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: The evidence is speaking in tongues? | |
| Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Revival Churches > Christian Assemblies International (CAI) | Go to subcategory： |
| Author | Content |
|
Ex_Member
|
||
|
Date Posted：07/05/2011 3:56 AMCopy HTML Hello Friends out there,the subject of speaking in tongues has caused me six months of turmoil and more research than sleep for a long time. I am aware of the sensitivity of the subject. It is hard and painful to examine longheld beliefs - I would have not expected such a difficulty.
This is for those who had concerns about how things were taught in CAI (and the other revivalist groups) in this regard.If you are interested in the conclusions I have come to, as I can see clearly confirmed in the scriptures then please watch some videos on Speaking in Tongues at www.holyghostbaptism.co.uk New videos will be posted every week now and the section on the four ACTS passages should be complete next week. I am intending to thereafter post another video each on the majority of other by pentecostals favorite misrepresented scriptures bit by bit.Thanks also go to Ian etc.. for some of the materials provided on this site, which served as an initial eyeopener, especially in regard to the 12 Apostles speaking in tongues vs 120 disciples!I pray that some of you and hopefully some that are still in CAI will find this helpful to see what God really intended. Greetings, Torben
|
|
|
prezy
|
Share to:
#1
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：07/05/2011 7:39 AMCopy HTML Hello Torben, just had a look at your video. I personaly don't need any more evidence than what I have found in Scripture, and/or personally experienced to know that what you are saying is correct but its well researched and easy enough to understand, as well as surely being convincing enough to be very useful if I get a chance to talk to anyone contemplating leaving revival. I also have contact with some that have left but are confused and under self condemnation regarding tongues doctrine. Very big thanyou for your work, and also having it free and easy to access.
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
|
|
MothandRust
|
Share to:
#2
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：07/05/2011 8:42 AMCopy HTML Hi Torben! I hope you don't mind if I embed one of your videos here. I thought there were some really good thoughts and it's nice to hear them expressed in such a relaxed way. Nice one. Feel free to host your other videos in this thread. Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete
|
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#3
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：07/05/2011 8:52 PMCopy HTML |
|
|
ThePilgrim
|
Share to:
#4
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：07/05/2011 8:56 PMCopy HTML Thanks MothandRust - Great idea. |
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#5
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：07/05/2011 11:47 PMCopy HTML Hi, Torben.
I really enjoyed listening to your videos. You made a few slip-ups, here and there, but what you presented was largely what Acts itself presents. Well done! Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
Biblianut
|
Share to:
#6
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：08/05/2011 12:45 AMCopy HTML Ian,
Yes, well presented. I was going to question about “….what shall we do?”. Torben referred that the Apostles asking this question but I understood it was the Jews that where concerned because they had taken part in Jesus death etc. Ralph I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
|
|
|
ThePilgrim
|
Share to:
#7
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：08/05/2011 11:13 AMCopy HTML Hi Ralph, yes it is the Jews asking the Apostles. My point was that it is the Apostles who are 'being' asked = not 120 believers were asked.
This point was emphasised in order to give further weight to the view that it was 12 speaking in other tongues and not 120. Thanks for watching! Love and greetings, Torben |
|
|
Luke735
|
Share to:
#8
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：08/05/2011 11:18 AMCopy HTML
Hi Torben: Ian has given you the thumbs up (I'm SHOCKED!) maybe its because you agree with him. Anyway you have earned the great and mighty Didaktikon's "Blessings" at the end of his post....Bravo!
Truth be told any peanut can place an opinion on youtube (me included) but as with Ian's doctrine yours is a luke warm, powerless imitation of the true Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Most here have no real understanding of the Spiritual Warfare that the Christian is engaged in. Ask them though, and they fully believe they do know. Pity really the deceived are always the last to know. Ian boasts of successfully turning >500 revivalists away from revival...I'll have to be sure to keep count of the Baptists, Prespos, Methos etc that we lead out of error. Recently the youth leader of a Presbyterian church has come along and has been bringing several of their youth with him to our meetings. I am young, resourcefull, successfull and by the gace of Jesus, will not rest until every orthodox believer is saved from their blind leaders. Welcome to the war Torben. Luke 7:35 |
|
|
MothandRust
|
Share to:
#9
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：08/05/2011 1:27 PMCopy HTML Reply to Luke735
Hi Torben: Ian has given you the thumbs up (I'm SHOCKED!) maybe its because you agree with him. Anyway you have earned the great and mighty Didaktikon's "Blessings" at the end of his post....Bravo! You are correct. It is kinda cool to get approval from a reputable source. Nice work Torben, and even while driving. I'd like to see Luke do two things at the same time that require thought. Be careful that you do not disagree with the Great and mighty Ianos though, or you may get called a "goose" ooogh. Ooogh? But that said, I just watched your vids and I suspect you will find willing adherents to your doctrine here on this site. At an ex-Revival church forum? One would hope that ex-members can see past the tripe they were in at some stage. Some sooner than others. Truth be told any peanut can place an opinion on youtube (me included) but as with Ian's doctrine yours is a luke warm, powerless imitation of the true Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Most here have no real understanding of the Spiritual Warfare that the Christian is engaged in. Maybe if someone shake you hard enough the penny will drop. God knows you need a good shakin'. Your 'power' is an ability to do what anyone else in the world can do - speak gibberish. Not impressive, and not scriptural, even from a layman's perspective. Ask them though, and they fully believe they do know. Pity really the deceived are always the last to know. /eyeroll Ian boasts of successfully turning >500 revivalists away from revival...I'll have to be sure to keep count of the Baptists, Prespos, Methos etc that we lead out of error. Recently the youth leader of a Presbyterian church has come along and has been bringing several of their youth with him to our meetings. I am young, resourcefull, successfull and by the gace of Jesus, will not rest until every orthodox believer is saved from their blind leaders. You can't even spell successful, and I've seen your video; you're not young, but youth IS relative. Intelligence-wise you're young to the extreme. Welcome to the war Torben. Give peace a chance foolish young man. Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete
|
|
|
ThePilgrim
|
Share to:
#10
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：08/05/2011 1:32 PMCopy HTML Hello Luke 7:35, it is actually nice to get thumbs up from somebody for a change, I can assure you it is a nice change for people who leave any denomination... in the process you will be totally alone. Especially in a system that pretty much separates you from other contacts and relations. Further than that I can assure you that I did not say anything in order to please any men... including myself.
I am not at war with you Luke... If you want to war-monger - denomination against denomination and fall right into the trap set for us then on you go - without me. 1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. We are all being tested by God and there are even reasons for heresies. Whether you can convince me of being a heretic, or whether I can convince you is not that important. You and I both have to convince God... and he cannot be cheated. The approved will be pointed out on that day. So really - do with what I have passed on as you seem fit in the sight of the Lord - it is not my business. I can only make it available, only God can open the hearts and I am sure you also do play a part in there - but not me. I certainly believe you that you are convinced of your views - only - I was too for a long time, so that does not prove anything. I hope you will find out what I mea one day. Greetings, Torben |
|
|
prezy
|
Share to:
#11
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：08/05/2011 9:30 PMCopy HTML If only your could see the truth Luke, you would not be boasting about leading Christians into your trap of Satan. You probably don't know it but you are working for the enemy of Christ and surely headed for destruction.
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
|
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#12
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：08/05/2011 9:49 PMCopy HTML Reply to ThePilgrim Hi Ralph, yes it is the Jews asking the Apostles. My point was that it is the Apostles who are 'being' asked = not 120 believers were asked. This point was emphasised in order to give further weight to the view that it was 12 speaking in other tongues and not 120. Thanks for watching! Love and greetings, Torben Yes when the subject revolves AROUND the apostles... I will give the thumbs up too !! Eric |
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#13
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：08/05/2011 10:21 PMCopy HTML Tony/Luke735/Demetrius/Demetrius Diotrophes/Mothman's Ghost/GWM, etc.
Geez but you're an idiot. Goose. Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
Biblianut
|
Share to:
#14
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：08/05/2011 11:24 PMCopy HTML Reply to ThePilgrim Hi Ralph, yes it is the Jews asking the Apostles. My point was that it is the Apostles who are 'being' asked = not 120 believers were asked. This point was emphasised in order to give further weight to the view that it was 12 speaking in other tongues and not 120. Thanks for watching! Love and greetings, Torben Hi Torben, thank you. I listened again to what you had to say on that and for the life of me I don’t know how I came to that conclusion. My apologies. I am in the habit of approaching things ‘critically’ now to confirm, or otherwise, what is said and done is in accordance to God’s word. Whether this is a good thing or not, it does keep me going. Tongues has always been an issue with me from the moment I entered Revival (fww, my story somewhere on this forum) and to have it revealed for what it is according to the bible, was the “flash” point to my walking away in pursuit of the truth. Watching the video and listening to lectures seem more “effective” and personal to me than reading. Hey Ian, How’s about do something similar? We won’t laugh. Food for thought? Ralph I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
|
|
|
ThePilgrim
|
Share to:
#15
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：08/05/2011 11:32 PMCopy HTML No worries Ralph, keep that critical attitude going... and your heart open :) Greetings, Torben
|
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#16
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：08/05/2011 11:38 PMCopy HTML Good morning, Ralph.
Hey Ian, How’s about do something similar? Ummm. I actually started the whole 'let's-do-exegesis-and-see-what-the-Bible-says' thing, here. The 'PleaseConsider' website, my engagement on this forum, responding to a score or more emails each week, and the various essays that I've written have probably helped a few thousand Revivalists over the years. Isn't such enough for one man to do? Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
ThePilgrim
|
Share to:
#17
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：09/05/2011 12:42 AMCopy HTML I agree with Ian on this one. This might be an internet forum but in a sense - are we not working together here and are all profiting one from another? If the whole body were a youtuber - where were those that labour in doctrine?
No reason to puffed up about one gift, nor to be ashamed of not being used for another. I am sure future will see Ian and I disagree on something :)... but honestly I have to give credit to his work, which has given me a lot of facts and eye-openers. Greetings, Torben |
|
|
Luke735
|
Share to:
#18
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：12/05/2011 2:24 PMCopy HTML Those of us who are walking in the Spirit (that is to say, guided and directed by the Spiritual interpretation of God's Word and responsive to the "still small voice" in the light of the word revealed) should feel sorry for those guys. (Ian and Torben) for they are “Blind leaders of the Blind”. Their naturalistic approach to all things Biblical has become such a barrier to them ever knowing the true richness of the intimate relationship with Jesus. I will be speaking this Sunday about these type of false prophets and posting on YouTube. Ian and the like are convinced they are serving Jesus in their lives but are really serving their own egos. It should be no surprise because the Pharisees of Jesus time did not even recognise that they were accusing the Lord of Glory who is the Word of God. I am sure Ian is a decent enough person but the reason I feel driven to expose his motives here is that he is wrongly drawing a link between abuse suffered in various cities and townships where isolated Pastors have acted outside their mandate and the Acts 2:38 salvation message. He often uses the phrase "Bad fruit - bad root" in an attempt to justify what is obviously two mutually exclusive topics. But his agenda is to play on the hurt of ex members. If any of you are wondering why I speak this way about people like Ian let me give you an analogy. In the first instance these creeps offer refuge and support only to use these girls as prostitutes. Spiritually this site IMO has done and is doing the same thing. a) People who have been disappointed or hurt by religious organisations like GRC, RCI & CAI find their way to this site. b) The Mods and others on this site pull up alongside in their caddy offering support and convince people that many of their problems lie in the Acts 2:38 doctrine of these groups. and as a result throw the Revival Fellowship in the mix. c) They then promote orthodox teaching (or should I say Lukewarm Christianity) as the answer to their woes. Thus prostituting these disappointed and let down Christians to promote the doctrines of the mother of harlots and her fellow harlot orthodox groups like baptists, methodist and C of E etc. PUT PLAINLY THEY ARE EXPLOITING THESE PEOPLE TO FURTHER THEIR FALSE DOCTRINES, WOLVES PREYING ON WOUNDED SHEEP. EXACLY AS THE LORD SAID IT WOULD BE LIKE IN THESE LAST DAYS. Furthermore, I struggle to see any horror storied coming from TRF but because Ian and the like have an agenda of dismantling the Bible salvation preached by TRF they draw an unfair comparison with these others (RCI, GRC & CAI) I am sure that if any of you were to view our YouTube channel ( "FullOnGooseActs" *edited by moderator with Bible) in hand you would see that the spiritual content rings true with the Spirit of God that dwells in you, far more than the dribble that emanates from orthodox circles. The fact is that Ian hasn't a clue what I am on about and thus thinks me weird or strange (or even a "Goose") So be it. I have done nothing but work tirelessly over the last few years to help people (spiritually recover themselves) by making positive contact with them and treating the root cause of their mistreatment. This is what more of you reading this should be doing rather than coming here to air your laundry. Only then would you find real peace. God Bless Luke 7:35 |
|
|
prezy
|
Share to:
#19
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：12/05/2011 10:11 PMCopy HTML Hi Luke, you must have a different Bible to me? or a vivid imagination. I was where you are once, but as the Lord did to Paul, He opened my eyes and praise to Him for that. I pray that you too will the real truth of God's message.
¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
|
|
|
Luke735
|
Share to:
#20
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：12/05/2011 10:34 PMCopy HTML Reply to prezy Hi Luke, you must have a different Bible to me? or a vivid imagination. I was where you are once, but as the Lord did to Paul, He opened my eyes and praise to Him for that. I pray that you too will the real truth of God's message.
There are two Bibles. 1) The Bible that is read and applied naturally (physically) 2) The Bible that is read and applied Spirtually. I fully understand your (and Ian's) frustration at people like me because you don't understand a word I am saying. God Bless Luke 7:35 |
|
|
Biblianut
|
Share to:
#21
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：13/05/2011 12:44 AMCopy HTML Luke 7:35 A false gospel is a false gospel no matter how it is presented. Your version and Ian’s are worlds apart but it is very clear which one is the true gospel. Get real! I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
|
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#22
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：13/05/2011 1:23 AMCopy HTML Tony/Luke735/GWM/Demetrius/Mothman's Ghost, etc.
There are two Bibles. 1) The Bible that is read and applied naturally (physically) 2) The Bible that is read and applied Spirtually. I see. So when used in Scripture words don't actually mean what they ordinarily mean? According to you when in the Bible conventional words become 'codes', cryptograms that properly mean only what you want them to mean. How very 'gnostic', and how very convenient (for you). It must be 'fun' living in your world. You know, a place where the rules of grammar and syntax don't apply but the fact of communication somehow does. I doubt that you're sufficiently well read to be able to grasp the irony of the following parallel, but Lewis Carrol once parodied precisely this sort of nonsense in his book, Through the Looking Glass. In one scene Alice had chastised the Cheshire Cat for importing his own meaning into a certain word, whereupon the Cat indignantly replied, "this word means what I want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less!" Try reflecting on the connotation, and the implications. I fully understand your (and Ian's) frustration at people like me because you don't understand a word I am saying. But I do understand what you're saying. Meaningful communication is taking place. It's simply that what you're suggesting is stupid: it's a poorly cobbled together attempt at providing a 'rational' defence for your ridiculous theories. I've spent years discussing Scripture and doctrine with Revivalists of every stripe. But you're the only one who has ever suggested to me that biblical interpretation is based on an uncontrolled, thoroughly subjective and allegorical reading of Scripture. In closing, you're clearly not the 'sharpest knife in the drawer', Mr Barton. But not even the thickest and most uninformed of Revivalist pastors that I've had dealings with previously has been daft enough to suggest anything quite so stupid. Heretic. Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#23
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：13/05/2011 7:17 AMCopy HTML  A small question to Tony Barton.. Sonny, do you understand the difference and meaning of 'subjectivity' and 'objectivity' ?? Eric.. |
|
|
ThePilgrim
|
Share to:
#24
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：13/05/2011 12:32 PMCopy HTML @Luke .. I think I know what you ar trying to say with your 'two bibles' statement, and agree in part.
1Co 2:12-14 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. So let's say there is one bible but two ways of understanding it; spiritually and just with the 'head'. This is possible where Ian and I might disagree (?). I have come to appreciate theologians, exergesis, the intellectual skills required to understand the syntax and gramar in the original manuscripts languages. All these skills are required in order to give us the full facts... BEFORE.. we hand over to the Holy Spirit and let Him teach us, by comparing those spiritual things with spiritual things, which we have now properly established. The spiritual comparing part can only be taught spiritually - and the theologian who limits himself to the intellectual skills only may still be very useful for us in making sure we are getting undeluded facts in the first place = BEFORE making doctrine, but he himself would remain a babe in Christ - regardless of his natural mind's size. If we were Greeks (or possibly arameans) 2000 years ago, fully capable of the originals manuscripts languages, then the usefulness of people like Ian would not be abolished but greatly diminished. However in our situation today they are very useful, but we can't rest on them... they only deliver the facts... it is the Holy Ghost who teaches us. A new start, a new creature, a new mind, a new way, the old mind won't work here - completely useless. Hence we see many denominations (like pentecostals) going around trying to do spiritual things in the FLESH or old mind. Hey - why let the Holy Spirit do the work.. if we can DO IT OURSELVES he? I can pray in tongues myself.. wohoo, I can manufacture healings and say God did it WOHOO.. no need to get to grips with the Word and renew that mind .. too much hard work isn't it? Everything MY conscience tells me from now on is simply the Holy Ghost.. WHOHOO the HG showed me this.. the HG showed me that WHOHOO finally the narrow way made simple. So yes Luke, the scriptures can only be understood spiritually - this is however not what you do... when it means that yo are distorting scriptural exergetically established facts and make it say what suits your belief most.. and then tell everybody how spiritual you are. And what Power are you always talking about? I long for more power for Holy Living, I need to repent about many a thing and change my old ways. At least show us your Power in the scriptures.. rather than spewing hot air, unfounded accusations and no scriptures to challenge any statements I (we) have made? Power he? How many blind have you healed yet? How many maimed and halt and lame have you healed yet? On how many people did the Holy Ghost fall without their active seeking/involvement/unexpectedly as we see the Apostles do in the ACTS of the Apostles? How many people understood your tongues as in ACTS? How many tongues did you understand clearly.. hearing them glorify the great works of God? What kind of power are you talking about? Ah I see - your denominations doctrinal belief statement lists 'we believe we still have the power of the Apostles' and you are nicely indoctrinated. Well the Apostles demonstrated their power... bring it on then? But not in Words only then. Sorry buddy, I am not aggainst you, but maybe one or two things said here will help you in the future. Love, Torben |
|
|
ThePilgrim
|
Share to:
#25
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：13/05/2011 12:51 PMCopy HTML Here come part 6 and 7
|
|
|
Talmid
|
Share to:
#26
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：13/05/2011 9:16 PMCopy HTML Hi Torben
I think you'll find that your point of exegesis and interpretation being inextricably linked with interpretation led by the Spirit following exegesis guided by the Spirit is a key point that Ian has been "banging on about" for years. You'll also find that "academic" theologians make *precisely* the same point. Further, a common point among many theologians seems to be that in their search to truly follow the heart of God, they needed to try to hear his heart and mind, and that led them to the path that Tony/Luke disparages of listening carefully to what God says. Tony/Luke and his ilk seem to think that God can speak to them without their minds being involved in listening to what God says. The evidence for Mann-made global warming is unequivocal.
|
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#27
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：13/05/2011 11:15 PMCopy HTML Good morning, Torben.
1Co 2:12-14 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. So let's say there is one bible but two ways of understanding it; spiritually and just with the 'head'. This is possible where Ian and I might disagree (?) That we might disagree depends on whether or not you properly understand what Paul was stating in the above passage, and you relying on the KJV probably doesn't help your case. Anyway, the important bit is the word 'receiveth'. Paul states (my own translation from the Greek): "the unregenerate person doesn't accept the leading of God's Spirit: spiritual things are foolishness to him, he can't grasp them or apply them because they require spiritual insight." The point that Paul was making was that a person who isn't regenerate (i.e. who isn't Christian) won't accept the need to live a life according to God's standards, precisely because he isn't 'spiritual'. Such a person has no spiritual insight. Look around this forum and you'll see the effect/evidence of such in spades. But to address the issue there's only one way to read Scripture, and that's to approach it seeking to understand the message the original authors sought to convey to their original audiences. Importantly one doesn't need to be a Christian to be able to do this; in this respect the Bible is no different to any other book: author - message - reader. In 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 Paul wasn't saying that an unregenerate (i.e. a non-Christian) person can't understand the Bible, what he was indicating was that such a person won't apply it to his/her life! This is the crucial point, so I'd ask you to reflect on the following practical application: a non-Christian who has the same training and skill set as me will reach the same conclusions as I do regarding the 'meaning' of this biblical passage or that. But the similarity ends there. Unlike me, the non-Christian exegete won't accept the results of his or her exegesis as the Word of God; consequently s/he won't apply them to his or her life. Because such a one is unregenerate, the non-Christian exegete is only capable of undertaking one small part of the larger interpretative process. He or she doesn't follow matters to their proper conclusions because s/he simply can't. The Christian approach to biblical interpretation involves something called a 'hermeneutical circle', a process that commences in worship and concludes with worship. This 'hermeneutical circle' comprises five inter-related elements: (1) worship, (2) exegesis, (3) exposition, (4) application, leading back to (5) worship. Christian biblical interpretation, then, differs from non-Christian biblical interpretation in that it: begins in worship before God, it strives to understand what his Word first meant, which then forces one to consider what it means today, so that believers might ultimately worship anew. It moves from 'then' to 'now', and from 'sense' to 'significance'. 'Academic' interpretation (for want of a better term) seeks only to discover the 'meant' bit, it has no interest whatsoever in 'means'. As a Christian I do exegesis because I want to understand what God's Word properly says. This is important to me because I want to apply the Bible's teaching to my life, today, and I want to be able to share it's teachings with others. The end result of the interpretative process for me is authentic worship, that is, worshiping God in 'Spirit and in truth'. Finally, I trust you haven't made the mistake of assuming that people like me are just 'useful' sources of necessary but otherwise difficult to come by/arcane 'facts'. The reality is markedly different, as it's people very much like me who preach, teach, evangelise, and disciple Christians through to spiritual maturity in churches the world over. For example, you said ... it is the Holy Ghost who teaches us, implying that we Christians receive our teaching through wholly supernatural means. Could you please list the biblical passages that you believe supports this idea? Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
ThePilgrim
|
Share to:
#28
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：14/05/2011 1:56 PMCopy HTML Hello Ian,
First of all thanks for pointing out the unclear KJV translation in regards to 'receiveth'. I checked the Greek in Thayer and Strongs Greek and I think in the application of reacting to preaching and teaching you are right... not accepting or rejecting is the more applicable translation. This is a perfect example for showing the need of trained theologians (in my opinion the attainment of this skill is not limited to bible school only, but can be attained in any expedient other non-academic/non-world/society-accepted way) to point out facts and translation issues. I know have to check whether this affects my beliefs .. so here we go: So we have basically moved from : The natural man 'can't take in' the things of the Spirit of God because he can't understand them... to: The natural man rejects the things of the Spirit of God because he can't understand them. So the issue at hand: 'The things of the Spirit of God are NOT understood by the natural man' is not changed by your correction of the KJV translation. Also - we clearly see that the unregenerate in this scripture can't accept the things of God because (CAUSE) he does not understand them. To state that he does not understand them because (CAUSE) he rejects them in the first place would me a misinterpretation of the scripture. (My apologies at this point to all other readers not named Ian/Didaktikon, I normally do not think nor converse in such technical terms, but am willing to attempt to speak like a theologian to a theologian (be a Greek to the Greeks) even though I am hopelessly behind in skill of expression, being a non-academic of German origin with the lowest attainable school education, which ends after nine years (I was 15 years of age)) So your interpretation of an unregenerate being able to understand the things of the Spirit of God just the same way as a Spiritul person may be taken from whereever it comes from... but certainly not from this set of scriptures at hand. I am also slightly confused about your interpretation of what I wrote(willfully? I trust you are an expert at exegesis, but are not able to read what I wrote? Do you apply two standards of exegesis - one for the Word of God and one for my words? Is it not an isue often pointed out by yourself - that people apply supernatural dimensions to the bible and refuse to read properly with their 'brain switched on'? I hope you are not doing the same thing in an inverted sense...) in regards to your comment... ... Ian: 'you (Pilgrim) said ... it is the Holy Ghost who teaches us, implying that we Christians receive our teaching through wholly supernatural means. Could you please list the biblical passages that you believe supports this idea? Ian, the whole context of the post was comparing spiritual things with spiritual... and these clearly being based on properly exegated facts from the Word of God. Were I the writer of an ancient manuscript and your task had been to exegete what my implication was... had you come to the conclusion that I implied 'purely supernatural means' ? Anyway :) enough of this. I thought I make this point to you ONCE but properly. No Ian - Not solely by supernatural means, but by the proper reading of the Word of God and then by the Holy Ghost teaching us (if one seeks) and never contrary to the Word of God. So having corrected your incorrect implication interpretation, which LEAD AWAY from the issue at hand, let's return to the original discussion, which was kind of drowned in many unrelated words...
Love and greetings, Torben P.S. Sincerely not written to put you down ... admittedly .. I kind of expect that you will have a very good and very loong answer for every point and point and point. P.P.S Sorry no time for a spell check and look over |
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#29
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 2:20 AMCopy HTML Good morning, Torben.
First of all thanks for pointing out the unclear KJV translation in regards to 'receiveth'. You're welcome. My advice to you is that it's time to 'ditch' the KJV and use a Bible written in modern English, all the more so given that English isn't your native language. If you do this what Scripture teaches will become much clearer to you. I checked the Greek in Thayer and Strongs Greek and I think in the application of reacting to preaching and teaching you are right... not accepting or rejecting is the more applicable translation. You 'checked' the Greek? How did you manage that given that you don't understand the language? How can you can make a valid assessment of the matter, one way or the other, without having a reasonable grasp of the nuances of Greek? Moving on ... you need to understand that neither 'Thayer' nor (especially) 'Strongs' is a reliable reference, and certainly not for a person ignorant of Greek. Both are inadequate tools, as both often provide incorrect information. The standard lexicon for your language, by the way, is the Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th ed, which is based on the lexicography of Walter Bauer. If you ever do learn Greek, you'll find this resource a real boon for NT exegesis (we in the English-speaking world use the English language equivalent, the volume translated and edited by Danker). This is a perfect example for showing the need of trained theologians (in my opinion the attainment of this skill is not limited to bible school only, but can be attained in any expedient other non-academic/non-world/society-accepted way) to point out facts and translation issues. It might be quite difficult attaining the complete range of necessary skills without sitting through a lengthy period of formal training. Self-directed learning is certainly beneficial, and it has its place, but it also has obvious limitations (not the least of which is a lack of someone to 'correct' one's mistakes). So we have basically moved from : The natural man 'can't take in' the things of the Spirit of God because he can't understand them... to: The natural man rejects the things of the Spirit of God because he can't understand them. 'Nope'. As I clearly stated in my earlier post, the unregenerate man rejects the guiding of God's Spirit because he is unregenerate. He lacks spiritual insight, which is an altogether different matter to what's implied by your word 'understand'. So the issue at hand: 'The things of the Spirit of God are NOT understood by the natural man' is not changed by your correction of the KJV translation. Again, 'nope'. You've apparently failed to appreciate that it's not a case of not 'understanding', it's a case of not 'accepting'. I made this point abundantly clear in my earlier post. Also - we clearly see that the unregenerate in this scripture can't accept the things of God because (CAUSE) he does not understand them. To state that he does not understand them because (CAUSE) he rejects them in the first place would me a misinterpretation of the scripture. To 'bang on' about this point still further, it's not a lack of (intellectual) 'understanding' that's the issue. It's a lack of (volitional) 'acceptance' of the teaching, which prevents (personal) 'application' in one's life that's Paul's main idea in our passage. (My apologies at this point to all other readers not named Ian/Didaktikon, I normally do not think nor converse in such technical terms, but am willing to attempt to speak like a theologian to a theologian (be a Greek to the Greeks) even though I am hopelessly behind in skill of expression, being a non-academic of German origin with the lowest attainable school education, which ends after nine years (I was 15 years of age). Which is cool, so long as you understand what's involved when one attempts to 'speak like a theologian'. And what's involved is precision with respect to meaning. I think that English not being your primary language is hampering you in this respect. So your interpretation of an unregenerate being able to understand the things of the Spirit of God just the same way as a Spiritul person may be taken from whereever it comes from... but certainly not from this set of scriptures at hand. Ahem. I didn't state that an unregenerate person was able to 'understand' the "things of the Spirit of God" at all. What I said was an unregenerate person can understand what Scripture presents well enough, it's simply that he or she will reject the implications that necessarily result. I am also slightly confused about your interpretation of what I wrote (willfully? I trust you are an expert at exegesis, but are not able to read what I wrote? Do you apply two standards of exegesis - one for the Word of God and one for my words? Is it not an isue often pointed out by yourself - that people apply supernatural dimensions to the bible and refuse to read properly with their 'brain switched on'? I hope you are not doing the same thing in an inverted sense...) in regards to your comment... Be careful, Torben. ... Ian: 'you (Pilgrim) said ... it is the Holy Ghost who teaches us, implying that we Christians receive our teaching through wholly supernatural means. Could you please list the biblical passages that you believe supports this idea? And I note that you haven't listed them yet. Why? Ian, the whole context of the post was comparing spiritual things with spiritual... and these clearly being based on properly exegated facts from the Word of God. Were I the writer of an ancient manuscript and your task had been to exegete what my implication was... had you come to the conclusion that I implied 'purely supernatural means' ? Anyway :) I suggest you go back and re-read what I wrote, as it seems you've missed my point. If I understood you correctly, your implication was that the Holy Spirit 'teaches' individual Christians through wholly (not purely) 'supernatural' means. You even referred to yourself as an example of this, of how the "Holy Ghost taught you". enough of this. I thought I make this point to you ONCE but properly. No Ian - Not solely by supernatural means, but by the proper reading of the Word of God and then by the Holy Ghost teaching us (if one seeks) and never contrary to the Word of God. Sure. So would you please provide me with a list of those passages of Scripture that you believe presents the idea that the Holy Spirit 'teaches' us what we need to understand as Christians. My contention is that such teaching is a corporate thing (i.e. it takes place within the Christian Church), given that the Spirit is a corporate 'safeguard'. My impression is that you believe it is a personal thing. So having corrected your incorrect implication interpretation, which LEAD AWAY from the issue at hand, let's return to the original discussion, which was kind of drowned in many unrelated words... I see. So you think you've corrected an incorrect implication on my part, eh? Do tell. The very scripture we discussed clearly states: NOT MANS WISDOM but as the HOLY GHOST TEACHETH natural men do not accept them BECAUSE the CANNOT UNDERSTAND THEM because they need to be understood spiritually comparing spiritual things with spiritual things... which seem by implication somehow different from natural things.. which the natural man CAN understand Torben, you'd probably gain more from this discussion if you expended greater effort 'listening' to what I have to share with you, than 'telling' me what I should believe about our passage. You've made the mistake of presuming that how you read the passage in the KJV, reflects what the passage actually states. What do I mean practically with all this puffing and dotting about with words? Example: (1) The Old Testament is full of examples and similtudes of things to come in the new testament. A caution: the fulfillment of an OT 'type' by a NT 'anti-type' (i.e. sensus plenior) requires strict interpretative controls. Anything less leads to what Tony Barton engages in: the allegorical wresting of Scripture. (2) so rather than trying to explain it in many complicated words, GOD chose to teach us by similtudes. But did he, though? (3) therefore the Jews eg.. and readers of the OT found it easier to understand the new covenant. Did they?! Why, then, did so few Jews became Christians? Why, then, was the Gospel sent to the Gentiles. (4) when they clicked to 'ye are the temple' and 'another prophet like Moses' and 'like the serpent was lifted up', etc. If what you suggest was the case, Torben, then why did fewer than 2% of Jews become Christians during the first two centuries? (5) add a multitude of points here for every incident of Jesus saying: The kingdom of heaven is LIKE this and LIKE that. Torben, Jesus used a common Pharisaical teaching method of his day: the parable. Are you actually suggesting that parabolic teaching is the key to biblical hermeneutics? (6) the more of those comparisons of spiritual situations and relationships with others connect up in our knowledge and understanding - the more we can literally talk about a new mind, a new way of thinking and it is realy God's Spirit's way of thinking no? Given that you asked the question, 'no'. To be legitimate, how we 'think' (if we are 'spiritual') must conform to what Scripture presents. After all, it was the Spirit of God that guided the writers of the various biblical books to begin with. Ergo, if what we 'think' doesn't conform to what Scripture presents, then what we 'think' is wrong. (7) this new way of thinking (if developed by seeking God by understanding of His Word) becomes very quickly a lot more powerful than the natural ways of understanding by grammar, words etc.. If you honestly believe this, then you're but two degrees removed from the nonsense that Mr Barton promotes. God revealed himself to humanity through words, and he left his will to us (Scripture) in words. Furthermore, Jesus stated that his words would outlast Creation itself (see Mark 13:31/Matthew 24:35). Words derive their meaning, and their context, from syntax and grammar. Consequently, God's Word can't be properly understood, and applied, apart from considering grammar and syntax. The Spirit's role is to soften the heart so that the Word of God can take root therein, not to replace it. (8) the things of the Spirit within us become so deep that mere words cannot utter them anymore, but we know that the Holy Spirit makes intercession for us... Sorry, but that was naught but a good example of the bad Revivalist habit of Scripture-wresting and 'proof-texting'. The Spirit making intercession for us, has nothing whatsoever to do with "the things of the Spirit within us becoming so deep that mere words cannot utter them anymore"... because we also know that God is a Spirit and he - looking on our hearts and not our physical mouths - understands what we have need of before we speak.Therefore vain babblings - thinking God hears us for making many words are not the mature ways of the Spirit. And who said that they were? Me? Or you? (9) Furthermore the more of those spiritual situations and their relationships and comparisons to each other we accumulate - the more we are able to receive more of them. Therefore those that have will even receive more, but those that have not will even lose what they THOUGHT to have. Given they way you've phrased this, I'm left with the distinct impression that you view me as some sort of 'naturally-minded', 'un-spiritual' babe-in-Christ; one who doesn't know his left hand from his right, spiritually-speaking! ;) Unfortunately and thank God for it... with the increase of this way of thinking.. as the HOLY GHOST TEACHETH ... we realise more and more of our corruption and find it hard to be puffed up in any way about the abundance of revelations (red flag for u?) ... as with them come a greater awareness of our corruption and our heart is humbled.... as we start seeing things lie God see's them... as we leave the righteousness of the Pharisees behind for a far greater standard. Right. First, let me bring you back to my original challenge: what are the Scriptures that you believe presents the idea that the Holy Spirit 'teaches' us? Second, can I take it that you think I'm approaching these matters as a 'Pharisee'? If so, 'why'? Now, in your various 'Youtube' vignettes you've challenged people to read Scripture to see what it actually says. I'm challenging you to do the same thing. Don't simply presume that you're correct in what you maintain, try to demonstrate from Scripture that you actually are. This is the kind of language I experience the Holy Ghost teaching me... and many others out there. Ya think? Why? Can you receive it? If not - there are several possibilities in the original scripture discussed above... and one further one.. which is that I am wrong :) Perhaps you should give more consideration to the possibility (actually probability) of your last point? That you're wrong :) P.S. Sincerely not written to put you down ... admittedly .. I kind of expect that you will have a very good and very loong answer for every point and point and point. Obviously, given that I know this 'Bible stuff' far better than you. P.P.S Sorry no time for a spell check and look over. Don't worry about it. I make allowances for non-English language speakers. And for people suffering the effects of residual CAI false teaching. So just imagine how understanding I am of a non-English speaking person who is clearly still suffering the effects of residual CAI false teaching! Blessings, Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
ThePilgrim
|
Share to:
#30
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 4:07 AMCopy HTML Hi Ian,
I did not aim the pharisee nor the 'natural man' at your person. So there are two points where you were wrong already. The rest of your answers simply make me wonder whether you believe in the living God or a book. Nothing further to add. Greetings, Pilgrim |
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#31
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 7:25 AMCopy HTML Hello, Torben.
I did not aim the pharisee nor the 'natural man' at your person. That's certainly pleasing to hear. So there are two points where you were wrong already. Well, you certainly haven't demonstrated that such is the case. The rest of your answers simply make me wonder whether you believe in the living God or a book. Wrong attitude, bro'. So very, very wrong. I'm trying to correct your understanding of this subject because I know it much better than you. However, you don't know me as a Christian person, so you're clearly in no position to be commenting on my spirituality (just as I haven't presumed to judge yours). If you can maintain the distinction between the subject of the discussion, and the person with whom you're engaging in discussion, then I reckon we'll get on just fine. If you can't, then I'll be forced to bring you down a 'peg' or several ;) Now to 'brass tacks'. The issue underpinning our chat hasn't changed, and it's not going to go away. If you struggle sustaining or defending your beliefs from Scripture, then you've got to question if they're even biblical. And if they aren't biblical, then unfortunately they're not Christian. Please try to bear in mind that you've been out of the CAI for what, a few months? There's much that you haven't learned about interpreting Scripture so as to grasp it's message aright, about the nature of the Christian call and the conduct of Christian spirituality; stuff that you certainly didn't get exposed to during your time in the CAI. However, you will get exposed to these sorts of things and more if you fellowship in a solid, orthodox, evangelical church (which I hope you will if you aren't already), and if you take a little time to ponder some of the commentary that takes place on this forum. On your 'Holy Ghost Baptism' website you wrote: "I simply had to ask myself this: If we Pentecostals, who tell the whole world of theologians that they got it wrong regarding the Holy Spirit, did not even get it right with the initial key incident - how much more mistakes and false assumptions have been made?" My response to you would be, 'plenty'. So please, try suspending your disbelief for a bit, and consider the possibility that some of us have knowledge, wisdom and experiences that just might eclipse yours. In closing, I'll extend to you a wee piece of advice, as the 'Jedi Master' to the young 'Padawan Learner': don't try to be bigger than your 'britches' will bear, too quickly. Far better indeed it is to make sure one properly understands the subject matter and its implications before one tries having a go at poking the bear ;) Time for you to 'review', my well-intentioned friend. Blessings. Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
ThePilgrim
|
Share to:
#32
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 10:15 AMCopy HTML Seriously Ian, you disagree with 100% of what I am saying (oh you will even have a contrary answer on the colour of cheese).
I have stopped this discussion because I in my discernment for myself (which is my good right) deem you to be contentious for the sake of it. Now I have been accused (rightly at times) to be to strong, but your bragging of knowing everything better pheeww this is seriously un-christian sick. Your christian character and fruit of the Spirit does not shine through your way of talking... no use to say we don't know you Ian, are you too blind to see that we are all seing a lot of eachothers characters here by what we write and HOW? You seem to have ruled out the possibility of being wrong and are become as bad or worse than the people who lead the organisations you attack. It would be a pleasure to continue the discussion in form of a dialog... but two people having a monolog makes no sense to me. It seems (to this reader) you discuss in order to contend and distort with your brain every word said... not even attempting to understand. To continue this discussion with you would grieve me in the sense of breaking 'don't cast your pearls before .... lest they trample'. So Ian you keep trampling - but I won't give you anything to trample on. 100% failure rate sofar, so to keep trying having a spiritual conversation with you does not make sense. You can presume I am out of amunition until the cows come home... small thing to me. And while I am thankful for some information provided here - I think you 'slightly overrate' the glory of your puny skill in reading texts and establishing what they say - after all - it is called reading - and it is only natural that we should be able to master this skill better than childeren once the pitfalls are pointed out. Discussion ends here, independent of what you think about it, unless I see a different Ian one day.. who knows - miracles happen - but nothing short of a miracle would be required... They have ears but they hear not. Greetings, Torben |
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#33
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 10:36 AMCopy HTML Torben,
Seriously Ian, you disagree with 100% of what I am saying (oh you will even have a contrary answer on the colour of cheese). 'No', I only disagree with what you say when what you say is wrong. Some of what you've said is right, and I've affirmed as much publicly. I have stopped this discussion because I in my discernment for myself (which is my good right) deem you to be contentious for the sake of it. Now I have been accused (rightly at times) to be to strong, but your bragging of knowing everything better pheeww this is seriously un-christian sick. But I haven't been bragging at all, I've simply been stating some pretty obvious facts, facts which you apparently don't wish to hear. I'd suggest this speaks more about you than it does me. Your christian character and fruit of the Spirit does not shine through your way of talking... no use to say we don't know you Ian, are you too blind to see that we are all seing a lot of eachothers characters here by what we write and HOW? Torben, I've been actively helping Revivalists just like you for almost twenty years. The 'fruit' of my labours and ministry in this area is quite well known, as is my character. I'm not the 'unknown quantity' here, you are. You seem to have ruled out the possibility of being wrong and are become as bad or worse than the people who lead the organisations you attack. That's a rather substantial charge to be making, with rather substantial implications. But it's also a completely false one. I've been challenging you to demonstrate for me where you think I've been wrong, and then from Scripture. It would be a pleasure to continue the discussion in form of a dialog... but two people having a monolog makes no sense to me. It seems (to this reader) you discuss in order to contend and distort with your brain every word said... not even attempting to understand. But I have been attempting to understand you, which is why I've been asking you to clarify your views with Scripture. But for whatever reason you've decided to 'sook' instead of respond, and have now started making some rather uncharitable and judgmental comments about me and my spirituality. To continue this discussion with you would grieve me in the sense of breaking 'don't cast your pearls before .... lest they trample'. But is what you've been 'casting' before me 'pearls' or simply 'beads'? That's the issue. I have every confidence that you mean well, but I'll also admit to being somewhat troubled by certain 'slips' that you've made in your videos, which have become glaring and obvious errors upon closer inspection of your posts, here. So Ian you keep trampling - but I won't give you anything to trample on. 100% failure rate sofar, so to keep trying having a spiritual conversation with you does not make sense. You can presume I am out of amunition until the cows come home... small thing to me. And while I am thankful for some information provided here - I think you 'slightly overrate' the glory of your puny skill in reading texts and establishing what they say - after all - it is called reading - and it is only natural that we should be able to master this skill better than childeren once the pitfalls are pointed out. I see. My 'puny skills' aren't quite the match of your capacity to 'read', huh? Why, then, did it take my essay on Acts to challenge your thinking on the subject of 'tongues'? You'd been reading the Bible for what? Seventeen years in the CAI? And yet you'd been misreading, and misunderstanding it for the entire time. So what makes you so confident that your capacity to read, and properly comprehend what you read, is now up to par? Discussion ends here, independent of what you think about it, unless I see a different Ian one day.. who knows - miracles happen - but nothing short of a miracle would be required... They have ears but they hear not ... Sadly, some ingrained CAI traits are starting to surface. It's been my long experience that when Revivalists are challenged on their understanding of the Bible, they inevitably fall back on old habits and resort to illegitimately 'proof-texting' (read, 'wresting') Scripture, with a (misplaced) and arrogant sense of dismissiveness? Time for you to get over your wounded pride, repent of it, and then reflect on your poor behaviour and attitude. If you want to convince us that you're no longer 'CAI material', then it's time you started acting accordingly. Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
MothandRust
|
Share to:
#34
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 10:55 AMCopy HTML Reply to Luke735 Hi Torben: Ian has given you the thumbs up (I'm SHOCKED!) maybe its because you agree with him. Anyway you have earned the great and mighty Didaktikon's "Blessings" at the end of his post....Bravo! Be careful that you do not disagree with the Great and mighty Ianos though, or you may get called a "goose" ooogh. There ya go Lukazoid. It's not all cuddles and kisses, but still a good thumb up to Torben for acknowledging the error in the fundamental problems in the Revival salvation doctrine. Thumbs down for being another arrogant dude, but this place is a magnet for people who think they alone hold all the knowledge and don't need further study. That, of course, isn't me. But at least I've got more of a handle on reality than you. Ha. And notice that the 'goose' label is mostly yours still. Congratulations.
Ooogh
Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete
|
|
|
Epios
|
Share to:
#35
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 12:05 PMCopy HTML
Lukie, I thought I'd make a few comments on your points a, b, c, etc. (a) Surely you wouldn't deny the hurt, the deeply wounded a place where they can air their disappointments among others who've suffered in a similar way and who in turn can help others experiencing the same at the hands leaders in these organisations........... including TRF. You are sounding rather like a one man admiration society for TRF. (b) And TRF are in the mix also. If you are in denial of this then you're burying your head in the sand. Few need convincing that the root problem with all of them is their Acts 2 : 38 doctrine, which by the way doesn't actually mention speaking in tongues. And TRF share the same doctrine as RCI, GRC and CAI. A doctrine that is not only elitist, exclusive but militant - attitudes that cause strife among friends, relatives, families and within marriages of those in these groups. (c) There's nothing lukewarm about orthodox Christianity. I've tried both and found Revivalism very destructive spiritually and in relationships with others who didn't deserve the treatment I handed out. A soul destroying outfit of ignorance breeding ignorance. Unfortunately its' heresy sucks people in. Read your scriptures carefully Lukie. It's not in the orthodox churches where exploitation of people occurs. What irks me is that Revivalists who've never known anything but Revivalism seem to feel qualified to criticise and comdemn those 'mainline churches' even though never having set foot in one. You say "Furthermore I struggle to see any horror stories coming from TRF but because Ian and the like have an agenda of dismantling the Bible salvation preached by TRF they draw an unfair comparrison with these others (RCI, GRC, CAI) Well, I'm one of 'the like' because I say what TRF preach is not Bible salvation, its a Revivalist Lloyd Longfield instigated error. I doubt anything could compare with the CAI, but TRF are in it too and if you can't see it you are deluded. Or maybe you don't want to see it because you may have friends in TRF, perhaps in 'high places' that you wouldn't want to offend. Beware, they can turn quick as lightning. I urge you to re/visit TRF room on this forum and the two and a bit pages of threads. Not all who post are wrong or bitter or vindictive as they're often branded. You might like to pay particular attention to "Letter to the Adelaide Revival Fellowship" and "Darryl Williams Encourages Shunning" in which the crass Melbourne 'pastor' inforces shunning of families etc. Really where's the love - a damned bad testimony I'd say. I'm amazed that Mr Kuhlman keeps him on. Before departing Rev. I briefly looked at this site but when I finally did leave I read everthing. One rather amusing thing that struck me were the little sayings that came into Rev talks, the turn of phrase, the pretty cool stuff from leaders all came leaping out from the posts on this website. I'd say not a coincidence. Bad as you might make this site out to be with your analogies both you and Revivalist leaders do read (and quote from) here. God Bless. Epi |
|
|
Epios
|
Share to:
#36
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 12:11 PMCopy HTML Correction:
Should read 'NOTHING' could compare with CAI. Epi |
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#37
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 3:58 PMCopy HTML All,
I must add comment to this thread from the TDNT Kittel: Volume 2 p.877. "Featureless lukewarmness is worse, and more difficult to overcome, than complete alienation from or hostility to Christ. The Judge will reject the half-hearted with distaste as one spews out a tepid and tasteless drink. Now is the time for repentance and conversion." Eric. |
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#38
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 7:57 PMCopy HTML You know, I was sitting here trying to work out what it is that you guys remind me of. It's like eating a whole packet of saos with nothing on them. Dry, old and pointless. I am so glad that in another generation or two your version of christianity will most likely just die out.
|
|
|
prezy
|
Share to:
#39
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 8:58 PMCopy HTML Reply to Guest You know, I was sitting here trying to work out what it is that you guys remind me of. It's like eating a whole packet of saos with nothing on them. Dry, old and pointless. I am so glad that in another generation or two your version of christianity will most likely just die out. Well then brainless, why are you here? And what contributions have you made that are not tiresome? ¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu
|
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#40
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 10:08 PMCopy HTML Good morning, Tracey.
You know, I was sitting here trying to work out what it is that you guys remind me of. It's like eating a whole packet of saos with nothing on them. Dry, old and pointless. I am so glad that in another generation or two your version of christianity will most likely just die out. Really? Given that 'my' version of Christianity has been kicking around for 1,981 odd years, and is still going strong, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to 'die out', were I you. Goose. Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#41
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 10:11 PMCopy HTML Reply to Guest You know, I was sitting here trying to work out what it is that you guys remind me of. It's like eating a whole packet of saos with nothing on them. Dry, old and pointless. I am so glad that in another generation or two your version of christianity will most likely just die out. Now Now, Mr. Luke warmness, your use of Revelation 3:16 does not in terms of context describe allegorically any form or brand of Christianity. Given that the term "Christianity" is not placed or found within the canon text, how do you fit your paradigm with "our version of Christianity" ??? The context of Revelation 3:16 is about an "ekklesia" or a "gathering" of believers that are at a location or region called "Laodicea"... It is not in terms of context referring to an institution given that when John wrote Revelation (about 90 AD) there was only ONE universal church in existence !! Our "version of Christianity" as you put it, from an historical context is surviving quite well and it is "your version of Christianity" as you put it, given all the sexual, financial misconduct and relationship destroying attitudes that pervade the heresy brand of revivalism that is well and truly drying out. Eric |
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#42
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 10:36 PMCopy HTML All (including Mr Luke warmness),
You have to admit that Church History is a wonderful and fascinating subject to engage in. And in doing so we have to admit that if it wasn't for the single universal church or body with all its faults that managed to survive for the first 1000 years because of its institutionalized central authority, the Canon of Text would not have survived to be in our hands today. And yet even after the schism of the 11th century, a solid framework was in existence that made it possible for the New Testament to become our New Testament.. What an awesome God we have to give thanks to.. Eric |
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#43
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 11:10 PMCopy HTML Reply to Didaktikon Good morning, Guest. You know, I was sitting here trying to work out what it is that you guys remind me of. It's like eating a whole packet of saos with nothing on them. Dry, old and pointless. I am so glad that in another generation or two your version of christianity will most likely just die out. Really? Given that 'my' version of Christianity has been kicking around for 1,981 odd years, and is still going strong, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to 'die out', were I you. Goose. Ian Nah, it will be bitchslapped by the Hill$ong variety. Its already happening :) |
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#44
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 11:14 PMCopy HTML Reply to Mishnah All (including Mr Luke warmness), You have to admit that Church History is a wonderful and fascinating subject to engage in. And in doing so we have to admit that if it wasn't for the single universal church or body with all its faults that managed to survive for the first 1000 years because of its institutionalized central authority, the Canon of Text would not have survived to be in our hands today. And yet even after the schism of the 11th century, a solid framework was in existence that made it possible for the New Testament to become our New Testament.. What an awesome God we have to give thanks to.. Eric Yeah its it that good ole central authority that we have to thank for the past 1,981 years of church approved abuse. Jesus would be so proud, he couldn't do it without you guys :) What a shame the canon of text under the interpretation of the "orthodox" church does not appear to require anything but blind conformity. Love got lost along the way, if it was ever understood in the first place. Wouldn't want to have you feeling any of those icky emotions or anything. |
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#45
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：15/05/2011 11:38 PMCopy HTML Tracey,
Nah, it will be bitchslapped by the Hill$ong variety. Its already happening :) Well, clearly you're not particularly well informed about the current 'state-of-play' in worldwide Christianity. Hill$ong-esque 'Christianity' is on the decline; apparently younger post-postmodernist people are craving substance. In point of fact, the fastest growing segment of Christianity is now the liturgical 'wing': Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran ;) Goose. Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#46
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：16/05/2011 2:24 AMCopy HTML Reply to Didaktikon Guest, Nah, it will be bitchslapped by the Hill$ong variety. Its already happening :) Well, clearly you're not particularly well informed about the current 'state-of-play' in worldwide Christianity. Hill$ong-esque 'Christianity' is on the decline; apparently younger post-postmodernist people are craving substance. In point of fact, the fastest growing segment of Christianity is now the liturgical 'wing': Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran ;) Goose. Ian Lies, damn lies and statistics :) Funny how you always manage to find those that support your argument, but ignore the rest. |
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#47
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：16/05/2011 2:29 AMCopy HTML Tracey,
Funny how you always manage to find those that support your argument, but ignore the rest. Such is the difference between informed fact and uninformed opinion. Try harder. Goose. Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#48
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：16/05/2011 3:41 AMCopy HTML Reply to Didaktikon Guest, Funny how you always manage to find those that support your argument, but ignore the rest. Such is the difference between informed fact and uninformed opinion. Try harder. Goose. Ian One try hard on this forum is more than enough, so I shall leave it in your capable hands seeing you're doing such a great job of it. Substance in the christian church??? Hehe ROFLMFAO!!!  Hate to tell you this mate but christians are the only ones who think so, hence the widespread indiffernce to the church by most Australians. |
|
|
Didaktikon
|
Share to:
#49
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：16/05/2011 4:40 AMCopy HTML Tracey,
One try hard on this forum is more than enough, so I shall leave it in your capable hands seeing you're doing such a great job of it. That's the wisest comment you've made on this forum to date. Substance in the christian church??? Hehe ROFLMFAO!!! Hate to tell you this mate but christians are the only ones who think so, hence the widespread indiffernce to the church by most Australians. So you speak for 'most Australians', huh? Do 'they' know that? Still, there always seems to be a segment of the population whose approach is to never let the 'facts' stand in the way of a good 'fiction'. It suits you. Goose. Ian email: didaktikon@gmail.com
|
|
|
Ex_Member
|
Share to:
#50
|
|
|
Re：The evidence is speaking in tongues? Date Posted：16/05/2011 10:48 AMCopy HTML Try Hard - A person who puts a large amount of effort into achieving a certain image, or counter-image, to the point where it is obviously contrived. Yep I can see you have your finger on the pulse there Ian, as usual.
So great to see the churches packed to the rafters every weekend, people just can't wait to get in and worship god. All that patience waiting in the queues, damn australians are a godly bunch. |
