Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
|
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums
Aimoo Forum List |
Ticket |
Today |
Member |
Search |
Who's On |
Help |
Sign In |
|
|
| Title: I'm leaving Revival, but where to? | |
| Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Didaktikon debunks Revivalist 'Theology' | Go to subcategory： |
| Author | Content |
|
RevivalDemeritPoints
|
|||||||
|
Date Posted：20/11/2008 5:19 AMCopy HTML Hey Ian, and others,
|
||||||
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#1
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：20/11/2008 7:18 AMCopy HTML RDP,
Given that you've asked, my suggestion would be that you consider trying either/and an Anglican church, a Presbyterian church, a Baptist church (as in Baptist Union of Australia) or a Roman Catholic church. Further to the afore-mentioned recommendation, I'd suggest that you give Pentecostal churches a wide berth for the time being. Such will only reinforce much of the poor thinking/theology that you've already imbibed during your time in Revival. With respect to the second part of your stated concerns, two points. First, it's unlikely (given your background) that you'd be in a position to capably assess the respective merits of the theologies of other churches. Second, there exists something of a taxonomy to Christian doctrine. There remains a "core" that is inviolate, surrounding which are a series of concentric "rings" of reducing importance. Most of the various denominational "distinctives" are little more than the outer "rings" of this hierarchy, the adiaphora if you will. God bless, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
||||||
|
RevivalDemeritPoints
|
Share to:
#2
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：20/11/2008 11:42 AMCopy HTML Thanks for your reply Ian, and Epi.
I can't say much because I'm not ready to give myself away (as to number of years in RF and also, churches attended previously) I can say however, I am already familiar with a few of the churches which you mentioned. How familiar, again, would be saying too much. It is reassuring to know that God does not look down and see an organisation and judge individuals by the organisation they are affiliated with. He sees individual hearts. In the same way when I have been talking with others about the Lord I always would emphasize 'For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord' (2 Cor 4:5) and encourage people to pray to God to show them rather than take my word for anything, just in case I was not accurate on some points and also just because that I trust God to guide people the way he will when they ask him to, as he has done me, my whole life, yes of course before RF, leading me to RF, and now, it seems perhaps out and onwards. So Ian, how is it that people are not to just assume that you have just switched your loyalties from Revival to that of the Theolgians at uni? ie regurgitate what they teach instead of revivalist teachings? ;) Sorry, just stirring the pot. Ha. Well, in this life there are so many opinions, I just pray that I always stay close to God and pray that he guides me and that his will and not mine be done anyway. Just as I pray that I never be swayed (again) by the meagre opinions and vain philosphies of "men" (ie humans) but rather let God be my only guide. Psalm 62:8,9 8Trust in him at all times; ye people, pour out your heart before him: God is a refuge for us. Selah. 9Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity. Also Psalm 94:11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. and aren't they? God knows all and knows best. I Thank God for his guidance. Amen. :) |
||||||
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#3
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：20/11/2008 10:45 PMCopy HTML Good morning, RDP.
So Ian, how is it that people are not to just assume that you have just switched your loyalties from Revival to that of the Theolgians at uni? ie regurgitate what they teach instead of revivalist teachings? I suppose such people are free to assume whatever they wish, given that they will invariably do so. But I will take the opportunity to point out that Revivalists very often lean towards incorrect assumptions; further, that they frequently hold to beliefs that are contrary to the facts of a given matter. In short, and from my perspective, Revivalists aren't particularly reliable guides when it comes to assessing issues of truth. Consequently, I don't often lose much in the way of sleep through worrying over what they might personally think of me. However, to assume that my "loyalties" have supposedly shifted from the RCI to the (apparently faceless and nameless) "theologians" at "Uni" would be quite peculiar. To begin with, the matter is singular in that it is completely undefined. Which theologians? Which university? Which beliefs? Second, the simple assumption apparently is such that the "theologians" at "Uni" are not to be trusted. But why? Would it be because they invariably disagree with the Revivalists? Or are there other reasons about which I'm ignorant? But if one stops and thinks logically for a moment, clearly the first step must be to establish the facts of the dispute, so as to evaluate the merits of the respective claims before settling with the one group over the other. Those who would simply make the naive assumption that you've outlined, above, clearly haven't followed this very basic procedure of reasoning. That, of course, isn't my problem. My loyalties, in fact, lie with neither group. I am, first and foremost, a Christian: a follower of Jesus Christ. Consequently, my education functioned as simply a means to a very specific end. I studied theology in order to gain the skills, the knowledge and the aptitude necessary to properly interpret Scripture. And I did this so as to (a) apply it in my own life, and (b) in order to adequately and responsibly teach it to others. Revivalists, by comparison, have nothing more substantial than their rather idiosyncratic and completely uninformed personal and corporate opinions. They are wholly lacking in the skills needed to establish the facts; further, they lack the capacity to critically evaluate their own beliefs. In short, Revivalism breeds profound ignorance that is then coupled to misplaced arrogance. Should I be surprised, then, that such assumptions are often made? I think not. Sorry, just stirring the pot. Ha. Well, in this life there are so many opinions, I just pray that I always stay close to God and pray that he guides me and that his will and not mine be done anyway. Just as I pray that I never be swayed (again) by the meagre opinions and vain philosphies of "men" (ie humans) but rather let God be my only guide. Well, if I may be so bold, you were deceived once; what makes you think you won't be deceived again? Further, you need to understand if you don't already that not all opinions are, in fact, equal. This being the case, precisely what skills, knowledge and aptitudes have you amassed that will enable you to rightly discern the truth? You apparently couldn't do so before, do you believe yourself capable of doing so now? God bless, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
||||||
|
RevivalDemeritPoints
|
Share to:
#4
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：21/11/2008 5:44 AMCopy HTML I suppose such people are free to assume whatever they wish, given that they will invariably do so.
But I will take the opportunity to point out that Revivalists very often lean towards incorrect assumptions; further, that they frequently hold to beliefs that are contrary to the facts of a given matter. In short, and from my perspective, Revivalists aren't particularly reliable guides when it comes to assessing issues of truth. OK, firstly, please note, that I personally, didn't assume at all but rather, just asked the question ("how is it that people are not to just assume..?") specifically because I genuinely wanted to know the answer rather than just assume myself. However, maybe your assumptions of the "revival way of thinking" caused you to overlook that - even though wow! I'm a revivalist, well, for the now, but Ian, I would just then be very careful not to be a big hypocrite yourself, and make equally unfair assumptions of ALL revivalists -being SUCH a multicultural mishmash of backgrounds and ideologies -not everyone automatically adopts the minds, thoughts and preachings of absolutely everything that comes from the platform. Not everyone in revival things the same way - a ridiculous 'assumption'. As in all churches and the ones you mentioned as well I'm sure, -there are oodles of free thinkers who come for whatever their personal reason.) Perhaps because in the short period you were in revival you didnt cross paths with any -or at least any who admitted to you that they thought independently -you really wouldn't know. So, again, it would be unfair to assume. Consequently, I don't often lose much in the way of sleep through worrying over what they might personally think of me. (Me neither. That's not why I couldn't sleep, btw) However, to assume that my "loyalties" have supposedly shifted from the RCI to the (apparently faceless and nameless) "theologians" at "Uni" would be quite peculiar. To begin with, the matter is singular in that it is completely undefined. Which theologians? Which university? Which beliefs? I was quite simply referring to whichever theologians/lecturers/tutors etc etc who taught you... at whichever University you attended... 'the beliefs/ teachings' covered by, you know, the curriculum of your course... not so peculiar. Second, the simple assumption apparently is such that the "theologians" at "Uni" are not to be trusted. But why? I never said that or even inferred it -another assumption on your part, Ian? Just simply that if you could also be led to believe the revival doctrine yourself, which you once believed and now believe to be untrue, like you asked of me, (your last qst), how can You be sure yourself Ian that you also "can now rightly discern the truth" when your 'new' set of beliefs have since come about after studying under a different group of "men" (or women as the case may be -?) How can you be sure that they (your beliefs now) are not similarly biased? Would it be because they invariably disagree with the Revivalists? Hardly. (refer to last comment) Or are there other reasons about which I'm ignorant? But if one stops and thinks logically for a moment, clearly the first step must be to establish the facts of the dispute, the facts being in this case, that you have a had a dramatic change in beliefs after having studied theology, no? -again, I'm asking the question. My loyalties, in fact, lie with neither group. I am, first and foremost, a Christian: a follower of Jesus Christ. Excellent. Consequently, my education functioned as simply a means to a very specific end. I studied theology in order to gain the skills, the knowledge and the aptitude necessary to properly interpret Scripture. Again, it just concerns me that there may simply be just a different bias there. Of course, I may be wrong, but how would you know really if they were or weren't presenting to you scripture in the way they would have you/want you to interpret it? This is what I was really getting at in my initial question. In a similar way that what is left in and out of school curriculums can have a huge impact on the way our children think. Revivalists, by comparison, have nothing more substantial than their rather idiosyncratic and completely uninformed personal and corporate opinions. No, this isn't entirely correct. There is a lot to be said for one's personal experience. You can't refute what someone has personally witnessed and/or has experienced. ie. God's power, first hand. Sure, maybe some dodgy ones may make up some stuff. I have no idea about that. I only know my own personal experience with God to be real. My speaking in tongues experience -real, miracles I have witnessed first hand -real, God's love in his children who love him -real and of these things, I can wholeheartedly testify. I'm not a preacher of "RF" doctrine as such and again, as I quoted before 'For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord' (2 Cor 4:5) and I encourage people to pray to God to show them rather than take my word about important issues such as salvation, and all things (ie like I mentioned also before -and there are many more scriptures along these lines -Psalm 62v8). Well, if I may be so bold, you were deceived once; what makes you think you won't be deceived again? Further, you need to understand if you don't already that not all opinions are, in fact, equal. Again, I addressed this a bit earlier, when I asked you the same question, but also, basically, as I quoted before, but you may have overlooked: Psalm 94:11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity. -so basically, people's opinions are vanity to God, so as equal or unequal as you like to view them Ian, if they don't matter to God why should they matter to me? I am only interested in what God wants of me, which I read about in his Word. This being the case, precisely what skills, knowledge and aptitudes have you amassed that will enable you to rightly discern the truth? You apparently couldn't do so before, do you believe yourself capable of doing so now? Again, I have "amassed" if you like, valuable experience, I have witnessed amazing things, I know of God's enduring love and have great faith in him to guide me through all things and to wherever he will. And yourself?... |
||||||
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#5
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：23/11/2008 11:57 PMCopy HTML Good morning, RDP.
I suppose such people are free to assume whatever they wish, given that they will invariably do so. But I will take the opportunity to point out that Revivalists very often lean towards incorrect assumptions; further, that they frequently hold to beliefs that are contrary to the facts of a given matter. In short, and from my perspective, Revivalists aren't particularly reliable guides when it comes to assessing issues of truth. OK, firstly, please note, that I personally, didn't assume at all but rather, just asked the question ("how is it that people are not to just assume..?") specifically because I genuinely wanted to know the answer rather than just assume myself. If the question that you framed wasn't based on your personal assumptions, then what was it based on? In other words, from whence did it spring if not from your own mind? However, maybe your assumptions of the "revival way of thinking" caused you to overlook that - even though wow! I'm a revivalist, well, for the now, but Ian, I would just then be very careful not to be a big hypocrite yourself, and make equally unfair assumptions of ALL revivalists -being SUCH a multicultural mishmash of backgrounds and ideologies -not everyone automatically adopts the minds, thoughts and preachings of absolutely everything that comes from the platform. I believe there is one simple fact that you've apparently overlooked. All these "free-thinking" people are still members of the various Revivalist sects. Therefore, they have bound themselves to the doctrines, the beliefs and the practices of Revivalism to which they, by virtue of their continued membership, officially subscribe. So how does this place me in peril of hypocrisy? Not everyone in revival things the same way - a ridiculous 'assumption'. As in all churches and the ones you mentioned as well I'm sure, -there are oodles of free thinkers who come for whatever their personal reason.) Perhaps because in the short period you were in revival you didnt cross paths with any -or at least any who admitted to you that they thought independently -you really wouldn't know. So, again, it would be unfair to assume. Please reflect on my previous comment. The difference between the churches that I mentioned, and the various Revivalist sects, is that the former allows (and often even encourages) dissenting views. They go so far as to promote "free-thinking" and individual responsibility; would you care to try and claim the same for Revivalism? However, to assume that my "loyalties" have supposedly shifted from the RCI to the (apparently faceless and nameless) "theologians" at "Uni" would be quite peculiar. To begin with, the matter is singular in that it is completely undefined. Which theologians? Which university? Which beliefs? I was quite simply referring to whichever theologians/lecturers/tutors etc etc who taught you... at whichever University you attended... 'the beliefs/ teachings' covered by, you know, the curriculum of your course... not so peculiar. In other words, your comment/assumption was based on nothing tangible and/or specific. So why make it, then? Second, the simple assumption apparently is such that the "theologians" at "Uni" are not to be trusted. But why? I never said that or even inferred it -another assumption on your part, Ian? It's called "analysis": working from stated conclusions to presumed assumptions (hence my using the word "apparently"). Just simply that if you could also be led to believe the revival doctrine yourself, which you once believed and now believe to be untrue, like you asked of me, (your last qst), how can You be sure yourself Ian that you also "can now rightly discern the truth" when your 'new' set of beliefs have since come about after studying under a different group of "men" (or women as the case may be -?) How can you be sure that they (your beliefs now) are not similarly biased? I would suggest that your reasoning is quite faulty, and at several junctures. To begin with, I was a rather naive 17 year old when I came into contact with the RCI. I am far from being so naive, now. Second, I studied in order to gain the tools that are needed to rightly discern Scripture: an understanding of the biblical languages, an understanding of the histories and the cultures of Bible times, an understanding of the history and development of Christian doctrine, et cetera. To be frank, these skills allow a level of depth and detail that is otherwise unattainable. Importantly, understand that I harbor no misconceptions whatsoever as to the fact of my holding certain personal presuppositions, and how such ordinarily affects my interpretation of Scripture. However, I have studied (in considerable detail) the range of philosophical and theological presuppositions that have shaped Christian teaching over the past two millenia, many of which stand contrary to my own. And I have studied the complete range of these, critically. Consequently, I view my conservative presuppositions as informing my hermeneutics, rather than a hamstringing of the same through simple ignorance. Would it be because they invariably disagree with the Revivalists? Or are there other reasons about which I'm ignorant? But if one stops and thinks logically for a moment, clearly the first step must be to establish the facts of the dispute ... the facts being in this case, that you have a had a dramatic change in beliefs after having studied theology, no? -again, I'm asking the question. Actually, 'no'. I had a dramatic change in beliefs several years before I undertook formal theological studies, as my published testimony of PleaseConsider makes plain. And the change in my views was prompted by an extended, and self-directed study of Scripture in English (and from the KJV no less). Consequently, I believe it likely that your conclusions derive from faulty assumptions. Consequently, my education functioned as simply a means to a very specific end. I studied theology in order to gain the skills, the knowledge and the aptitude necessary to properly interpret Scripture. Again, it just concerns me that there may simply be just a different bias there. Of course, I may be wrong, but how would you know really if they were or weren't presenting to you scripture in the way they would have you/want you to interpret it? This is what I was really getting at in my initial question. In a similar way that what is left in and out of school curriculums can have a huge impact on the way our children think. Given that I was formally trained in institutions that are avowedly liberal in their philosophical and theological bases, I doubt that your charge of bias can stand. It would be acknowledged by all and sundry that I am firmly within the "conservative" camp. If I had simply adopted the biases of my teachers, then I would be a follower of Schliermacher or Bultmann rather than of orthodox Christianity. But there is another far more crucial matter that I belive you have failed to consider. My exegeses of Revivalist beliefs/doctrines are based, principally, on just the one thing: a close reading and explanation of what the biblical texts state in the original langauges. In other words I rely on grammatical rather than theological exegesis to prove my points, and so disprove the beliefs of Revivalism. And grammatical analysis isn't dependant upon a particular theological persuasion. Revivalists, by comparison, have nothing more substantial than their rather idiosyncratic and completely uninformed personal and corporate opinions. No, this isn't entirely correct. There is a lot to be said for one's personal experience. You can't refute what someone has personally witnessed and/or has experienced. ie. God's power, first hand. You've simply acknowledged what I stated above concerning subjectivism, and in doing so have rendered your "not so" to be null and void. Let me take this opportunity to state that you apparently would place your "personal experience" above the authority of Scripture. After all, one can "...refute what someone has personally witnessed and/or experienced", if it doesn't conform to what the Word of God teaches. That is, one can if one accepts the latter to be more authoritative than the former. But do you? Sure, maybe some dodgy ones may make up some stuff. I have no idea about that. I only know my own personal experience with God to be real. My speaking in tongues experience -real, miracles I have witnessed first hand -real, God's love in his children who love him -real and of these things, I can wholeheartedly testify. I'm not a preacher of "RF" doctrine as such and again, as I quoted before And you've done as much, yet again. Consider: who says that your experience with God was real? You? Or Scripture? So can I ask, what's your final authority? Is it objective or is it subjective? Is it God's Word inscripturated? Or is it you and your personal experiences? Put another way, are you reading into Scripture what you hope to find? Or are you reading out from Scripture what is actually there? This being the case, precisely what skills, knowledge and aptitudes have you amassed that will enable you to rightly discern the truth? You apparently couldn't do so before, do you believe yourself capable of doing so now? Again, I have "amassed" if you like, valuable experience, I have witnessed amazing things, I know of God's enduring love and have great faith in him to guide me through all things and to wherever he will. In other words you accept that you lack the skills, knowledge and aptitudes that I referred to above, and would apparently seek to replace these with little more than subjective personal experiences. I should be impressed by this, do you think? God bless, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
||||||
|
RevivalDemeritPoints
|
Share to:
#6
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：27/11/2008 5:36 AMCopy HTML Ian: If the question that you framed wasn't based on your personal assumptions, then what was it based on? In other words, from whence did it spring if not from your own mind? RDP: yadayada, like I said much earlier, just stirring the pot. I guess you took the bait. Ok, no more pot-stirring from here on. It did sping from my mind yes, but it was not an assumption, again, merely a question. I believe there is one simple fact that you've apparently overlooked. All these "free-thinking" people are still members of the various Revivalist sects. Yes, of their own free will. Therefore, they have bound themselves to the doctrines, the beliefs and the practices of Revivalism to which they, by virtue of their continued membership, officially subscribe. There is still free will. Of course, there's huge pressure to conform however, no one is denying that. So how does this place me in peril of hypocrisy? By making huge assumptions about all revivalists when you accuse them of doing the same thing: "Revivalists very often lean towards incorrect assumptions". Please reflect on my previous comment. The difference between the churches that I mentioned, and the various Revivalist sects, is that the former allows (and often even encourages) dissenting views. They go so far as to promote "free-thinking" and individual responsibility; would you care to try and claim the same for Revivalism? No, correct, of course they don't, but you know what? So what. Each individual is still accountable to God independently as God does not "save" or 'diss' (damn to hell) organisations collectively. So, more fool anyone who attaches themselves to any particular 'group' before God and says "but I went there.." etc etc. In other words, your comment/assumption was based on nothing tangible and/or specific. So why make it, then? Former pot stirring? ;) My initial point got lost in all that anyway- which was that anyone, yes even yourself, is subject to be influenced by new 'views' when they present themselves depending on how convincing the facts are. Yes facts. In fact, my ongoing attendance to date at RF has been based on tangible evidence that God was working within individuals within the organisation in a very obvious way -fruits of the spirit were displayed and I have seen undeniable miracles where people have been instantly healed after being baptised, dramatically, and obviously. I have witnessed many, many people spontaneously speak forth in a brand new language they never learnt when praying to God to receive the Holy Spirit as I myself did quite a while ago now, (for the first time that is). ... Just simply that if you could also be led to believe the revival doctrine yourself, which you once believed and now believe to be untrue, like you asked of me, (your last qst), how can You be sure yourself Ian that you also "can now rightly discern the truth" when your 'new' set of beliefs have since come about after studying under a different group of "men" (or women as the case may be -?) How can you be sure that they (your beliefs now) are not similarly biased? I would suggest that your reasoning is quite faulty, and at several junctures. To begin with, I was a rather naive 17 year old when I came into contact with the RCI. I am far from being so naive, now. Yet, you have no clue as to my age now, nor the age I was presented with the 'Revival doctrine' so whilst you, a then naive 17 year old and now seemingly much older and wiser Ian is not capable of being hoodwinked ever again surprsingly you assume that I, who you now nothing about will again be "unable to discern the truth" having far inferior intellect, experience.. whatever else your apparent arrogance may assume. Second, I studied in order to gain the tools that are needed to rightly discern Scripture: an understanding of the biblical languages, an understanding of the histories and the cultures of Bible times, an understanding of the history and development of Christian doctrine, et cetera. To be frank, these skills allow a level of depth and detail that is otherwise unattainable. Importantly, understand that I harbor no misconceptions whatsoever as to the fact of my holding certain personal presuppositions, and how such ordinarily affects my interpretation of Scripture. However, I have studied (in considerable detail) the range of philosophical and theological presuppositions that have shaped Christian teaching over the past two millenia, many of which stand contrary to my own. And I have studied the complete range of these, critically. Consequently, I view my conservative presuppositions as informing my hermeneutics, rather than a hamstringing of the same through simple ignorance. Consequently, my education functioned as simply a means to a very specific end. I studied theology in order to gain the skills, the knowledge and the aptitude necessary to properly interpret Scripture. Well, how then, Ian, do you expect the simple folk of this world who just trust in God because they can't afford to go to Theologian school are ever going to be saved? If that's what is required to get to heaven- a degree in theology - whereby also enabling them to finally discern scripture? Yet, you continue to infer that I am misguided. Hmm. *Read your Bible people* Study it even - sure to 'show yourself approved' but still remember John 5v39: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." and Hebrews 11:6: And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. Revivalists, by comparison, have nothing more substantial than their rather idiosyncratic and completely uninformed personal and corporate opinions. No, this isn't entirely correct. There is a lot to be said for one's personal experience. You can't refute what someone has personally witnessed and/or has experienced. ie. God's power, first hand. You've simply acknowledged what I stated above concerning subjectivism, and in doing so have rendered your "not so" to be null and void. Let me take this opportunity to state that you apparently would place your "personal experience" above the authority of Scripture. no, my personal experience supports scripture. After all, one can "...refute what someone has personally witnessed and/or experienced", if it doesn't conform to what the Word of God teaches. That is, one can if one accepts the latter to be more authoritative than the former. But do you? Yes, and, again, my personal experience supports scripture. I have asked God for may things asking, whilst believing, and have received them. This is called faith Ian. Without it you can't please God. Call it subjective, whatever you like. Faith is intangible, subjective if you like, we know this and there is nothing wrong with that, because we still need it, without it we can't please Him. Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." again, faith is subjective. And you've done as much, yet again. Consider: who says that your experience with God was real? You? Or Scripture? Both. So can I ask, what's your final authority? Is it objective or is it subjective? Both. Is it God's Word inscripturated? Certainly. Signs wonder and miracles in God's people (believers). Or is it you and your personal experiences? My God working in me and his children. Put another way, are you reading into Scripture what you hope to find? Or are you reading out from Scripture what is actually there? its there (eg. above). This being the case, precisely what skills, knowledge and aptitudes have you amassed that will enable you to rightly discern the truth? You apparently couldn't do so before, do you believe yourself capable of doing so now? Again, I have "amassed" if you like, valuable experience, I have witnessed amazing things, I know of God's enduring love and have great faith in him to guide me through all things and to wherever he will. In other words you accept that you lack the that I referred to above, and would apparently seek to replace these with little more than subjective personal experiences. I should be impressed by this, do you think? I'm not trying to impress you Ian. It is my job to please God, not "man". I never read anywhere in my Bible about needing the "skills, knowledge and aptitudes" of which you speak to get me into heaven. I'm not the one replacing God's words (ie skills, knowledge, aptitudes) My personal experience is not a lie and it doesn't replace God's truth either. It supports His existence, His amazing love and His amazing power. Glory be to God. God bless, Ian |
||||||
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#7
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：27/11/2008 7:14 AMCopy HTML Once more, RDP.
Unfortunately I believe you've both misunderstood what I've written, and misrepresented my various positions. In effect it seems that you've read into my responses your own biases and fears, much as it seems that you also do with respect to Scripture (given the substance of your last post). Such seems to be a relatively common failing among Revivalists, generally. My advice to you would be to take the time to re-read what I've actually written, and then compare the same to what you think I've written. There is quite a degree of separation between the two. In closing, I find your position with respect to the teachings of Scripture thoroughly unconvincing. God bless, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
||||||
|
outaegypt
|
Share to:
#8
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：27/11/2008 11:30 PMCopy HTML Reply to Episkopeo (27/11/2008 11:32:34) RDP, you asked the questions and you have been given the answers, but you haven't bothered much with them. Can't help noticing that instead you've been doing a sterling job of actually defending the rubbish and hypocrisy you spoke of. Hi Epi & RDP, I was just thinking isn't that as "Revivalists" what we do? It is almost instinctive to go into defense mode when our "Revival" beliefs are challenged. Even after years of being Revival free, I still have to stop my instinctive mind processing when situations arrive, it is very much a learnt pattern of thinking that instinctively kicks into play. I have arguments with myself  and I can answer from both view points but my 'Revival' answers are learnt by Rote and don't hold a lot of substance or context knowledge.(Sorry did I shock you with that revelation Ian? )The strength of that mind pattern I imagine is at it's peak in the stage where RDM is at the moment. The whole battle in the mind, will I, won't I, trying to see a different angle other than the one you have been prepared to give up your life for, the loss of self confidence, feelings of betrayal, realization of deception, the unassuredness (I know that's not a word but it works) of what your leaving and the uncertainty what lies ahead in that evil compromising  world of mainline churches!(yes, tongue in cheek!) And if we believe the overall battle of Satan to take down as many with him as possible Im sure the enemy is at work to keep as many trapped in 'Revival' as possible- Where you are confined, controlled and useless to God. As I hear it, I'll repeat it,
Its up to you if you believe it!
Allegation big and small,
soon revealed before us all.
outa here- Outa Egypt!
|
||||||
|
RevivalDemeritPoints
|
Share to:
#9
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：28/11/2008 2:40 AMCopy HTML
Got rid of 'im! yeah! we sure showed him! Stupid git! Not like us Real Christians! If you re-read what I've said I haven't been defending 'revivalism' at all. Talk about misprepresentation and being misunderstood. Fine, I'll leave you all too it then. Thanks for nothing "brethren" I'll just go top myself now.
|
||||||
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#10
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：28/11/2008 3:01 AMCopy HTML RDP,
Yet again you've demonstrated that you apparently struggle with the idea of reading with an eye to context. God bless, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
||||||
|
Sea Urchin
|
Share to:
#11
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：28/11/2008 3:42 AMCopy HTML The battle against the foe (other churches) is to be fought daily, minute by minute. Gird the loins and be on guard at all times against the lurking enemy - those who oppose Revival.
______________________________________________________________________________ Yes, and while they're worrying about other churches (who rf/rc etc perceive to be the 'enemy') the REAL enemy is stealing their souls! The thief who comes to kill, steal and destroy is so very subtle and he uses (and twists) scripture to encourage attitudes such as those above. How very very sad! Urch Your unfailing love, O Lord, is as vast as the heavens; your faithfulness reaches beyond the clouds. Your righteousness is like the mighty mountains, your justice like the ocean depths.
|
||||||
|
Talmid
|
Share to:
#12
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：28/11/2008 3:55 AMCopy HTML Yo RDP, Not defending 'revivalism'? RDP, when you write that stuff such as what you've seen in RCI re speaking in tongues is supported by scripture you are defending the essence of 'revivalism' and when you weight your experience so highly you are making a standard 'revivalist' key error. (I've been there, believe me, including the mistaken belief that I was 'free thinking'. I *did* think for myself, but I'd adopted certain erroneous presuppositions which meant that my quite rational thoughts inevitably led to erroneous conclusions.) Misrepresentation and being misunderstood? We've all been guilty at some stage, but let me outline one of the slips you've made.
The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
|
||||||
|
spitchips
|
Share to:
#13
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：28/11/2008 8:56 AMCopy HTML I take particular umbridge at anyone who says they'll go off and top themselves. That aside ....
RDP, you'll find plenty of empathy and understanding here on this forum. I have. Finding a path out of your present discontent is better than winning an argument? Just a thought. For what it's worth from a simple soul like me, walk if you want to, don't if you're not ready. A voyage of discovery awaits. Starting again is never too late. 'Unlearning' is inevitable and humbling when something better awaits. Seek and read/study and pray. Keep a cool head. Grace abounds. Miss Chips |
||||||
|
outaegypt
|
Share to:
#14
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：28/11/2008 10:50 AMCopy HTML First, if you look over the posts here and in the chat box of Urch, OoE and Epi they're not saying your stupid, and they certainly haven't been pushing you away. They are empathising with what they perceive as 'blinkers' in your thinking.-Talmid ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear RDP, look at you, all this attention....Mr popular!!!! I'm sorry you feel the way you have expressed. I was really speaking very much of my own mindset, although not everyones experience is identical a lot of the feeling are commonly shared. What Talmid has said is true, my post was prompted in empathy,and concern for us to remember the turmoil that is associated with the position you are presently in, the state I felt when leaving was extremely emotionally traumatic and difficult- somedays it still is. Devastation would be an appropriate description. Like any group of people, everyone is different here, some speak from heart, some from head and everyone has their own slant on the interpretation of scriptures. There are many personality types, Talmid is a self confessed rescuer, some you will like and others may tick you off, but we have all been where you are now- glean what is useful to you and leave what you want, but please don't be offended, there may be a lot of banter and opinions and comments flying about but sift through it and the personalities and know there is genuine concern here for you, it just might not be wrapped and delivered to your taste, but it is genuine. We have all been put off by something said or comment made, but don't let that stop you from taking advantage of this site and the people that ultimately understands and will support you. With Love As I hear it, I'll repeat it,
Its up to you if you believe it!
Allegation big and small,
soon revealed before us all.
outa here- Outa Egypt!
|
||||||
|
RevivalDemeritPoints
|
Share to:
#15
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：29/11/2008 1:11 AMCopy HTML Dear all,
Firstly, apologies for the 'top myself' comment. I did not mean to make light of suicide.
When one faces the turmoil and anxiety over 'losing' loved ones along with the decision to get out of RF (and similar type churches) all sorts of thoughts can run through one's head. I guess, that aside, I also wanted to make the point that, we as Christians need to show LOVE at all times (as RF is so often being accused of not doing) and its important not to be hypocritical when pointing the finger. I was relieved though, to see that the fruits of the Spirit, that I guess I came here hoping to find, showed up, (more obviously than previously anyway) just in time (not before "topping myself" but rather before I decided that this 'place' was just full of a different breed of hypocrites and to give up on it completely). I should also add, that us women-folk (yes, "I am woman, hear me roar") can have a heightened ability to become 'emotionally charged' at certain times of the month :/ *blush* I guess it was just convenient to go along with being a male, (an assumption which was initially made known in the shout box recently), for purposes of identity, and also again to further make the point that we all have to be careful not to make assumptions about where people are coming from. I am guilty of it also, to be sure, when in a hurry and with so much to say its easy to accidentally overlook certain points and also by the same token accidentally leave some points out. As it happens, I was forced to post one of my last messages before reviewing it as someone abruptly came to visit me, so it was a shame. I didn't actually mean to say that Ian was saying people had to study Theology to gain salvation, but rather that if the whole bible message was so complex that one had to study theology to understand it, what hope had anyone of understanding it, but yes, I guess in my haste I did miss the point - that Outaegypt (I think it was) later made about one who was never 'corrupted' with an alternative doctrine might not have the need to turn to such means. Also, please do not be mistaken, I am by no means against intellectualism. Knowledge is definitely power, but at the same time it has to be coupled with wisdom, and love and other fruits of the Spirit. Not saying that Ian is unwise either, although I don't agree with insulting people or calling them 'stupid' to coerce them into siding with your case, which yes, Ian did in fact call me in the shoutbox. So, I was not so much offended as disappointed at this approach. In regard's to Talmid's comment about me 'defending Revivalism', if you take the time to reread what I've said I never actually claimed to support that tongues is a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit.
If I believed that wholeheartedly I would not be here, frequenting this site. I simply was saying that, as it happened, I spoke in tongues fluently and instantly, when I asked God for the Holy Spirit. By highlighting the 'experiences' I have had, ie. witnessing miracles first hand, I was just making the point that God is still blessing his believers in RF; there are some in RF who are still looking to God and asking Him, believing and seeing amazing things in their lives. So anyway, I stumbled across this site about a year ago and have come back here due to recent events. It has been a long journey for me to arrive in my mind where I am now, but I have always kept an open mind as was always encouraged by my nonrev family and I have always approached the subject of salvation with kidgloves when "preaching" in years past to others. Where, in the sticky situations where people would ask what about those who've never heard about speaking and tongues but were good people all their lives - I would always find myself saying, God is a righteous judge, and be comforted by the fact that he will judge righteously. Which I knew, all these years, was not exactly the 'revivalist' thing to preach, yet, reading my Bible from a very young age, this is the God, I read about. Like yesterday when reading the Gospel of Luke. God is so forgiving to the repentant and humble heart. I have always been drawn to humility and to the true nature of Jesus, which is why when I was confronted about 5 years ago, with some starkly contrasting real Christians (in RF also) (emitting an overwhelming and obvious display of fruits of the Spirit, non-judgmental, people were converted only by seeing their joy and fruits) to the ones I had known to date in RF, I was floored and overwhelmed at how a group of people within a group of people could be so different to each other.
Sorry to be vague, but it is necessary at the moment. So anyway, enough about me. Yesterday in the Gospel of Luke in the new contemporary English Version I read:
chapt 11v25-28 25An expert in the Law of Moses stood up and asked Jesus a question to see what he would say. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to have eternal life?"
26Jesus answered, "What is written in the Scriptures? How do you understand them?" 27The man replied, "The Scriptures say, `Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind.' They also say, `Love your neighbors as much as you love yourself.' " 28Jesus said, "You have given the right answer. If you do this, you will have eternal life." Again, of course it hits me in the face. It was this simple when I was very young too, pre-revival also.
What I want to know is what about John 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." -so could not speaking in tongues be the sound of the Holy Spirit? Also, what about in Acts on the day of Pentecost when they address the things you 'see and hear' after they hear them speak with tongues was this not referring to the Holy Spirit being what they heard? Acts2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. hear? they were hearing them speak in tongues/other languages given to them by the Holy Spirit -so is not tongues a manifestation of the Spirit? I really have to go now which is a pain but I've already lost a whole post today because the pc shut down half way through. So sorry I wasnt able to address everyone properly but thank you all for your kind thoughts and messages. God Bless, RDP |
||||||
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#16
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：29/11/2008 2:53 AMCopy HTML RDP,
Firstly, apologies for the 'top myself' comment. I did not mean to make light of suicide. When one faces the turmoil and anxiety over 'losing' loved ones along with the decision to get out of RF (and similar type churches) all sorts of thoughts can run through one's head. I guess, that aside, I also wanted to make the point that, we as Christians need to show LOVE at all times (as RF is so often being accused of not doing) and its important not to be hypocritical when pointing the finger. I was relieved though, to see that the fruits of the Spirit, that I guess I came here hoping to find, showed up, (more obviously than previously anyway) just in time (not before "topping myself" but rather before I decided that this 'place' was just full of a different breed of hypocrites and to give up on it completely). Three things: first, this is a forum and not a church, so it is unreasonable of you to impose your expectations and conditions of the latter upon the former. Second, "love", in a biblical sense, isn't an emotion. It's a predisposition that has the best interests of the person to which it is directed at heart. Consequently, "love" can sometimes be "tough" when that is what is actually needed. Third, it's "fruit" of the Spirit (singular) and not "fruits" of the Spirit (plural). You may think this is a minor quibble, but it's indicative of the fact that people don't always read what's actually in front of them. I should also add, that us women-folk (yes, "I am woman, hear me roar") can have a heightened ability to become 'emotionally charged' at certain times of the month. So? As it happens, I was forced to post one of my last messages before reviewing it as someone abruptly came to visit me, so it was a shame. I didn't actually mean to say that Ian was saying people had to study Theology to gain salvation, but rather that if the whole bible message was so complex that one had to study theology to understand it, what hope had anyone of understanding it, but yes, I guess in my haste I did miss the point - that Outaegypt (I think it was) later made about one who was never 'corrupted' with an alternative doctrine might not have the need to turn to such means. First, by "forced" do you mean that someone physically demanded that you hit "send" before you were good and ready? Second, whether or not you intended to suggest that people needed to formally study theology in order to be saved, that it precisely what you wrote. Third, the Bible message isn't complex, it's very, very simple. It's your fellowship, and those like it that obscure the simple by superimposing the incredibly complex. My task here, as a theologian, is to demonstrate where, how and why your fellowship has stuffed things up, and doing so sometimes requires a bit of technical explanation because people like you generally won't accept that you're wrong until all the potential "wiggle room"/doctrinal escape routes have been denied you. Also, please do not be mistaken, I am by no means against intellectualism. Knowledge is definitely power, but at the same time it has to be coupled with wisdom, and love and other fruits of the Spirit. Not saying that Ian is unwise either, although I don't agree with insulting people or calling them 'stupid' to coerce them into siding with your case, which yes, Ian did in fact call me in the shoutbox. So, I was not so much offended as disappointed at this approach. I implied that you were stupid because that is precisely how you presented yourself, here. Demonstrate for me that you can actually read something "as it is"; that you can think reflectively and critically, and I will likely change my opinion. But understand that I'm not here to be your "bestest buddy", to stroke your ego. I'm here to provide you with the information that you require to make an informed decision about where you should fellowship, and why. There are many others here who will give you all the hugs and cuddles that you need; there are far fewer people who can provide the input that I can. In regard's to Talmid's comment about me 'defending Revivalism', if you take the time to reread what I've said I never actually claimed to support that tongues is a sign of receiving the Holy Spirit. If I believed that wholeheartedly I would not be here, frequenting this site. I simply was saying that, as it happened, I spoke in tongues fluently and instantly, when I asked God for the Holy Spirit. I'd suggest that you go back and re-read what you wrote. The very clear and unavoidable inference was that you were defending Revivalism's warped credo. Again, you may not have intended as much, but such is what you did nontheless. By highlighting the 'experiences' I have had, ie. witnessing miracles first hand, I was just making the point that God is still blessing his believers in RF; there are some in RF who are still looking to God and asking Him, believing and seeing amazing things in their lives. And who suggested that there were no Christians in the RF? It is one thing to be a Christian in an unchristian fellowship (i.e. the situation encountered in the RCI and the RF), and another to be a Christian in a Christian church. Your mistake, as I see it, was to assume that because there clearly are Christians in the RF that the RF must be Christian. Such is a logical fallacy. So anyway, I stumbled across this site about a year ago and have come back here due to recent events. It has been a long journey for me to arrive in my mind where I am now, but I have always kept an open mind as was always encouraged by my nonrev family and I have always approached the subject of salvation with kidgloves when "preaching" in years past to others. Where, in the sticky situations where people would ask what about those who've never heard about speaking and tongues but were good people all their lives - I would always find myself saying, God is a righteous judge, and be comforted by the fact that he will judge righteously. Which I knew, all these years, was not exactly the 'revivalist' thing to preach, yet, reading my Bible from a very young age, this is the God, I read about. Perhaps, but you also indicated that you couldn't accept that one could be identified as a Christian without the RF nonsense of "tongues". Like yesterday when reading the Gospel of Luke. God is so forgiving to the repentant and humble heart. I have always been drawn to humility and to the true nature of Jesus, which is why when I was confronted about 5 years ago, with some starkly contrasting real Christians (in RF also) (emitting an overwhelming and obvious display of fruits of the Spirit, non-judgmental, people were converted only by seeing their joy and fruits) to the ones I had known to date in RF, I was floored and overwhelmed at how a group of people within a group of people could be so different to each other. Sorry to be vague, but it is necessary at the moment. Sure. But it might help you to read what Paul has to say about the end state of supposed Christians who preach a false gospel (Galatians 1). What I want to know is what about John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." -so could not speaking in tongues be the sound of the Holy Spirit? In a word, 'nope'. I've already addressed John 3 on another thread here. You'll simply have to search around until you find it. But I will tell you this: it is impossible to reach the conclusion that you hope for based on what the Greek text of the passage says. Also, what about in Acts on the day of Pentecost when they address the things you 'see and hear' after they hear them speak with tongues was this not referring to the Holy Spirit being what they heard? Acts2:33. Again, 'nope'. The reference is to the sound of a violent wind being heard, and the visual theophany of the parting sheet-like flame. Again, I've written on this subject at length, and the material is on this site. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. Try reading my essays. They were written for people like you. hear? they were hearing them speak in tongues/other languages given to them by the Holy Spirit -so is not tongues a manifestation of the Spirit? Wrong assumption. And in any case, what the 12 apostles spoke on that day was not your Revivalist "unknown tongue". Nothing like it, in fact. In closing, you need to do considerably more reading and reflecting than you have to date. God bless, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
||||||
MothandRust
|
Share to:
#17
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：29/11/2008 11:12 PMCopy HTML Reply to RDP:
What I want to know is what about John 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." -so could not speaking in tongues be the sound of the Holy Spirit? Hi Ardeepee, this particular scripture, amongsts the other skewed sides of the Revival Rubik's Cube, kept me scratching my head until I could straighten my head a little and get some perspective. There are a few good realligning commentaries sprinkled through this forum that address the 'sound therof', but for a fairly exhaustive version I'd start at page 9 of the following PDF document that can be viewed at the following link: http://forum1.aimoo.com/revival/Please-Consider-An-examination/Revivalist-dogma-and-the-book--1-1018726.html The whole document would be a rewarding read for you, if you are prepared to take of the Revival Gospel Goggles first. Pete Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete
|
||||||
|
spitchips
|
Share to:
#18
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：30/11/2008 4:56 AMCopy HTML g'day RDP
YOU SAID: Where, in the sticky situations where people would ask what about those who've never heard about speaking and tongues but were good people all their lives - I would always find myself saying, God is a righteous judge, and be comforted by the fact that he will judge righteously. ................................................................................... I find that so funny because it's almost word for word what I used to say. I've sent you a personal message to your forum inbox as well. Happy researching and exploring. Miss Chips |
||||||
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#19
|
||||||
|
Re：I'm leaving Revival, but where to? Date Posted：30/11/2008 5:14 AMCopy HTML Mothra, chaire.
I found the link to my explanation of John 3. It is http://forum1.aimoo.com/revival/Revival-Doctrines-we-USED-TO-B/John-3-1-8-Water-and-Wind-Ian--1-1020977.html Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
Ian
but really, surely you knew back then even that they were in no uncertain terms NOT on any such path to "orthodoxy"? strange. Anyway, maybe that was a bit of bait anyway thrown out to say they're never going to change so don't bother.?. Doesn't really matter. What matters is what is ahead. So you won't personally name specific churches that you recommend attending?
