Good Words?
Some quick thoughts on the quotes in the CRN article “Good Words”
THE WORLD IS NOT IN NEED OF A NEW DEFINITION OF CHRISTIANITY, IT’S IN NEED OF A NEW DEMONSTRATION OF CHRISTIANITY.
Sounds a lot like keep the message but change the method. Couldn’t agree more, Mr. Ravenhill.
WHEN THERE’S SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT CHURCHES/SAINTS DON’T LIKE, THEY CALL IT “LEGALISM.
No, when people place non-biblical (or cultural rules) at the core of their faith and then press them on others, it is legalism. For example, saying that music from the 1890s is the only way to worship God – that is legalism. Saying that there is a correct and incorrect slang to write in (i.e. “dudeâ€, “hotâ€, etc.) – that is legalism. Saying that you can’t have comfy chairs in church or coffee bars – that is legalism.
“SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT ARE THE DEVILS SUBSTITUTE FOR GOD’S JOY.â€
I would not have a problem with this statement if it said “Sports and entertainment can be the devil’s substitute for God’s Joy.†However, Ravenhill makes a definitive statement, saying that these things are inherently evil. I wonder if the “editor†at CRN has ever been to a baseball game. I wonder if he/she/it has ever been to the movies. I wonder if he/she/it would currently feel comfortable taking part in any sports game or entertainment. If they do, then they are substituting God’s Joy for the Devil.
October 13th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
That’s a pretty spot on definition of legalism you give there.
That’s why I’m glad as Christians we’re not really called to a unified culture, just a unified community.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
WHEN THERE’S SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT CHURCHES/SAINTS DON’T LIKE, THEY CALL IT “LEGALISM.
ummm…No.
When there’s something IN YOUR INTERPRETATION of the bible we don’t like IT’S MOST OFTEN “legalism”.
nice try.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Anyone else hear an “oh snap!” at the end of that article?
October 13th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Ravenhill wasn’t talking about legalism. He wasn’t talking about cultural rule. He was talking about acting on our belief in Jesus in which people would be convinced we really do believe what we say we believe. Ravenhill, a great revivalist, was a man who was against the building of churches for, “men to sit around in.” He was a pastor who was so very desperate to see the body of Christ go back to the teachings of Paul and set the church back up as God intended. Ravenhill was an old time pastor who mentored some of the greatest pastors and teachers of our time (ex. Ravi Zacharias, David Wilkerson). He wanted the bride of Christ to seek and have revival like never before and you know what revival means….the preaching against sin and telling the world that Jesus is the only way from the eternal damnation that lay ahead! He did not use FLUFF in his messages and he was serious about eternity. He definitely was not a calvinist and he definitely would have had NOTHING to do with the emergent church.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
yo jonathan,
do you really define revival as “the preaching against sin and telling the world that Jesus is the only way from the eternal damnation that lay ahead!”? I know pleanty of churches that are doing that… heck, half the Southern Baptist Churches in America are doing that, and most are dead or dying. I am interested in your take on that
October 13th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
In revival the sins against diety are that much more inhanced because of the supernatural falling of the Holy Spirit on a people who are ripe for revival. Revival is when God moves in a special way and revives a group of people are are seeking to be revived. My point was to say that Ravenhill “new definition of christianity” was based against legalism or cultural basis! He was talking about getting back to out first love…..
Heck half…less than that. But I rather be dead or dying teaching eternal damnation because of sin and the Jesus of the New Testament than be a growing emergent church who have brought christianity to a whore house. If Ravenhill was alive today I shutter to think what he would say about the emergent church. He would have called it Ichabod!
October 13th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Was NOT based against legalism or a cultural basis! Sorry…forgot the not..It’s late.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Jonathan,
I have a question about this definition let alone “revival” in general.
“Revival is when God moves in a special way and revives a group of people are are seeking to be revived.”
If something has a need to be revived, it needs to be renewed somehow… re-energized.
Now, I beleive that we can have the Holy Spirit re-fill… as we are filled with the Holy Spirit and in that are sealed in our salvation as Ephesians 4:30 states of us.
Now, I think the issue is that God can send a revival… but what I have experienced as “revival meetings” have really been nothing more than a plea to emotionalism and evangelism… It rarely has had anything really to do with “revival” as Psalms 80:18 states.
One of the issues is that some try to make themselves “holy” and “humble” which there is no way to make ourselves more holy… for if God has made you holy how can one become more holy than that?
Now, humility is also not something we muster up. It is the condition of the heart that one who has realized he can do nothing receives… it is part and partial of the gift of Faith. God give us faith to re-experience God’s Grace through Jesus, in which then lead us to realize it is God Who does all things and we are to be dependant on His purpose and workings in us.
Personally (and this is not about boasting in myself but in God) I have not needed “revival” since I came to the knowledge of God’s grace and very own Life working in and through me.
A person must realize we cannot make a “revival” but as we are revived, to walk out this revival in the power of the Holy Spirit from which it came.
Again, maybe in rare occasions there have been “new” revivals… but what we need is not an emotional charged preaching that makes us all excited in Jesus… but a true turning to the Holy Spirit by and in and for His purpose and will and desire.
Anything short of that is compromise….
And btw I am one of the “emergent” guys here if you did not know that.
be Blessed,
iggy
October 14th, 2007 at 12:34 am
I personal believe that all of us need revival at some point in a christian lives. Not to say we must be saved again, but a re-energizing as you so greatly put it. Revival, like the one that fell on the Island of Lewis(Hesperides Islands), is a revival not “tented up.” It is one that the people of God humble themselves in prayer and fasting and ask God to show himself in a supernatural way( a way that is not “normal”).
“Again, maybe in rare occasions there have been “new†revivals… but what we need is not an emotional charged preaching that makes us all excited in Jesus… but a true turning to the Holy Spirit by and in and for His purpose and will and desire.”
It is rare because we don’t seek the Lord as we should. Revival will bring messages from choosen men of God that are filled with the Holy Spirit. These messages will bring the Holiness of God to the front of human eyes in such a way that people fall on their faces because they realize the weight of their sins against deity! His purpose is to bring glory to himself and we can be the recipients of a supernatural falling of his Holy Spirit. The excitement in Jesus, as you say in this paragraph, is brought upon by much knee bending anguish and head bowing reverence to the King as the power of the cross is so clearly shown! Iggy, have you ever read any of Ravenhills books? Emergent, Calvinist, Notre Dame lovers whoever…we all need revival.LOL
October 14th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Jonathan,
I am needing some clarification. What do we need? Preaching on hell and damnation and sin? The spirit to fall fresh?
I agree that we all need revival. I just don’t think that preaching on hell and damnation is the best way to get there.
October 14th, 2007 at 2:34 am
nathan,
to me the only real revival is this…
It is when we realize the Resurrection and that we are now alive in Christ as New Creation… Christ in us our only hope of glory, that we are “revived”.
If we forget that we lost our first love… so hellfire and damnation seems not fitting when we are looking at the resurrection… we see that God lifts us up…
As Isaiah 57:15 -19 states:
Be Blessed the Lord’s day!
iggy
October 14th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
The preaching of hell should give us a fresh outlook on what we have missed because of Jesus’ sacrifice. The church in general has become complacent! Iggy, Have you read any books that Ravenhill has written?
October 14th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I don’t think the church has become complacent because of a lack of preaching on hell. In fact, the emerging church movement started because of all the complacency. Christians (or non-christians for that matter) do not need more talk of hell, they need something to do. Most churches are run like a restaurant… you come in, you get what you need, and you leave. The “emerging ” churches that I have been a part of are more like an organizsm than an organization… you really don’t have a place unless you are functioning within the body.
God’s people serving others and sharing HIS story is what is going to make revival happen. Preaching about hell, and hoping that the holy spirit will fall on the few frozen chosen is probably not the best plan.
October 14th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
CRN said: They speak louder than ever today.
Well, yeah, of course they do. When you capitalize everything, it’s gonna be loud.
October 14th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Paul used sports metaphors several times in his writings. By doing this, he was engaging the culture in which he lived. It is also worth noting that Paul never decried sports, so one would have to conclude that he at least condoned them.
If Ravenhill is right about sports, then Paul was embracing sin in his culture, something that CRN routinely (wrongly) accuses the EC of doing.
Mr Gluteus, meet Mr Rabid Chihuahua.
October 14th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Jonathan,
Since I found grace I care little for hell. My hope is that someone will come to Jesus not out of fear but for all He is.
With that I see very little if any preaching by the apostle on “Hell and damnation”. Jesus spoke of it, yet many miss it was to the religious leaders who he preached to.
Now, what do I focus on? You see I do not want to be guilty of having contempt for the richness of the kindness of God.
Romans 2: 4.
Do I want to so focus on God’s wrath when scirpture teaches us that God’s own wrath is there to showcase His Grace and Kindness? I do not care to focus on wrath for fear someone will come to God out of the motive of fear, in effect to have fire insurance… or that they come to God out of the motive that they will not have to go to hell…
I do want them to come to Jesus and receive both of those things and much more by believing on Jesus and receiving all He is.
Be Blessed,
iggy
October 15th, 2007 at 3:32 am
I think it was William Booth who said that if love the God won’t draw someone to Jesus, then no amount of the threat of Hell will.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Jonathan,
now I have not read any Ravenhill as I tend to stay away from the fire and brimstone things… He may be more than that, yet i have tried to listen to a sermon or two and usually turn them off.
I do not get all fired up over hell and damnation… now… about Grace and Mercy… about God’s justice (which is much more than about hell) i get very fired up about!
I read things more in line with Maj Ian Thomas, or thought provoking books or books sent to me by publishers LOL!
I like to be pushed into challanging what I believe. Not in that it has to be so provocative as it then can also be a turn off.
Most of the books I have read lately are around theology. I read people like N.T. Wright and Brian McLaren as they provoking in their own way as they push me to look at my own thoughts from a different angle. (these are not all I read as i have read a little Tozer, Packer, Willard, Viola, Shane Clairborn, Pete Grieg, Tim King, Geisler, and many more)
I tend to read more articles and listen to more teachings as I can listen more easily then read at times.
Most of the time I spend is poking around in the Bible. In fact lately it has has been refreshing to read it and see just what it states as opposed to interpreting a meaning… which results in one seeing what they want out of their won theological background.
Does the verse in John 17:17 really say “thy word is truth.”? or is the word for word, being logos, the same thought that is throughout the book of John, meaning that this Logos became flesh and dwelt among us… is the saying Jesus is Truth?
That is the sort of thing I am interested in as i read scripture and seek to be challenged by it.
I heard someone state that Jesus spoke on hell more than on other topics. Yet, again, when he did, I wonder at how “literal” we take these passages and how little thought to others… like the prodigal son is not about the the son, it is about the Father… he is a prodigal Father… look up the word itself and see what I mean. Besides all things that Jesus did an taught are about His Fathers work.
Of these thinks I do think on. I do not gloss over a passage on Hell, I teach it and preach it, but not at the expense of Grace. If I have a fault it is that I filter all things trough Grace. I see that Jesus was full of Grace and Truth, that to see things from His perspective is to see things through grace and truth.
In that again, if I error it will always be on the side of Grace and hopefully truth though I know I fail on both counts.
Be blessed,
iggy
October 15th, 2007 at 10:26 am
I think you hit it on the head, iggy. I have no problem with the biblical concept of hell. I have a HUGE problem with the way most Christians want to use it. It is either a scare tactic for believers, or a condemning tactic for non-beleivers. I think that hell should be such a disturbing concept, even for us believers. It should drive us to reach people for Christ, not repel us from them.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:47 am
–WHEN THERE’S SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT CHURCHES/SAINTS DON’T LIKE, THEY CALL IT “LEGALISM.–
I have to give this some credence. Not complete, but maybe about half. There does seem a tendency, not exactly a new one either, to want to do the “we’re under grace not the law” type of thing in regards to some biblical moral standards.
There’s been a bit of a to-do, for example, over the man who recently wrote a book about how he spent a year trying to keep all of biblical rules. For the most part, his example seems to be used as a means of showing how ridiculous it is to try such a thing, and how old-fashioned and out-of-touch biblical standards are in our progressive age.
As far as I know, the man wasn’t a believer, and didn’t get much spiritually from his experience. He also probably had little concept of what it means to be ‘under grace and not the law’.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I just don’t see how you can use a phrase by Ravenhill and not read his books or know anything about his convictions. His words have been taken out of the context in which he used them. Grace, mercy that saves us from hell…. They work hand in hand, but we will never agree on that based on your comments so why argue the issue.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
You have some great thoughts Jonathan, you must have been taught by a great prophet.
Just guessing!
October 15th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Jonathan,
2 Things:
1. I think the reaction here is more to the people quoting the guy than to him. But that is just a guess on my point.
2. Your statement where you say “we will never agree based on your arguments so why argue” can be dangerous in a place like this. I say that because often, though not always when someone says that it shows that they are more interested in proving they are right then actually hearing the other person. I’m not saying this was your intent I am only cautioning you to be on guard against that.
Peace
October 15th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Jonathan,
They do this with Tozer also… the take the people that “supposedly agree with them” out of context, how much more will take someone they disagree with out of context.
So i hold almost any quote they give out pro or con as suspect.
Is ravenhill bad, I hope I never stated that… if I did it was unintentional… Yet, do I agree with the quotes as given in support of CRN’s position on things… no… and again… no.
There are only a few verses that state we are delivered or saved from hell … in fact they are prayers from people like King David to be saved from hell.
I see we are saved “unto” things in scripture.
Because I see that we are saved “unto” things like good works and so on, I see that the by product of getting out of hell is not the focus of our New Life in Christ.
I have found that those that tend towards the focus on getting out of hell focus on staying out of hell by their own works. This can be an over generalization, yet I have met many who seem to have spiritual issues as they are focusing on hell and staying out of it that they miss that they are never to worry as they are a New Creation… and if a New Creation they are abiding in Christ and living because of His Life in them. They are dead, and the New has come.
So, hell has little to do with my faith and who I am as I am focused on the Kingdom. I acknowledge there is a hell and will confront that kingdom when needed, but again even at that point my focus is on God’s Kingdom overcoming the darkness.
be blessed,
iggy
October 15th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
My intent was only to say…be careful when you use the words of a man of God out of the context he was speaking in. Of course his context can be up for opinion, but to use his statement without knowing the man’s convictions is dangerous as well. I am not pointing that I am right, but I am pointing out we have differences that will not be swayed to a certain side and in that booth of our points are moot. I do, however, espouse Ravenhills beliefs on Revival and his views on how far the church has strayed from being New Testament. Joe, thank you for the advice! I want you to know that if I ever use the “we will never agree phrase” it is just a sincere chess “draw” move so we can agree to disagree. That’s how me and my father got through my teenage years!LOL
October 16th, 2007 at 7:18 am
I know almost nothing about Ravenhill, but I do have some thoughts on ‘revival’, at least as it seems to be seen by some I was around.
I grown skeptical of the concept of ‘revival’. Not of the need to proclaim the Gospel and the hope that people will respond, but of revival, or at least of many of the things that tagged along with it.
I spent several years with a certain missions organization. Not a bad one, by any means, but while their official position was ‘nondenominational’, in practice they were charismatic. Their concept of ‘revival’ was heavily influenced by teachings with what was for me a uncomfortable tone of conquest–spiritual warfare, breaking strongholds, taking cities for God. There were dabblings in practices such as using praise and worship as a kind of spiritual warfare tool; traveling to certain significant places, ‘high places’ I think they sometimes called them, and ‘proclaiming destinies’ over regions; and the like.
I came to question many of these things. For example, if it is our job to take cities for God by means of warfare prayers and proclaiming destinies, then why do we have no record in the Bible of Jesus or the Apostles doing such things? We know Jesus cared greatly about Jerusalem, and his pronouncement of judgment on the city seem to have come from a someone who was heartbroken at what they were bringing on themselves. Did Jesus lack faith for the city? Should he have tried some kind of ’spiritual warfare’ tactic?
The answers to such questions seemed obvious.
Perhaps I am not so much against ‘revival’ as against that concept of it.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Jazz, I agree there is a definite difference between true revival and the many concepts people have about revival based on their defintion. I am very much longing for revival! The revival I long for is that which has been experienced through history not the tent revivals we see all over. I have read many Ravenhills writtings on revival(not as much as my father) and he uses examples of revival history through some of his books. The one revival I know about well is the Hesperides Revival, mainly on the Is. of Lewis, which happened between 1949-1953. Duncan Campbell was a man used in the Hesperides revival and he wrote down many of the accounts of that revival. He didn’t have a concept, but an actual experiencing of a great revival movement. That experience is what I long for. Yes, I have a concept of revival in my non experience, but my main outlook on revival is based on the teachings and accounts of those who have been through a revival. I am not and would not be skeptical about revival that entails the ingredients which were encompassed in revivals like the one which fell on the Is. of Lewis, but I am and will always be skeptical about “revivals” that are endeavored by the planning of man in which the heading “revival” is used as a punch line! Remember all, REVIVAL is a beautiful movement of the Holy Sprirt and breaks down many denominational boundaries which we build up as humans. May I be blessed to be able to see it in my lifetime!