EXPOSE: SICK PUPPY B.Sc (Hon.k)

IF THE PREVIOUS POST IS NAUSEATING, THIS ONE IS JUST ABOUT A PUPPY.
A SICK PUPPY.
A SICK PUPPY GOING.
GOING BACK.
A SICK PUPPY GOING BACK TO ITS VOMIT.

The significance of this expose is to show how one can 'exegete with his mouth at one blog' and 'with the same mouth condemn at another blog'. This is the rantings of a very sick boy. His ranting have been delivered at Jeremiah previouly to one of the contributors. Here it was worse. 'With the same mouth the contributor son was threatened with pink swastika, rape and all' And all this because the contributor disagree with that sick boy.

The following example from February 2008 shows the destructive tirade of one who cannot face disagreement. The background of this example came from a discussion on gifts and speaking in tongues. The contributors of this blog will take no sides in that discussion. This expose is to show the fraud who condemns and judge at another blogs but put on a grand show of exegesis in his own blog. Note: Even then his 2nd hand handbook knowldege was already detected by the others. Note: Even then his statements tend to be repetitive, "If you refuse correction according to the Scriptures, and do not want private interaction, then I would just have to intreract with your false teachings publicly." Sounds familiar? yes, because the same statement has been issued to one of the conributors in this blog. Anyone who disagree with this sick boy is an apostate, a reprobate, a liberal, a sinner who need to repent, repent. Do not be deceived by this sick boy's rantings.
HIS INTENTION: TO CORRECT ALL VIEWS TO MATCH HIS OWN
HIS MOTIVE: TO HIGHLIGHT HIS EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THINGS GOD, CHRIST & BIBLE
HIS FETISH: TO META-LABEL ANYTHING AND EVERTHING
END RESULTS: sICK BOY GET FUCKED

"GOD LOVES, MAN KILLS"

1. Posted by Daniel Chew on 05.02.08 at 15:11
Shane:
I do not consider 1 Cor. 13:10 as the proof-text for Cessationism. In fact, I think if anyone is a Cessationist based on 1 Cor. 13, then they don’t really have a solid foundation to base their rejection of the sign-gifts.

2. Posted by Sicarii on 05.02.08 at 15:11
Woah, thanks a million, Dan! I’m honored, and now I do have to think of who in the many blogs I read deserve this as well, ha ha!
Shalom!

3. Posted by Sicarii on 05.02.08 at 15:11
Daniel,
That’s most interesting! Most cessationists’ teachings are based on that from what I heard. If you have time, can you kindly expound on what you pointed out?
Shalom!

4. Posted by Daniel Chew on 05.02.08 at 15:11
Isaiah:
Eh, actually that would probably be the next topic I would be touching on in my blog, but it’s not an easy topic. But I have read enough to know that 1 Cor. 13 cannot bear the weight classic Cessationism puts on it. I agree with my continualist brethren here against the Cessationists with regards to the interpretation of 1 Cor. 13. That said does not make me a continualist though. There is another way through this fog, but I am still in the process of thinking over the issue, and by no means am I as well read on the issue than on the current issue on my blog which I would be finishing very soon. Soteriology has always been my forte, with Epistemology, Apologetics, Bibliogy next, and the issue of the gifts of the Spirit, compared with the others, is the one subject I am least well read of (OK, better than Eschatology).
Nevertheless, I would be looking into the issue as it is an important issue, and it sure impacts a lot of us, unfortunately. Like you, I don’t have a good impression of Charismatism due to he abuses I have seen in the movement, not to mention the rotten fruit of most charismatic churches (cf Mt. 7: 16-20) - a big turn-off. But we must resist committing the genetic fallacy and reject continualism because of the bad fruits of most charismatic churches. So I am open to all views, though cautiously examining everything with a fine tooth comb according to Scripture.
Anyway, if you want to know more about my views on this matter, you will need wait for me to finish thinking through, reading and studying the issue, before I blog about it. So, stay tuned.

5. Posted by Sidharth on 05.02.08 at 15:11
Dear Isaiah,
There are genuine gifts of the Spirit and there are counterfeits. Would you stop using real money just because there are counterfeit ones? The charisma gifts are very holy as they are the very manifestation of the Spirit Himself. I’ve been exposed to more gift abuse than you have, but if you take that kind of attitude you can’t move on with God in His ministry.
Take these steps as outline [find the reference from 1 Cor 12-14]
(1) Do not be ignorant of the charisma gifts
(2) Ask for the gifts with a motive to help others [Remember my post on being faithful with the little- if you aren't faithful with what the Lord has already given you, make use of what you already have and the Lord will bless you with more as His Spirit wills]
(3) Desires/Covet earnestly the best gifts and be zealous for them.
(4) Follow the greater way of love in using the gifts.
I have received the gifts without asking, and I have received gifts by seeking God for it. But in the end, the gifts are given severally as the Spirit wills.
Don’t settle for a false humility, where you open your ears to all the junk others have to say. The WORD is all we need. To me, humility is agreeing with what God says, no matter what traditional teachings have to say and no matter what experience has to say.
Many people who debate on tongues, healings and miracles have no Bible experience, they’re just running along with head knowledge.
Sidharth

6. Posted by Daniel Chew on 05.02.08 at 15:11
Sidharth:
there is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5). The doctrine of a second baptism by the Holy Spirit separate from conversaion is heresy and is a form of error historically called Pietism. All believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit and do not need to speak in tongues and have other strange manifestations in order to prove that they are Holy Spirit baptized. In fact, judging by certain people who have supposedly ‘undergone the 2nd baptism’ like Benny Hinn and Joyce Meyer, not to mention David (Paul) Yonggi Cho, the fact of speaking in tongues is no proof that you were even saved in the first place.

7. Posted by Sidharth on 05.02.08 at 15:11
Whoever wrote the last post, you’re sincerely wrong in many things.
Can you e-mail me, brother? You can use my prayer request column and we can have a HEALTHY discussion as long as we stick to the Word.
Sidharth

8. Posted by Daniel Chew on 05.02.08 at 15:11
Sidharth:
I am busy today since it is Chinese New Year, but nevertheless, I propose a inter-blog debate, if that’s fine with you (but nothing today)

9. Posted by Sidharth on 05.02.08 at 15:11
Daniel Chew,
I do not debate the Word of God. And I do not wish to discuss Scripture with you because you are not open to the manual. Each time Scripture was presented you[Daniel] have pointed to man’s theology and man’s practices. I don’t care what Benny Hinn or Joyce Meyer believes, I care only for the Word. And all that I believe is also experiential.
Scripture plainly speaks of the Spirit baptism and this experience was valid even 25 years [Acts 19:1-6] after the church began. I have experienced this and I do not debate on it just as much I do not debate on Salvation. However, I am open to the Word and will be part of any healthy discussions as long as you put aside private interpretation, “reformed theology” and allow the Word to interpret itself.
I have been in too many discussions in the past and when those who don’t believe in the Spirit baptism are unable to cope up with the evidence I put forth from Scripture, they go into conclusions like “It was for the Jews”, “It was to make them understand…”…..I ask them where that is written and they start vomiting all their theology. I am for the Word and will not accept any reformed theology but only what Scripture says.
I am not a Pentecostal nor am I a Charismatic, nor do I belong to any denomination, simply because God has called me to teach His Word to His Body. And anyone humble and receptive to the Word, will be blessed.
Sidharth

10. Posted by Daniel Chew on 05.02.08 at 15:11
Sidharth:
so be it then. If you refuse correction according to the Scriptures, and do not want private interaction, then I would just have to intreract with your false teachings publicly. For someone who claims to be humble, you sure behave the opposite. And trust me, you are not the first, and will not be the last, who behave this way. History is full of people who confidently claim they are biblical but yet their teachings blatently contradict the Scripture. As a philosopher once said, “Those who forget the past who destined to repeat it”.
I will start later, after the Chinese New Year celebration.

11. Posted by Sidharth on 05.02.08 at 15:11
Look who’s talking =D And do you see yourself as history too?
Anyone but you, Daniel. God be the judge. I do not even desire to discuss with you in public. I get involved in discussions only where the Bible is the basis. But you have lot of philosophies and sayings and reformed theology.
According to Daniel, God even hates sinners! =D
Sidharth


IF ANY OF THE COMMENTS ABOVE SOUNDS FAMILIAR, IT IS. IT HAS BEEN REPEATED OVER HERE AT JEREMIAH IN THE SAME JUVENILE SICKNESS AD NAUSEAM. IT IS AFTER ALL A RANTING FROM A SICK PUPPY. A PUPPY WHO KEEP GOING. GOING BACK. GOING BACK TO ITS VOMIT. DO NOT BE DECEIVED BY HIS EXEGESIS. BE ALERT TO WHEN HE FLAUNTS HIS B.Sc (Hon.k!!!)