own RF assembly, people who you "resigned" to "chase" after, apparently also give evidence of being just another "isolated case" within the wider RF?! There seems to be quite a few "isolated cases" in your much vaunted fellowship, eh? Goose.

When Ian says “passing it off as your own” it demonstrates that it is important to Ian that material written by someone receives the due adulation. Again this shows that your (Ian's) motive is the reward in this life. Adulation?! Hardly. Try simple honesty.

The content on my site is for the lost to be saved. Not to bolster my ego. In fact I do not have an ego – I’m dead!….Buried in Baptism 20 years ago. Two things, the second, first: you are, in fact, "dead" just not in the sense that you believe. You're dead spiritually. And now the first, second: the content on "your" site will simply ensure that the "lost" are "lost" for eternity. There's no "life" to be found in your heretical doctrines.

Goose.

Ian

Hi Galien:

With respect to my comments…”As I have said, I am a very strong supporter to the Revival Fellowship and will continue to help their cause where ever and when ever I can”.

You asked. ”That being the case, why did you leave them in the first place”?

I left because there were a number of people who had lost confidence in their local RF. These people still very much believed in the doctrine but had nowhere to fellowship. I could see that there was a genuine need and I unfortunately had to leave the RF in order to play an active role in supplying their need. Upon reflection some may decide to return to the RF, others may not. There is not a one size fits all remedy for such things. All we can do I believe is care for one another as best we can.

Further I said…”If people here have had a bad experience in their local RF church I would suggest that it is an isolated case and not indicative of the whole. Just my opinion!”

You said…So, how many stories of bad treatment will you have to hear before you are convinced these are not isolated incidents but an organisation-wide disregard for the individuals in the fellowships?

I can only comment on the things I experience first hand (I’m not Ian) as such my comments reflect my experience (and my experience alone) over the last 20 years in several locations across Australia. We must remember that the Church is always going to be a place where from time to time offences will occur, however it is important that we be “thick skinned” and forgive.

If your local Revivalist church is experiencing severe (I know this is subjective) problems then I suggest you follow the Matthew 18 advice to it full conclusion and trust that God is with you. If after the scriptural process there is still a failure to deal with the issues. Leaving may be necessary, however this should be a last resort and be very prayerfully considered before acted upon.

In my case I had followed this procedure without a successful resolution to adequately help those left outside their fellowship. The decision had in effect, already been made for me.

God Bless

Luke

Luke:

I left because there were a number of people who had lost confidence in their local RF. These people still very much believed in the doctrine but had nowhere to fellowship. I could see that there was a genuine need and I unfortunately had to leave the RF in order to play an active role in supplying their need. Upon reflection some may decide to return to the RF, others may not. There is not a one size fits all remedy for such things. All we can do I believe is care for one another as best we can.

So, if they still believed in the doctrine, the problem must have been in the way they were dealt with. So if they decide to go back, how do they reconcile that in their own mind? My experience has taught me that revivals don't change, don't admit fault and expect members to accep that without question. Why leave an organisation you know does not respect you, then later return? The fact you have not returned suggests that you don't have confidence in them either.

You said…So, how many stories of bad treatment will you have to hear before you are convinced these are not isolated incidents but an organisation-wide disregard for the individuals in the fellowships?

I can only comment on the things I experience first hand (I’m not Ian) as such my comments reflect my experience (and my experience alone) over the last 20 years in several locations across Australia. We must remember that the Church is always going to be a place where from time to time offences will occur, however it is important that we be “thick skinned” and forgive.

There is difference between being thick skinned and forgiving, and being continually subjected to unfair bias and actual abuse. It is not possible that anyone is always right, yet revivals think they are. They tell the assemblies that pastors are placed there by god. How can people believe that when it is clear that pastors are placed there by other pastors to whom they submit and jump through all the right hoops? Are revivals blind to that process? It is the same one that goes on in any organisation. Suck up until you get to the top. Is that the justification for returning to poor treatment because god placed them there? Any of us can claim that.

If your local Revivalist church is experiencing severe (I know this is subjective) problems then I suggest you follow the Matthew 18 advice to it full conclusion and trust that God is with you. If after the scriptural process there is still a failure to deal with the issues. Leaving may be necessary, however this should be a last resort and be very prayerfully considered before acted upon.

Sounds very similar to the advice given by revivalists. Just trust that god is in control. In other words, we will continue to do whatever we want because we know you will believe us when we tell you to just trust in god. I have seen revivals have a cursory adherence to  scriptural process, but really oversight make up their minds early in the piece and if you are silly enough to continue questioning their decisions, there is only one remedy for that.

In my case I had followed this procedure without a successful resolution to adequately help those left outside their fellowship. The decision had in effect, already been made for me.

In my years in revival, and from the relating of stories from many others in many other assemblies I have NEVER heard of one where the situation was settled in the favour of the assembly member. Can you explain that?

Tony,

How many people in this Shellharbour Revival Family Church that you apparently don't pastor? And while you're in a question answering mood, perhaps you could share why it is that you've banned me from its associated forum? You know, the one that ostensibly has five members, of which your various multiplied personalities account for three?

Goose.

Ian

Hi Galien:

I think what is being identified here is something that from the beginning has always been the case. The third generation in most church organisation usually see the greatest deviation from the truth. The Bible is full of advice how to identify and deal with this “leaven” plaguing the church.

Finney once said… A "Revival" presupposes a declension. Look back at the history of Israel and you will see that God used to maintain the law among them through REVIVALS there would be a great excitement, and people would turn to the Lord. And after they had been thus revived, it would be but a short time before there would be so many counteracting influences brought to bear upon them, that Revival would decline.

It is the renewal of the first love of Christians, resulting in the awakening and conversion of sinners to God. In the popular sense, a revival of religion in a community is the arousing, quickening, and reclaiming of the more or less backslidden church and the more or less general awakening of all classes, and insuring attention to the claims of God.

In many respects I think that various assemblies are seeing this “Loss of the first love”

It is no surprise that when asked what signs would precede his return, Jesus said… Mat 24:3  And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? Mat 24:4  And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. Mat 24:5  For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. Mat 24:11  And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

Similarly in 60AD (just 27 years later Paul warned of the same…Act 20:27  For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Act 20:28  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. Act 20:29  For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Act 20:30  Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Act 20:31  Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Finney later said about the church…”It presupposes that the church is sunk down in a backslidden state, and a revival consists in the return of a church from her backslidings, and in the conversion of sinners”.

I feel that the Revivalist churches are (in some cases at least) in need of reviving themselves. As Finney suggested. The Old Testament gives some good advice about how to identify the onset of this problem. Check out 1 Kings 12 & 13.

Summary… Rehoboam was made King after the death of Solomon. “Rehoboam consulted with the old men that stood before Solomon his father”…. He rejected the council of the OLD MEN… 1Ki 12:8  But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, and which stood before him:  (Jobs for the boys [so to speak] as you call it)

This whole story of Kings 12 and 13 is very apt with respect to the church losing their first love and being in need of Reviving. In the middle of this story comes the “OLD PROPHET” Former Revivalist now Theologian/Pharisee. To try to subvert the “MAN OF GOD”

Notice in this Story that the “Evil Man” is Jeroboam and his biggest mistake was that he let anyone who wanted to be Pastor be a pastor. See 13:33

We Are the Men & Women of God

2Ti 3:13  But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 2Ti 3:14  But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;  2Ti 3:15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2Ti 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Ti 3:17  That the MAN OF GOD may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2Ti 4:1  I CHARGE THEE therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2Ti 4:2  Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 2Ti 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2Ti 4:4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2Ti 4:5  But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Don’t get killed by the Lion!

2Ti 4:17  Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.

1Pe 5:6 Therefore humble yourselves [demote, lower yourselves in your own estimation] under the mighty hand of God, that in due time He may exalt you,     7Casting the [c]whole of your care [all your anxieties, all your worries, all your concerns, [d]once and for all] on Him, for He cares for you affectionately and cares about you [e]watchfully.(B)

    8Be well balanced (temperate, sober of mind), be vigilant and cautious at all times; for that enemy of yours, the devil, roams around like a lion roaring [[f]in fierce hunger], seeking someone to seize upon and devour.     9Withstand him; be firm in faith [against his onset--rooted, established, strong, immovable, and determined], knowing that the same ([g]identical) sufferings are appointed to your brotherhood (the whole body of Christians) throughout the world.

1Ti 6:11  BUT THOU, O MAN OF GOD, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. 1Ti 6:12  Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses. 1Ti 6:13  I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; 1Ti 6:14  That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:

THE RESULT OF THE KINGS STORY

1Ki 13:33  After this thing Jeroboam returned not from his evil way, but made again of the lowest of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places.

Basically Jeroboam kept on doing evil things. He appointed men to be priests at the local shrines, even if they were not Levites. In fact, anyone who wanted to be a priest could be one.

1Ki 13:34  And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth.

This is what I see a lot of in the third generation Revivalist. A general deviation away from service towards the overlordship of the church members.

God Bless

Luke 7:35

Tony,

You do know that Charles Finney wasn't a "tongues-speaker"? That what he was was simply an "old-time Revivalist"? Furthermore that his methods for garnering "Revival" are known as "Revivalism" inasmuch that they relied on the application of a prescribed "method" in order to invoke desired "results"? Or didn't you know any of this?

Similarly in 60AD (just 27 years later Paul warned of the same…Act 20:27) Are you suggesting that Paul was "alive and kicking" in AD 87?! Eh?

In the middle of this story comes the “OLD PROPHET” Former Revivalist now Theologian/Pharisee. To try to subvert the “MAN OF GOD”  Let's see: you reckon I'm the Pharisee and you're the "MAN OF GOD"?

Goose.

Ian

Reply to Didaktikon

Tony,

You do know, don't you, that Charles Finney wasn't a "tongues-speaker"? That what he was was simply an "old-time Revivalist"? Furthermore that his methods for garnering "Revival" are known as "Revivalism" inasmuch that they relied on the application of a prescribed "method" in order to invoke desired "results"? Or didn't you know any of this?

Similarly in 60AD (just 27 years later Paul warned of the same…Act 20:27)

Are you suggesting that Paul was "alive and kicking" in AD 87?! Eh?

In the middle of this story comes the “OLD PROPHET” Former Revivalist now Theologian/Pharisee. To try to subvert the “MAN OF GOD”

Let's see: you reckon I'm the Pharisee and you're the "MAN OF GOD"? (in capitals, with the Superman theme playing in the background)

Goose.

Ian

That was great Ian,Very funny  you are a loonatick arn't you?

Anyhoo the reason you are Banned from my forum is because of the new "Anti-Wolf" software that protects my site from false Prophets. If you are getting a "You are Banned" message then you are probably a Wolf!

Sorry to break the news Buddy! LOL

Ciao

Recently I was asked a few questions that I believe were important ones to answer. I though it would be good to display my answers here.

Hi there: I just wanted to answer your latest questions.

1) I was wondering why your shellharbour church website is an identical copy of the shoalhaven rf website?

I created several websites for various Revival Fellowships. My desire is that at some time in the future it may be possible to come under the umbrella of the RF. As such I INTENTIONALLY kept the same look as the other websites that I created. If the opportunity arises that enables us to re-join the RF the the transition will be a easy as possible. i.e. change the logo & add the word "Fellowship" to our title.


2) Does the rf  even know that you copied their copyrighted information almost word for word?

The RF are well aware of my position and the desire we have to return in the future (God Willing) They are equally aware that we MAY NOT return. We trust that God will detemine that!

3) How is what you did not theft?

For these reasons they (The RF) are not particularly concerned with the use of material and images etc. Similarly the RCI have given permission to use their material if I so choose.

This begs the question, How can I lead a group who are outside the Revivalist Churches, yet have their understanding (if not support)?

The answer is simple really. I believe the fundamental salvation doctrine of the RF & RCI to be 100% correct. However from time to time situations arise where unorthodox measures may need to be undertaken for the sake of individual sheep. Actions that to the eyes seem to be contradictory. We MUST always remember we walk by faith not by sight!

Consider for a moment the teaching from Jesus in Matthew 18...Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Mat 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? Mat 18:13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

I believe many of those who have left their various churches would not have been placed in that position had their oversight given due consideration to these verses.

I do not claim to Mr Perfect, I am just doing the best I can with what I have. The critics from unkoolman's forum etc to date have targeted incidental elements of my conduct that really are born of misunderstandings rather than intentional deceit and lies. They choose to run with that and that’s their choice.

As I have said….Given where I come from i.e. former Drug Dealer and addict to servant of God. Do you really think that my resolve is for one moment even fractionally weakened?

No chance of that!

I will be continuing to support those who have left the Revivalist where/when ever I can whilst remaining transparent and in close relationship with the leadership of both RF and RCI.

To take an adversarial if not an antagonistic approach to my Brothers and sisters is, I believe not what Jesus would do.

Our group are going from strength to strength and we will overcome all challenges set before us both individually and collectively. Through the love of Christ and our service of each other through the Spirit he has imparted to us.

God Bless

Luke 7:35

Good morning, Tony Barton.

Recently I was asked a few questions that I believe were important ones to answer. I though it would be good to display my answers here. Really? I thought certain of those questions were worded quite a bit differently, myself. Furthermore, it appears to me that you've simply made several of the so-called "questions" up yourself, and have proceeded to post both questions and answers here, as something of a PR stunt/damage control measure.

1) I was wondering why your shellharbour church website is an identical copy of the shoalhaven rf website?

I created several websites for various Revival Fellowships. My desire is that at some time in the future it may be possible to come under the umbrella of the RF. As such I INTENTIONALLY kept the same look as the other websites that I created. If the opportunity arises that enables us to re-join the RF the the transition will be a easy as possible. i.e. change the logo & add the word "Fellowship" to our title. The same look? Or exactly the same content, nearly word-for-word? But it is refreshing to see your admission that you are hoping to be appointed as an RF pastor! Was that the plan all along? Leave, start your own "assembly" and hope to be invited into the wider RF "fold" at a later date? How very curious ...

2) Does the rf  even know that you copied their copyrighted information almost word for word?

The RF are well aware of my position and the desire we have to return in the future (God Willing) They are equally aware that we MAY NOT return. We trust that God will detemine that! Sorry to point out the obvious, but you didn't even answer your own question. So let me ask this one instead: did you seek permission to copy the RF material beforehand, or did you simply steal it and hope that no one would mind after the fact?

3) How is what you did not theft?

For these reasons they (The RF) are not particularly concerned with the use of material and images etc. Similarly the RCI have given permission to use their material if I so choose.
Forgive me for pointing out the obvious again, but whether or not the RF isn't "particularly concerned" (which is something that I doubt in any case), using another's property without first seeking approval remains theft. You can attempt to sugar-coat the issue all you want, but what you did was morally and ethically wrong (and you seeking to justify such behaviour causes me to wonder whether there might be something intrinsically wrong with your ethical compass). Further, do you honestly expect me to believe that the  RCI has given you permission to use their material? Would you please provide the name of the person who granted this (for verification purposes)?

This begs the question, How can I lead a group who are outside the Revivalist Churches, yet have their understanding (if not support)? It is all about "leading" others, isn't it? Anyway, I believe the the statement, above, begs an altogether different question: do you actually have the "support" of the Revivalist churches as youclaim? Or do you simply assume that such may be the case? 

The answer is simple really. I believe the fundamental salvation doctrine of the RF & RCI to be 100% correct. However from time to time situations arise where unorthodox measures may need to be undertaken for the sake of individual sheep. Actions that to the eyes seem to be contradictory. We MUST always remember we walk by faith not by sight! Right. So you're suggesting that your attempted schism isn't really schism at all. Why?  Because your goal is for an invitation to return to the RF (with your little "flock" in tow), but not simply as Mr Barton, rather as a "pastor" Barton. Correct?

I do not claim to Mr Perfect, I am just doing the best I can with what I have. The critics from unkoolman's forum etc to date have targeted incidental elements of my conduct that really are born of misunderstandings rather than intentional deceit and lies. They choose to run with that and that’s their choice. Personally, I wonder whether lying, deceiving, hypocrisy and stealing can ever be classed as simply "incidental" behaviours with respect to one's conduct. But then again, we read Scripture differently, you and I. But a point that you need to reflect upon is this: clearly your "best" just isn't good enough; what you "have" is obviously inadequate for the task that you've arrogated to yourself. This should worry you.

I will be continuing to support those who have left the Revivalist where/when ever I can whilst remaining transparent and in close relationship with the leadership of both RF and RCI. Interesting. I have had a bit to do with the senior levels of leadership in both the RF and the RCI myself my experience has been that there certainly isn't very much in the way of mutual feelings of "brotherly love" between the two groups. So please forgive my doubts as to the general truthfulness of your statements. Again.

To take an adversarial if not an antagonistic approach to my Brothers and sisters is, I believe not what Jesus would do. You're right. I'm sure that he'd much rather you started 5 or 6 vanity forums and "let rip".

Goose.

Ian

4 Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1 & 2)

¹ In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, ² until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. ³ To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. ⁴ And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, ⁵ for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

And so commences the Book of Acts. From the very outset it is important to note several features that shape the events that follow. First, the setting is Jerusalem, the city of Christ's passion and resurrection. Second, the immediate actors that we are introduced to are the resurrected Jesus and his apostles (toic, ajtoaxooic, is the grammatical antecedent^xxi in verse two to the olc, translated “them”, that is introduced in verse three). Carefully note that Luke nowhere mentions Jesus teaching the much broader group of his disciples after his resurrection!

It is always interesting to me how those who proclaim to be superior in their understanding of scripture waste no time in renouncing all others as ignorant compared to their interpretations (as myopic as they are) of scripture. Here Ian has tried to take these words (Them – They etc) in isolation to prove a point. He is claiming that “Luke nowhere mentions Jesus teaching the much broader group of his disciples after his resurrection!” Ian is Right! LUKE doesn’t mention the much broader group. But as we can clearly see, Paul states that after the resurrection but before Pentecost Jesus appeared to greater than 500 others. 1Co 15:6  After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. Now these 500 or so had witnessed Jesus appearing to them. This seems to fly in the face of Luke’s comments.

³ To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. ⁴ And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, ⁵ for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

So to be clear as crystal now consider this: Ian uses the “Them” in verse 3 as the cornerstone of his claim. Ian Said… (“Them”, that is introduced in verse three) However the “Them” in verse 3 is referring to over 500 people as well as the 12. This is evidence by Paul’s comments!! How much more could the Them and they used be also referring to a greater amount than the 12?

Lets read the comments in their context. 1Co 15:1  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 1Co 15:2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 1Co 15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; 1Co 15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: 1Co 15:5  And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 1Co 15:6  After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 1Co 15:7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Ian also said…The first five verses of chapter one clearly demonstrates that he limited this sort of interaction to just his apostles.

As we have just seen Ian’s comments are far from consistent with Paul’s account. Once he begins building on his flawed foundation the whole structure then becomes more and more convoluted.

Importantly the twice mentioned “them” in the English translation of verse four corresponds to the single occurrence of the Greek pronoun ocutoic,, which also has tolc; (“the apostles”) as its referent. So too the implied “you”^xxii in the second person aorist verb (“you heard”); and the implied “you” in the second person future verb |3ajtTiG0rJGEG0e (“you shall be baptised”) that is introduced in verse five. These very important promises, all of them forming the basis of the Revivalist’s “Pentecost experience” teaching, are clearly and explicitly limited to the apostles alone!

It is also of interest to me that Ian goes to such great lengths to prove a point that; even if true does not change the fact that the same message of salvation is directed to all mankind. Well did Jesus say Mat 23:23  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Mat 23:24  Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Mat 23:25  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Mat 23:26  Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Mat 23:27  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Mat 23:28  Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Mat 23:29  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous,

Ian went on to say…By way of a brief summary thus far: (1) Jesus gave a very specific command (“not to depart from Jerusalem”), to (2) a very specific group (“to the apostles whom he had chosen”), tempered as it was by, (3) a very specific promise (that “you shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit”). Consequently, nothing relating to either the commission or the promise itself can be construed to be any more broadly intended. To the contrary, Luke was intentionally and prescriptively specific in what he chose to pen.

As we have already demonstrated Ian has failed to establish his claims at all. Further the claim that the (3) a very specific promise (that “you shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit”). Was made to ONLY the 12 is again contrary to scripture.

Using Ian’s interpretation of applying the term “You” (in the second person aorist verb) to being exclusively this group of 12 can similarly be applied in isolation to Matthew 3:11. But as we will see the implication of such a myopic interpreting of scripture has devastating consequences.

Mat 3:7  But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Mat 3:8  Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: Mat 3:9  And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. Mat 3:10  And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mat 3:11  I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

As said, using Ian’s construct of the use of “You” and similar terms we can logically deduce that the the Christ was only going to baptize the “Pharisees and Sadducees” with the Holy Ghost. We can further conclude that Ian believes that the 12 were in fact the Pharisees and Sadducees. Stupid huh!

Ian continues…So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? ” He said to them, “It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth. ” And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

As stated this same twisting and contorting of the Greek text results in some blatent contradictions of other verses. We must remember that 2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Ti 3:17  That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 (“so they”) presents as something of a favorite formula in Acts^xxiii; it frequently appears to open a new section of narrative, yet in such a way as to connect it with the preceding section or sections. The current connection is clear, as the grammatical antecedent to the plural (“they”) of verse six remains the; (“the apostles”) of verse two. At this juncture in the narrative, Jesus amplified the nature of his promise concerning the baptism with the Spirit, which the apostles would receive, by stating in verse eight (once again using an implied second person future verb) that, “you shall receive power”) when the Holy Spirit has come upon (“you”), and that (“you will be”) my witnesses in Jerusalem, and so forth. In each and every case the promise is restricted to the apostles: the grammatical antecedent remains the; (“the apostles”) of verse two. From a theological perspective it is necessary to note that Jesus said nothing about the apostles becoming saved as a result of being baptized in the Spirit. To the contrary, according to the text the baptism was strictly for empowerment.

As has already been clearly demonstrated the outpouring of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2:4 is cited as fulfillment of the words spoken by John in Matthew 3:11. This is evidenced by Acts 1:4-5 Ia would agree with this. However Ian then goes on to say “From a theological perspective it is necessary to note that Jesus said nothing about the apostles becoming saved as a result of being baptized in the Spirit” Once again Ian is guilty of being so focused on a single verse in isolation, and so determined for it to mean what he wants it to mean that he forgets about Acts 11:14 which says..Act 11:14  Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. So here we have an account of the Gentiles being converted and Peter uses the words “tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” in reference to the baptism of the Holy Ghost cited from Matt 3:11. Peter goes on to say..Act 11:15  And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Note that he says “As on US at the beginning” Act 11:16  Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Act 11:17  Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? Act 11:18  When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Just to summarize:

1)     Ian was wrong about the number of believers upon whom the Spirit fell at Pentecost.

2)     Ian’s argument when applied elsewhere (Matt 3:11) makes a mockery of the gospel.

3)     Ian’s belief that The Baptism of the Holy Ghost was not related to Salvation but empowerment ONLY is also proven to be false.

Ian continues…We read in verses 13 and 14 that the apostles were residing in an upper room in Jerusalem with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers . The apostles are noted as being, “of one accord” with this small and select group, with whom they (that is the apostles) “devoted themselves to prayer ”. This is the first instance in the book of Acts where a group is in connection to the apostles; however, it is not until verse fifteen that the emphasis of the action shifts from strictly the apostolic group, to a much broader number of Jesus’ followers.

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry ... For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and his office let another take.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection. ”

In verse 15 Peter, for the very first time, inclusively numbers the small apostolic group with the wider group of disciples, to arrive at the approximate total of one hundred and twenty of Jesus’ followers remaining in the environs of Jerusalem. He refers to the group, which included himself and his fellow apostles, as (“the brethren”)^xxvi. However, note that the text very clearly infers that the much larger number of disciples (that is, exclusive of the apostles, the women, and the family of the Lord), were not staying in the previously mentioned “upper room”. By employing the clause (“in those days”) to introduce verse 15, Luke temporally distinguishes what follows from what immediately preceded, thereby dislocating the focus of subsequent events from former. Consequently, the clause marks the beginning of a new division in the narrative in the first half of Acts (grammatically it indicates a more definite break then the previously discussed. The result is such that there remain no grounds provided within the text itself, for the widespread belief that the entire “one hundred and twenty” were in the habit of meeting in the “upper room”. Such may have been so, unlikely though it is, but there is no emphatic statement that such was so

Yet again Ian makes some major assumptive leaps in his analysis of the text.

1)     Ian says “However, note that the text very clearly infers that the much larger number of disciples (that is, exclusive of the apostles, the women, and the family of the Lord), were not staying in the previously mentioned “upper room”. By employing the clause (“in those days”)”Ian is saying that because Luke (the author of Acts) uses the Greek words (ἐν ταύταις, ταύτας ἡμέρα) which could just as easily be interpreted as “At that time”. (indeed these words are translated as such in the International Standard Version)  that the matter is Very Clear!!!! Again the words “strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” come to mind.

2)     Further to this Ian then goes on to say “Luke temporally distinguishes what follows from what immediately preceded, thereby dislocating the focus of subsequent events from former. Consequently, the clause marks the beginning of a new division in the narrative in the first half of Acts” This is very important to understand. Ian is saying that the term “In those days” constitutes a grammatical break, which somehow proves beyond all doubt that only 12 people met in the Upper Room. Then he goes on to say “Such may have been so, unlikely though it is, but there is no emphatic statement that such was so” This is called “a bet each way” in other words Ian knows full well that he has based his whole argument on the weight of these 3 Greek words and their meaning is disgraceful academically speaking and adds the caveat “Such may have been so, unlikely though it is, but there is no emphatic statement that such was so” What comes to mind is the words of the Lord Mar 7:13  Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Ian continues…In the following verse Peter introduces the requirement to replace the fallen Judas Iscariot, thereby restoring the apostles to the theologically significant number of twelve. The context, as indicated by the grammar of the passage, suggests that Luke had by then reverted to identifying the select group of apostles as the subject of the discussion until verse 26. At verse 16 Peter specifically addressed the group: (“men, brothers”), which automatically excluded any women from consideration .

1)     The term Brethren appears 319 times in the Greek in the New Testament and almost always is “gender non-specific” In this case the setting was clarified by the naming of those present (which included women) however just as in other instances in the NT. When addressing a group the women seem to be relegated to the sidelines. This is cultural, not grounds for implying that only the 12 were in the upper room.

2)     Ian has gone to great lengths to say that the 120 were NOT in the upper room. He says again and again that this is clear in the Greek. Not one translation, version, commentary, handbook, Bible Encyclopaedia that I have access to either at home or on the web shares Ian’s conclusions.

3)     A straight out reading of the text is however supported by all. Lets have a look at it again, apsent of Ian’s convoluted and contradictory additions. Act 1:13  And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. Act 1:14  These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. Act 1:15  And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about a hundred and twenty,)

4)     A few point need examination: a) Ian says that verse 15 constituted a division in the Greek text. Even if this is true; verses 13-&14 clearly says that the Apostles, some women, as well as Jesus’ brothers and sisters were in the “Upper Room”

5)     As discussed “At that Time” (the time just mentioned in (4) Peter addressed those already mentioned people totalling ~120. One would think that it is clear; However Ian really really wants you to believe his version of the events. Even though no one of any repute seems to agree with him.

6)     Ian’s language is evasive and contradictory, In one breath he will say that something is definitely this, then he will say it may be that. E.g. there remain no grounds provided within the text itself,……Such may have been so, unlikely though it is, Clearly Ian’s claims are questionable at best. I am reminded of the words of the Lord Mat 15:14  Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Ian continues…Further, verse 17 specifically identified by way of a causal clause, that Judas was,(“numbered among us”), and further, that he was (“allotted his share in this ministry”): the apostolic ministry. Equally important from the perspective of cultural context is that the term; (“apostle”) was the first century Greek equivalent of the Hebrew    (“shaliach/shaluach”), which signifies “a sent one” in both languages. In contemporary Jewish custom, a person's was fully able to represent his master in all matters (note again, the implications of 1:8). According to the Mishna, “A man's          is like himself^xxxi”.

But for the moment we need to trace the flow of thought in verses 21 and 22(b): “So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us ... one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection. ” The distinction is plain: (“the men”) is distinguished from the first person pronoun (“us”) given in verse 21, and “these men” (the object is inferred from the context as it is redundant to repeat it in Greek) from (“with us”) of verse 22(b). Therefore it remains clear that the referent has once again reverted to being the smaller number of Jesus’ disciples, those whom he specifically called and appointed to be apostles.

It must be said that on various occasions in the account of the events leading up to the outpouring of the Holy Ghost that various people engaged in direct and indirect conversations where the principle recipient was either the apostles only (within the greater group of 120) or to the entire group of disciples. Ian is trying to isolate the direct references and paint a false picture that the words only apply the 12 or that the scripture says something that it doesn’t necessarily say in order to build a foundation on which to build a case that the experience of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost was for a select few. This is entirely inconsistent with several other texts of scripture that say categorically that God is NOT a respecter of persons etc. In short what Ian is doing is what many religious authorities have done for centuries. He is saying that there is a hierarchy in the kingdom of God and he places himself at the top end. WARNING WARNING WARNING!!!

Mat 24:11  And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

2Pe 1:16  For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2Pe 1:17  For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 2Pe 1:18  And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 2Pe 1:19  We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 2Pe 1:20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. 2Pe 1:21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

What we have just witnessed is Ian’s “private interpretation” You would do well to rely on being an “eyewitnesses of his majesty” and experience your own Pentecost and not rely on Ian’s “cunningly devised fables”

Ian continues…And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. ²⁴ And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen ²⁵ to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place. ” ²⁶ And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

Having clearly established that the discussion no longer centered on the “one hundred and twenty”, but just the apostles, we can approach the final pericope introduced the events of Pentecost took place. Perhaps the first significant point is that we have established that it was the surviving apostles who put forward the two candidates for the vacant apostolate, and not the “one hundred and twenty”. The (“they put forward”) finds as its grammatical referent the of verse 22(b). So too does the (“they prayed”) of verse 24, and the; (“they cast lots”) of verse 26. By contrast, the referent for (“these”) in verse 24 is the (“Joseph called Barsabbas” and “Matthias”) of verse 23. It was the apostles who decided upon the elevation of Matthias to the apostolate having cast lots, and not the broader fledgling Christian community!

No argument from me. Ian’s comments “It was the apostles who decided upon the elevation of Matthias to the apostolate having cast lots, and not the broader fledgling Christian community” are fine but to use this to pretend to prove that only 12 received the Holy Ghost in the Upper Room. PLEASE!!!

Ian continues…Having successfully traced in detail the “who-was-talking-about-whom-and-when” aspects of Acts chapter one, we find ourselves concluding the narrative to this point with (“the eleven apostles”).

In conclusion: Ian’s position is far from provable in the context of the whole Bible. Paul states that after the resurrection but before Pentecost Jesus appeared to greater than 500 others in 1^st Corinthians 15:6  After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. Now these 500 or so had witnessed Jesus appearing to them.We cannot know how many of these 500 or so waited for the promise of the Holy Ghost which had been promised by Prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. I know I would have been there. Luke elaborates further by stating in Acts 1:3 To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. 4 And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, 5 for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Ian went on to say that this was for empowerment not salvation, which contradicted what Peter says later in Acts 11.

Whenever people build a doctrine on a verse or a chapter in Isolation to the rest of the Bible they always find themselves chasing their tail like Ian is. And having to go to extreme lengths to make their argument. My hope is that you do not follow Ian’s fairytale version but rather seek God to answer you in the way he always has confirmed hid word. “With signs and wonders” to the individual.

I leave you with one verse:- 1Ki 18:24  And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God.

Love Luke 7:35

Hi, Thommo.

I invited old "Lukie" here to defend and/or debate his "doctrine". However, he decided to use the opportunity to demonstrate to us all just how credible he is. Well, I'm still hoping that he might, eventually, attempt to trot out that ornery old mule which is the Revivalist belief system, but I shan't be holding my breath (or gibbering madly away in "tongues"). Doing either too often apparently kills brain cells and makes one stoopid!

Revivalism really is hazardous to one's (intellectual and spiritual) health.

Blessings,

Ian

Tony,

Long-winded and uninspiring drivel. I feel compelled to ask: does "context" ever get a look-in when you read Scripture? If Doctor Luke believed it necessary for Theophilus to filter his words through certain of Paul's writings in order to understand his message aright, then why didn't he simply suggest as much?

Goose.

Ian

Dear Shoes

I will answer your questions below. You questions are in blue.

I do pray that you will walk sincerely before your God and that as you open your heart and importantly your mind, he will lead you to the truth and light of his salvation.

Me too!

Now that your stance has become clearer, it is fair to say that you have not been open with your forum. Titling your board Ex-Revivalist is grossly misleading when in fact you are not Ex-Revivalist at all, just Ex-RF.

Given my definition of a “Revivalist” how could any Christian be “Anti-Revivalist”? But that said I have been completely open about how and when I left the RF.

Now if I create a forum for former members does that then mean that I must be totally and completely antagonistic toward ALL of the various Revival churches and basically take the opposite view with everything they preach?

This seems to be what many do! The moment they stop going to their Revival church then EVERYTHING they ever believe all of a sudden becomes false. I would suggest that this is an emotional response to being hurt by people in that organization and has little to do with doctrine. Some obviously have a difference of opinion with respect to doctrine and that’s fine.

But back to your point, I created that forum to allow people to have an alternative VENUE to speak online. I am not in any of the Revival Churches and haven’t been for a while, Certainly not while I run that forum.

If I personally believe in the salvation message and 99% of the doctrine that’s my business and it is perfectly ethical of me to create the forum. People can choose to either chat on that forum or not. I really do not see why this is such a drama for so many of you guys on Unkoolman’s forum.

You have certainly prosecuted your case forcefully and I would like you for a moment to step away from the posts consisting of fascinatingly formatted text and reams of scripture and please just prayerfully answer some simple questions regarding your core beliefs.

1. Do you believe the Day of Pentecost is the most significant event to happen in the word pertaining to our salvation, more important than the Crucifixion?

No!... The finished work of Christ on the cross is the beginning of our salvation. Pentecost (our own personal Pentecost as well) is simply our fulfillment or confirmation of the finished work in us. Similarly for Israel the Passover was the most significant event in their history, but they still HAD TO cross the Red sea and be led of the Fire into the Promised land (Baptised unto Moses…Corinthians 10)

 
2. When do you believe the reign of Jesus Christ begins on the Earth?

His reign in Christians began almost 2000 years ago. As far as his earthly rule over the nations…When he returns.

3. Mark 16 being the crux of the argument for the need to speak in tongues to be saved, does that mean anyone who fails to receive a healing cannot make the kingdom?

No!... The 5 signs that are listed in Mark 16 speaks to the collective church. Not necessarily to the individual believer. Though I can attest witnessing all 5 in my experience. If Mark 16 were the only verse Revivalist used then I would have a problem with the tongues doctrine myself. ALL scripture….for Reproof…instruction in righteousness etc

4. After your simple error was pointed out to you, why do you still continue to quote the "Comma Johanneum"

I just read a few articles about the "Comma Johanneum" Wow!....I will have to do some research on that topic. The text in question..1 John 5:7-8 still reflects the scriptural principle though. As I said I will have to do some research. But I will remove it from my website until this is complete.

Thank you

MARK CHAPTER 16 

On the surface Mark chapter 16 appears to clearly say that believers will speak in tongues. Upon further investigation however the following question arises.

If Speaking in Tongues accompanies ALL believers, then the same must be said of the other four signs listed herein. How can this be rationalised in the scriptures?

The answer becomes apparent upon close examination of the way in which these signs were apparent in the early church. Consider the following:

The 5 Signs that follow Believers are:

1) Casting out Devils

2) Speaking in Tongues

3) Taking up Serpents

4) Drinking Poison &

5) Laying hands on the sick

Mar 16:15  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mar 16:16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mar 16:17  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they 1) cast out devils; they shall 2) speak with new tongues; Mar 16:18  They shall 3) take up serpents; and 4) if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall 5) lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Mar 16:20  And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Looking in the word of God, especially New testament lets see the signs following doctrine in action.

1) Casting out devils     

Act 16:17  The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation.

Act 16:18  And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. (Clearly the Apostle Paul exercised this sign) This is not questioned. The fact is that those who are filled with his (God's) Holy Spirit are filled with light. We read in 1 John...1Jo 1:5  This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

                                 2) Speaking in new tongues
There are several accounts of this sign following believers: Acts 2:4, Acts10:44 and  Acts 19:1-5 are obvious examples.

 3) They shall take up serpents

Only one Biblical case of a serpent or viper confronting one of the Apostles in the NT  Acts 28:3-7   Certainly there were no acts of "Taking up" serpents. Some translations translate Mark 16:18  {they will pick up snakes in their hands} ISV This flies in the face of verses like; Matt 4:7 (see below) Perhaps a better application can be found by exploring the Acts of the Apostles through whom these signs would be evident.

Mat 4:6  And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Mat 4:7  Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Further we read in Luke... Luke 10:17  And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. Luk 10:18  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Luk 10:19  Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

In this passage Jesus give a clear picture that a) "Power to tread on Serpents" is the defined as having "Power over the enemy" We all know who the enemy is don't we! …Further we read in the Psalms...Psa 140:3  They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders' poison is under their lips. Selah. Psa 140:4  Keep me, O LORD, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from the violent man; who have purposed to overthrow my goings.

Here again the Psalmist defines the "Violent Man" as having Tongues like Serpents. If this seems unclear breaking the term up in the Greek can be helpfull.

A) The Act { taking up}

I have highlighted the translation I believe is supported by evidentury substance in the Bible

αἴρω  airo  ah'ee-ro

A primary verb; to lift; by implication to take up or away; figuratively to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind); specifically to sail away (that is, weigh anchor); by Hebraism (compare [H5375]) to expiate sin: - away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, expose, take (away, up).

Above I have underscored the meaning "Make to doubt". This is the way that the same word αἴρω was translated in John 10:24 as follows:

John 10:24  Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? ( αἴρω  airo ) If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

Further in Matthew we read:
Mat 21:21  Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed,( αἴρω  airo ) and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.

Thirdly in Luke we read:

Luke 17:12  And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off: Luke 17:13  And they lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.

Act 4:24  And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice ,( αἴρω  airo )to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: 

Act 21:36  For the multitude of the people followed after, crying, Away with him. And the very next chapter…Act 22:22  And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.

I believe it is plain to see that the term "Take up" realy speaks to confronting and defeating the power of the enemy. This can ofen mean religious leaders.

Next we will look at the Object being "Taken up".

B) The object { Serpents}

When it comes to the term "Serpents I do not need to elaborate at all. A simple cursary glance at a handfull of scriptures clearly defines what Jesus was really talking about.

Mat 23:33  Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Luk 10:19  Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

1Co 10:9  Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

Rev 9:19  For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.

Gen 3:1  Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Psa 58:4  Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;

Psa 140:3  They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders' poison is under their lips. Selah. I really do not need to say any more. Serpents are those who speak not according to God's word. The things that they say is poison because it leads to death.

4) Drinking any Deadly thing:

The word used here for "Drink" is (πίνω, πίω, πόω pino  pio  poo) pee'-no, pee'-o, po'-o

The first is a prolonged form of the second, which (together with the third form) occurs only as an alternate in certain tenses; to imbibe (literally or figuratively): - drink. To: imbibe; absorb; Take in & Keep Mentally; {The deadly poison of the World!}

Similar to "Serpents" the term "Poison" or "Drinking" are figurative terms representing the potentially deadly words of false teachers. Consider the following:

Jam 3:5  Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth! Jam 3:6  And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity; so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. Jam 3:7  For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: Jam 3:8  But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

Rom 3:12  They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Rom 3:13  Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Rom 3:14  Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

Psa 58:3  The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Psa 58:4  Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;

Lastly I will repeat Psalm 140 in full:
Psa 140:1  To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. Deliver me, O LORD, from the evil man: preserve me from the violent man; Psa 140:2  Which imagine mischiefs in their heart; continually are they gathered together for war. Psa 140:3  They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders' poison is under their lips. Selah.

5) They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover:

Act 5:15  Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. Act 5:16  There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one. Act 5:17  Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,

Notice that the religious leaders who did not possess the signs following “rose up” in “Indignation”

Jam 5:14  Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: Jam 5:15  And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Jam 5:16  Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Jesus went on to say… Mar 16:20  And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen. There are many doctrines being presented today and often they lack the signs that Jesus pronounced would “Confirm” the words being spoken as being from God. Jesus had similarly said in… Luke 10:19  Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

Jesus did this by giving us “Power” he repeated this promise in Acts Chapter one…

Act 1:4  And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. Act 1:5  For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Act 1:6  When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? Act 1:7  And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. Act 1:8  But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. This occurred on the Day of Pentecost when as we read in Acts Chapter two… Act 2:1  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. Act 2:2  And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. Act 2:3  And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. Act 2:4  And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

This event marked the beginning of the Church. Just as Jesus had promised this event was confirmed as being from God by the “Sign” of Speaking in Tongues. A few verses later Peter standing up to explain what this meant says the following:

Act 2:37  Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

This question could just as well be asked to day and the answer would not be any different today as it was on that day.  Act 2:38  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 2:39  For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Act 2:40  And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Act 2:41  Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Act 2:42  And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Act 2:43  And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. Act 2:44  And all that believed were together, and had all things common; Act 2:45  And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Act 2:46  And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Act 2:47  Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. Those that were added to the Church in verse 41 could only have been added to the Church by the Spirit. As we read in 1Corinthians 12:13  For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

In the end it is up to the individual as to whether or not they wish to believe that Jesus confirms his word with EACH AND EVERY Christian with SIGNS FOLLOWING. The concept of God confirming his word by signs following is not a new one. This is exactly the way that God confirmed his word with Elijah in the Old Testament. In that case we read. 1Ki 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. 1Ki 18:22  Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men. 1Ki 18:23  Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: 1Ki 18:24  And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.

The New Testament equivalent of the confirmation by God with “Fire from Heaven” is the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. This is why when Jesus spoke of the Apostles receiving “Power” he referred to what John had said …Mat 3:11  I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: So it comes as no surprise that shortly after Jesus recounted this for the Apostles in Act 1:5  For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. That Fire from Heaven did indeed fall (figuratively speaking) “there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them”  The question then must be Has God answered you “By Fire” has Jesus confirmed his word in you “By signs following”

If the answer is NO. Then is just possible that you have fallen victim to what Jesus warned us in Matthew chapter 24 verse 11 would come in these last days…”And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many”. Remember that Paul warned us as well in 2^nd Timothy 4:3  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2Ti 4:4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Don’t accept anything less than the Full, 100% sure Gospel that was preached and confirmed on the Day of Pentecost and is currently being experienced by millions worldwide today.

God Bless

Luke 7:35

Reply to Didaktikon

Tony,

You do know, don't you, that Charles Finney wasn't a "tongues-speaker"? That what he was was simply an "old-time Revivalist"? Furthermore that his methods for garnering "Revival" are known as "Revivalism" inasmuch that they relied on the application of a prescribed "method" in order to invoke desired "results"? Or didn't you know any of this?

Similarly in 60AD (just 27 years later Paul warned of the same…Act 20:27)

Are you suggesting that Paul was "alive and kicking" in AD 87?! Eh?

In the middle of this story comes the “OLD PROPHET” Former Revivalist now Theologian/Pharisee. To try to subvert the “MAN OF GOD”

Let's see: you reckon I'm the Pharisee and you're the "MAN OF GOD"? (in capitals, with the Superman theme playing in the background)

Goose.

Ian

Firstly Ian. Charles Finney did speak in tongues. Read from his own lips...I received a mighty baptism of the Holy Spirit ... I wept aloud with joy and love and I do not know but I should say I literally bellowed out the unutterable gushings of my heart.”


Secondly when I said "27 years later. I was referring to the 27 years between Jesus' comments (AD33) and Pauls comments (AD60) It is very hard when I have to explain every single element of my posts as if I am speaking to a child.

Also...It is worth while reading the entire context of his work entitled..The Original Memoirs of Charles G. Finney By Charles Grandison Finney Link

The bottom line is that there seems to be two distinct debates that need to be kept separate.

1) Do ALL Christians need to Speak in Tongues as evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost.

2) The conduct of Oversight in the Revival Centre...Revival Fellowship...GRF function the same way; and is it unscriptural?

I think that I cannot really comment on the oversight issues because I can only speak to my experiences with oversight as being generally good. There have been a few exceptions over the 20 years but they were handled fairly well.

I will however deal with the tongues issue a little more systematically in the comming days, as it seems that my debating with Ian tends to go nowhere. I think he is a heretic and a Wolf and thinks the same about me. Its frankly no use continuing to speak to Ian.

I will get the ball rolling withthe next post. 

Luke 7:35

Just to recap the Chronology of this chapter:

I have met opponents to speaking in tongues who cite this story as evidence that tongues is NOT required. They say that those referred to in verse 31 did not speak in tongues and therefore the Revival Fellowship doctrine does not stand critical testing. If one were to say that the opponents of tongues had met their burden of proof with this story are clearly wrong. I am sure the rational, sincere reader would agree that this chapter does not suggest that new converts were saved with the exclusion of tongues. It is not even close! As such the opposition is far from proving anything.

Ok Unkoolman:

I do realize that you do not want links on here but this is sometimes necessary to make sense of the debate. But that doesn’t matter I guess now. This will be my last post on this site. (For now)

I realize that this “court of public OPINION” has unfortunately already decided the result. So I feel that I am wasting my valuable time here.

When I said earlier I would be “getting the ball rolling” I meant that until we systematically go through each and every instance of the Holy Ghost being mentioned and work through it there can be little or no progress made toward reaching the truth.

In response to Unkoolman’s post above, I now realize that this will not be allowed to occur on this site. The only avenue open to me that fits within the aforementioned guidelines is to respond to each and every OPINION voiced on this site. I simply do not have the time open to me to engage in such time sapping activities.

I will leave it up to the individuals reading this to decide whether or not to continue to hear one side of the argument and make their decisions based on that one sided point of view.

I would also suggest that in such an environment where I am playing a lone hand against some very entrenched positions that any chance of truth being established was always going to be faint at best.

On that note I must bid you all a sincere goodbye and I can only pray that your journey is seasoned with grace and that the truth of the glorious gospel be allowed to penetrate your hearts.

I would like to especially thank Ian who has patiently challenged me and even though I believe that he is blind to the truth (blinded by his pride) I am sure he means well and will reap what he sows (good or bad) God is the judge of that.

To Moth I would say that I hope that all goes well for you moving forward and time is a great healer.

To others who have contributed to this debate, please forgive my clumsy if not antiquated approach. I am after all just a former drug dealer and simple believer who God saved from oblivion and am now I am seeing the wonderful fruit of obedience to Gods word.

God Bless

Luke 7:35