• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Do you attend a "Full Gospel" Church?

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Please edify us with your list of Pentecostal missionary/evangelical outreaches
which thou hast attended throughout the world, and who the main missionary/evangelist was.

This should prove to be quite enlightening indeed for everyone! Thanks.

.

Boy, if you want to play the numbers game or who has the most influence in the world today then you might consider becoming Catholic as Catholics make up over 60% of total Christianity in the world today.

Secondly, Jesus predicts that the "many" are on the wrong road (Mt. 7:13) and in context he speaking of professed Christians (Mt. 7:21-23).

Third, he predicts that the closer we are to the end of the age the greater the apostasy (which is a revival of apostolic like miracle workers - Mt. 24:24-25).
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As explained before ...

This "movement" has been used by God all over the world to confirm Jesus' Gospel,
which has brought millions to salvation ...


Your statement is generic and simply erroneous! This movement is the epitomy of every kind of confusion possible. Their gospel is not the gospel of Jesus Christ and those who are saved within this movement are saved in spite of it not because of it.



All you care about is spewing your venom against God's latter days out-pouring of His Spirit,
which has not been handled very well at all by many "Christians".

You have previously been challenged to speak of your experiences in these Pentecostal/Charismatic
meetings around the world, where you say the "positive" results were all done by Satan!
IMO, this is modern-day blaspheming the work of the Holy Spirit.

Your opinion is simply wrong as your "opinion" is not Bibically based or supported by the Biblical context of the doctrine of blaspheming of the Holy Spirit.

For our readers, if you want a thorough repudiation of the charismatic heresy read the two following books by Hank Hanegraaff

1. Christianity in Crisis
2. Counterfit Revival

These two books thoroughly expose and repudiate the very foundations of the Charismatic movement.

There are some saved and good people in this movement but thoroughly confused as there are some saved and good people in about every aspect of professed Christianity.



You have refused to speak to this challenge!



I do not recall any such challenge. However, I must confess that I rarely read your posts and so you may have made such a challenge but I never read it.

I think this movement is of the devil as it has all the earmarks of Satan (2 Thes. 2:9; Mt. 24:24-25).

1. Ultimate confusion containing every contradictory doctrine imaginable - 1 Cor. 14:30

2. Proven false prophets galore - 1 Jn. 4:1

3. A Gospel of justification by works - Gal. 1:8-9

4. A "spirit" that emphasizes himself rather than Christ - Jn. 14-16

5. A religion that is self-authenticating rather than Biblical authenticating (Isa. 8:19-20).

6. Biblically predicted in the last days - Mt. 24:24-25; 2 Thes. 2:9
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Your statement is generic and simply erroneous! This movement is the epitomy of every kind of confusion possible. Their gospel is not the gospel of Jesus Christ and those who are saved within this movement are saved in spite of it not because of it.





Your opinion is simply wrong as your "opinion" is not Bibically based or supported by the Biblical context of the doctrine of blaspheming of the Holy Spirit.

For our readers, if you want a thorough repudiation of the charismatic heresy read the two following books by Hank Hanegraaff

1. Christianity in Crisis
2. Counterfit Revival

These two books thoroughly expose and repudiate the very foundations of the Charismatic movement.

There are some saved and good people in this movement but thoroughly confused as there are some saved and good people in about every aspect of professed Christianity.







I do not recall any such challenge. However, I must confess that I rarely read your posts and so you may have made such a challenge but I never read it.

I think this movement is of the devil as it has all the earmarks of Satan (2 Thes. 2:9; Mt. 24:24-25).

1. Ultimate confusion containing every contradictory doctrine imaginable - 1 Cor. 14:30

2. Proven false prophets galore - 1 Jn. 4:1

3. A Gospel of justification by works - Gal. 1:8-9

4. A "spirit" that emphasizes himself rather than Christ - Jn. 14-16

5. A religion that is self-authenticating rather than Biblical authenticating (Isa. 8:19-20).

6. Biblically predicted in the last days - Mt. 24:24-25; 2 Thes. 2:9

also helpful would be

D. R. McConnell A Different gospel
John MacArthur Charasmatic Chaos
Dave Hunt Seduction of Christianity!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

IMO, everything written in the NT is for our benefit today
(even Paul's instructions to slave masters and slaves, which still exist today).


Paul's instructions about the 9 spiritual power gifts, how they are to be used, etc. are for us today.

These were always supposed to have been the spiritual power of the church
to be used to overpower the enemy, heal the sick, and many other etc.

However, the one who won the right to be "the god/ruler of this world" saw to it that this would indeed NOT be the case.
It behooved HIM to have the spiritual power in which to destroy God's people, prevent many from being born again, etc.

The greatest liar and deceiver in the history of the world has always been too clever for the church.
And this is no surprise ... he WAS none other than God's #1 archangel in Heaven, above even Gabriel and Michael.

Historically, the church has often been run by men who were not even born-again.
How many RC and Orthodox priests do you think were born-again?
And the ones who were born-again towed the line of the have-nots to keep their jobs.
Except priests like Martin Luther and others.

The doctrine that the spiritual power gifts have ceased came directly from the pits of Hell.
Just because you don't have any of them is NO EXCUSE to preach that they have ceased!

Historically, humans have always been total spiritual idiots.
The ONLY ones who have NOT been total spiritual idiots are those who have been born-again,
those who have had the Holy Spirit INSIDE of them, trying to teach them "all things".
But, even these can easily be deceived ... just witness some of the idiot Pentecostals.

Like it or not ... Satan has always been "the god/ruler of this world".

.

Just curious...

Where and when did God lose His Soverignty over all affairs?
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
also helpful would be

D. R. McConnell A Different gospel
John MacArthur Charasmatic Chaos
Dave Hunt Seduction of Christianity!

Yes, these are very good books also! The "apostles" and "prophets" of the charismatic movement have never been able to provide any kind of comprehensive response to these books.

One reason for lack of response is that the whole movement really makes God's Word a secondary authority and wholly subjective to their primary authority - subjective experience/feelings/dreams/etc.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, these are very good books also! The "apostles" and "prophets" of the charismatic movement have never been able to provide any kind of comprehensive response to these books.

One reason for lack of response is that the whole movement really makes God's Word a secondary authority and wholly subjective to their primary authority - subjective experience/feelings/dreams/etc.

the first book that I listed is devestating to the Movement, as he was trained/educated at Oral Roberts, is still a Charasmatic, yet exposes the heresies of the worrd of faith/health/wealth teachers!

I was a part of the pentacostal movement first 10 years after being saved by the lord, but thankfully, NEVER bought into that aspect of it!

And being a baptist now, view the theology behind that movement as spurious at best, heretical at worst!
 

evangelist-7

New Member

You guys just don't get it do you?

What man does in NO way discounts God's truths.

You're looking at man instead of God.

You're looking at what man is doing instead of what God is doing.
Look at what God has been doing in foreign countries where the people are not biased.

To make it more plain, you're looking at what Satan is doing through idiotic man.

Man has free will and God usually does not take that away from man.

If the Satan-man combo acts crazy, Satan has succeeded in deceiving you.
And Satan has just a little bit of power ... he is the god/ruler of this world!
He deceived 1/3 of God's angels into following him in His rebellion against the Lord.

So, if you must, remain deceived in your powerless churches where
generally no one is healed of their physical, emotional, mental, etc. problems.
And where no one has much of a real spiritual anointing to get anyone saved.

Historically, man whom Jesus has NOT anointed with the baptism with the Holy Spirit
and the 9 spiritual gifts (when others have been) ... has rather embarrassingly felt left out.
This usually happens to those who are filled with unbelief.
That's why God does His thing in foreign countries (where you guys are far far away).

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thinkingstuff

Active Member

You guys just don't get it do you?.
]
Didn't you say that unless the Holy Spirit enlightens you that no one would understand unless they had that experience? A couple of points. Consider closely that even your language belies your thinking that authoritatively your experience rates higher than other peoples ability to discover for themselves what the scripture says. Thus when you look at scripture text you do so in light of your experience. Thus is it possible that your authoritative soursces for your faith is based primarily on experience and secondarily on scripture? Second point if one cannot understand save they have your experience then why critique them? If the Holy Spirit only gives a second baptism to empower for a specific mission why hold their lack of your experience against them? Doesn't scripture say
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master[a] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
If then this is the case why are you harsh on people who disagree with you?

You're looking at man instead of God.

Why do you say this?

You're looking at what man is doing instead of what God is doing.
Look at what God has been doing in foreign countries where the people are not biased.
What are you trying to use to support your position?

To make it more plain, you're looking at what Satan is doing through idiotic man.
Doesn't the scriptures say to test the spirits? Doesn't Moses instruct us on how to determine a prophet by whether what they say has come to pass? I don't think its beyond reason to see the fruits of people who claim to have your theology to see if its correct.

Man has free will and God usually does not take that away from man.
Its nice to make that assertion ( and I agree with you)however, what verse do you have to prove it? Some people here believe man is so tainted by sin that his will is limited.

Historically, man whom Jesus has NOT anointed with the baptism with the Holy Spirit
though you say this you leave out an important fact. Jesus is not recorded in the scriptures to have spoken in tongues. So though he is the Christ (Christ = Messiah = Annointed one) are you suggesting he wasn't filled with the Holy Spirit?

You've made an assertion. Where is your evidence?
 

evangelist-7

New Member
Didn't you say that unless the Holy Spirit enlightens you that no one would understand unless they had that experience? A couple of points. Consider closely that even your language belies your thinking that authoritatively your experience rates higher than other peoples ability to discover for themselves what the scripture says. Thus when you look at scripture text you do so in light of your experience. Thus is it possible that your authoritative sources for your faith is based primarily on experience and secondarily on scripture? Second point if one cannot understand save they have your experience then why critique them? If the Holy Spirit only gives a second baptism to empower for a specific mission why hold their lack of your experience against them? Doesn't scripture say If then this is the case why are you harsh on people who disagree with you?
I said certain spiritual truths are not obvious in Scripture, and gave examples.
First of all, do you have a problem with all of them?

I have given the verses which explain this baptism and its' corresponding 9 gifts.
The NT doesn't say all of this necessary spiritual power has been discontinued.
And notice that people who misuse them have nothing to do with any of this.

Jesus was very harsh with those having unbelief ... in some respects He was trying to shake them awake.
I am pushing Christians to open themselves up to a DEEPER spiritual experience,
and to be open to being used by the Lord with new-found spiritual power.

I.E. Those who ask for spiritual things often receive them (Matt. 7:7-11).
Don't forget the persistent widow.
Jesus gave me mine (in 1993) about 3 years after first asking.
Pentecostals call this "tarrying" at the altar.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

You guys just don't get it do you?

What man does in NO way discounts God's truths.

You're looking at man instead of God.


These men have documented the utter confusion, divisive doctrine and out right false prophecies by all the prominent apostles, prophets of Charismania, which is by their profession the leadership by the Holy Spirit.

You have to beleive in lies and confusion and divison as attributes of their "holy Spirit" movement to embrace it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I said certain spiritual truths are not obvious in Scripture, and gave examples.
First of all, do you have a problem with all of them?

I have given the verses which explain this baptism and its' corresponding 9 gifts.
The NT doesn't say all of this necessary spiritual power has been discontinued.
And notice that people who misuse them have nothing to do with any of this.

Jesus was very harsh with those having unbelief ... in some respects He was trying to shake them awake.
I am pushing Christians to open themselves up to a DEEPER spiritual experience,
and to be open to being used by the Lord with new-found spiritual power.

I.E. Those who ask for spiritual things often receive them (Matt. 7:7-11).
Don't forget the persistent widow.
Jesus gave me mine (in 1993) about 3 years after first asking.
Pentecostals call this "tarrying" at the altar.

.

its NOT a question of unbelief though, its that we do NOT see the Bible teaching as you state!

We also DO hold that the Lord is sufficient in all things to grant us the Grace needed, its just that it is usually Grace to endure things, not always healed/blessed out from them!

Do you hold that those such as kenneth hain/Copeland/Fred price/Benny Hinn etc are heretical teachers or not inCharasmatic circles?
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
I said certain spiritual truths are not obvious in Scripture, and gave examples.
I have a couple of questions for you. 1) Holding as you do to Sola Scriptura do you or do you not believe that all doctrines expounded in scripture can be assertained easily and simply by born again believers simply by reading them? 2) If not to what authority do you apeal to judge these non-obvious "truths"? 3) if So then wouldn't they be obvious? 4) have you considered the position of the gnostic who believed in a secret knowledge that was not obvious to the average believer and could only be assertained by a certain wisdom above all other Christians? 5) How is your perspective different from them? 6) Have you considered the Montanist who had similar beliefs that you have proposed yet they exhibited "false prophesies" and subjected scripture lower than their experience? 7) If Montanist where heretics (as I believe them to have been) what makes your position superior to theirs?

First of all, do you have a problem with all of them?
I don't have any problems with any of the giftings of the Holy Spirit. I do have issues with Pentecostal theology and application of their theology to the workings of the Holy Spirit.

I have given the verses which explain this baptism and its' corresponding 9 gifts.
I Know the verses and they do speak to a special giving of grace by the Holy Spirit upon believers. However, I don't believe that "tongues" must necissarily be manifested to "evidence" this grace or "baptism" as you call it. Again. Jesus is never recorded to have spoken in tongues. And Paul's subjects the importance of tongues to the practice of moral discipline and exemplifying love and Knowing the word of God. In fact Paul is almost dismissive of these "giftings" and places them below Christian discipline forcing a discipline when it came to these gifts.

The NT doesn't say all of this necessary spiritual power has been discontinued.
I never said that is has. However, I did say that what is necessary is what is needed. As in, I'm sick therefore I need a gifting of healing rather than someone running around speaking in tongues. And note Paul indicates that the use of tongues be limited to personal use quietly and only in congregation if one were to prophesy with a translation. Note at the begining of the church the Apostles spoke in tongues which communicated the glory of God to people in their own language during Pentecost. And gentiles spoke in tongues as a sign to the apostles that the faith wasn't limited to Judaism. Beyond that there wasn't much more use for that gifting. And in fact that gifting became problematic in Corinth where Paul had to instruct the members to limit its use. There is a time and place for certain giftings.

And notice that people who misuse them have nothing to do with any of this.
Certainly, however, having traveled in Pentecostal circles the misuse of their "gifting" happens quite often and I think its because of an improper view of what those gifts should be.

Jesus was very harsh with those having unbelief ... in some respects He was trying to shake them awake.
Be specific. Jesus was harsh with unbelief in him. Even after he had performed a miracle in the full view of witnesses and people still didn't believe. That has nothing to do with the operation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

I am pushing Christians to open themselves up to a DEEPER spiritual experience,
That is always good. However, to get to a "deeper" spiritual experience isn't the same as emotionalism. I find a "deeper" spiritual experience is often accompanied by suffering. And seriously practicing the call Jesus gives to each one of us, to strive, and mainly "Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect".

and to be open to being used by the Lord with new-found spiritual power.
Spiritual Power of God often learning to rely on his strength rather than our own and to trust when it seems there is no reason to trust in God. True spiritual power comes in our prayers and reliance on God. Not in the ability to speak in tongues.

I.E. Those who ask for spiritual things often receive them (Matt. 7:7-11).
True but what does the scripture more often asks us to ask for? More times that spiritual "giftings" like tongues? The answer is of course is wisdom.

Don't forget the persistent widow.
Yes, I haven't forgoten. But look at the context of that passage. It starts with the purpose of that parable in Luke 18
And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart.
Its not about "getting spiritual gifts" but the necessity of praying and not loosing heart in our faith.

Jesus gave me mine (in 1993) about 3 years after first asking.
Pentecostals call this "tarrying" at the altar..
I'm glad that you have an emotional experience which gives you evidence for your faith. And as for "Tarrying at the Alter" I believe it emphasises all the wrongs things about our faith. Cornelius didn't have to "Tarry at the Alter". This consept comes from Pentecost. When Jesus said before his death, resurrection, and ascension that
I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
Jesus had to leave in order for the Holy Spirit to come for what end? Well, Jesus says so you can speak in tongues? No. He says
And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
and
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
And note he also told his disciples to wait until he got to his rightful place
And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high
whereby waiting for the promise of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of witnessing
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.
However, its interesting to note that they did not stick themselves in a room praying until the Holy Spirit came but first settle the issue of who would be the next apostles
So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” 23 And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.”
and when you read about the upper room it doesn't seem they were tarrying day and night until the spirit came but it happened at the time they were praying among other things they were also doing. and since Pentecost was a high Jewish holy day they happened to be together praying as was customary at the time
When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested[a] on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
And looked what quickly followed
Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language
The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a specified event at the begining of the Church empowering the Apostles to proclaim Christ. Tongues at this point were for the expressed purpose of witnessing not for their emotional benefit. When we look at cornelius they herd the Gospel believed and simultaniously recieved the Holy Spirit it came upon them at their new life not secondarily. The church was baptized in the Holy Spirit at the begining now everytime someone comes to belief they are given the Holy Spirit and since tongues aren't always necissary its not always evidenced of the fact. The fact that someone has come to belief is evidence enough of the granting of the Holy Spirit as Jesus said
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper,[f] to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be[g] in you...But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you...When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have a couple of questions for you. 1) Holding as you do to Sola Scriptura do you or do you not believe that all doctrines expounded in scripture can be assertained easily and simply by born again believers simply by reading them? 2) If not to what authority do you apeal to judge these non-obvious "truths"? 3) if So then wouldn't they be obvious? 4) have you considered the position of the gnostic who believed in a secret knowledge that was not obvious to the average believer and could only be assertained by a certain wisdom above all other Christians? 5) How is your perspective different from them? 6) Have you considered the Montanist who had similar beliefs that you have proposed yet they exhibited "false prophesies" and subjected scripture lower than their experience? 7) If Montanist where heretics (as I believe them to have been) what makes your position superior to theirs?

I don't have any problems with any of the giftings of the Holy Spirit. I do have issues with Pentecostal theology and application of their theology to the workings of the Holy Spirit.


I Know the verses and they do speak to a special giving of grace by the Holy Spirit upon believers. However, I don't believe that "tongues" must necissarily be manifested to "evidence" this grace or "baptism" as you call it. Again. Jesus is never recorded to have spoken in tongues. And Paul's subjects the importance of tongues to the practice of moral discipline and exemplifying love and Knowing the word of God. In fact Paul is almost dismissive of these "giftings" and places them below Christian discipline forcing a discipline when it came to these gifts.


I never said that is has. However, I did say that what is necessary is what is needed. As in, I'm sick therefore I need a gifting of healing rather than someone running around speaking in tongues. And note Paul indicates that the use of tongues be limited to personal use quietly and only in congregation if one were to prophesy with a translation. Note at the begining of the church the Apostles spoke in tongues which communicated the glory of God to people in their own language during Pentecost. And gentiles spoke in tongues as a sign to the apostles that the faith wasn't limited to Judaism. Beyond that there wasn't much more use for that gifting. And in fact that gifting became problematic in Corinth where Paul had to instruct the members to limit its use. There is a time and place for certain giftings.

Certainly, however, having traveled in Pentecostal circles the misuse of their "gifting" happens quite often and I think its because of an improper view of what those gifts should be.


Be specific. Jesus was harsh with unbelief in him. Even after he had performed a miracle in the full view of witnesses and people still didn't believe. That has nothing to do with the operation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.


That is always good. However, to get to a "deeper" spiritual experience isn't the same as emotionalism. I find a "deeper" spiritual experience is often accompanied by suffering. And seriously practicing the call Jesus gives to each one of us, to strive, and mainly "Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect".


Spiritual Power of God often learning to rely on his strength rather than our own and to trust when it seems there is no reason to trust in God. True spiritual power comes in our prayers and reliance on God. Not in the ability to speak in tongues.


True but what does the scripture more often asks us to ask for? More times that spiritual "giftings" like tongues? The answer is of course is wisdom.


Yes, I haven't forgoten. But look at the context of that passage. It starts with the purpose of that parable in Luke 18 Its not about "getting spiritual gifts" but the necessity of praying and not loosing heart in our faith.

I'm glad that you have an emotional experience which gives you evidence for your faith. And as for "Tarrying at the Alter" I believe it emphasises all the wrongs things about our faith. Cornelius didn't have to "Tarry at the Alter". This consept comes from Pentecost. When Jesus said before his death, resurrection, and ascension that Jesus had to leave in order for the Holy Spirit to come for what end? Well, Jesus says so you can speak in tongues? No. He says and And note he also told his disciples to wait until he got to his rightful place whereby waiting for the promise of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of witnessing However, its interesting to note that they did not stick themselves in a room praying until the Holy Spirit came but first settle the issue of who would be the next apostles and when you read about the upper room it doesn't seem they were tarrying day and night until the spirit came but it happened at the time they were praying among other things they were also doing. and since Pentecost was a high Jewish holy day they happened to be together praying as was customary at the time And looked what quickly followed The baptism of the Holy Spirit is a specified event at the begining of the Church empowering the Apostles to proclaim Christ. Tongues at this point were for the expressed purpose of witnessing not for their emotional benefit. When we look at cornelius they herd the Gospel believed and simultaniously recieved the Holy Spirit it came upon them at their new life not secondarily. The church was baptized in the Holy Spirit at the begining now everytime someone comes to belief they are given the Holy Spirit and since tongues aren't always necissary its not always evidenced of the fact. The fact that someone has come to belief is evidence enough of the granting of the Holy Spirit as Jesus said

Catholicism and Pentecostalism in one sense are blood brothers. Protestants who embrace this movement called themselves "Pentecostals" while Catholics who embraced this movement called themselves "Charismatics." Benny Hinn could join in with Catholic Priests and nuns and all get slain in the Spirit and speak in ecstatic utterances (not Biblical tongues) while having mass.

Both equally replace God's Word with something else as final authority. Both are Satanic in nature and power.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Catholicism and Pentecostalism in one sense are blood brothers. Protestants who embrace this movement called themselves "Pentecostals" while Catholics who embraced this movement called themselves "Charismatics." Benny Hinn could join in with Catholic Priests and nuns and all get slain in the Spirit and speak in ecstatic utterances (not Biblical tongues) while having mass.
Its clear you don't know what you are talking about with regard to Pentecostals and Catholicism. Pentecostals are far away from Catholicism. I don't know why you always have to be quick on the accussations but we are nothing alike. The only Similarities with Pentecostals and Catholics is that Pentecostals took on Weslyian theology which is an attempt to restore the Christian requirement of right living in their theology. And the ability for the believer to apostasize. Apart from that we are nothing alike. They are closer to your theology. Benny Hinn is in no way anywhere close to Catholicism. He's a heretic as far as Catholics are conserned.

Both equally replace God's Word with something else as final authority. Both are Satanic in nature and power
And here you go. First you accuse Evangelicist 7 for using "fear mongering". And here you do it yourself. That's hypocritical! Do you even read my post? Or did you just jumpt to conclusion because I'm Catholic and Evang-whatever his name is; is Pentecostal? Look if you want a sound debate... Then debate. throwing about accusations and accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being possessed by the devil is not debate but childish antagonism.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Catholicism and Pentecostalism in one sense are blood brothers. Protestants who embrace this movement called themselves "Pentecostals" while Catholics who embraced this movement called themselves "Charismatics." Benny Hinn could join in with Catholic Priests and nuns and all get slain in the Spirit and speak in ecstatic utterances (not Biblical tongues) while having mass.

Both equally replace God's Word with something else as final authority. Both are Satanic in nature and power.

1 Cor. 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?


The King James Translators translated the Greek text in the form of a set of rhetorical questions that call for a "no" or negative answer and that is probably the correct way to translate this text. However, the Greek student knows that Paul inserts the word "no" (Gr. me or pronouned "may") in every phrase.

Hence, Paul is flatly denying that all Christians are given the gift of Biblical tongues.

This means tongues are not essential for salvation (UPC heresy).

This means tongues are not essential for progressive sanctification (Pentecostal heresy).

This means tongues are not essential to walk, live, pray, sing, preach "in the Spirit".

In fact, neither John the Baptist or Christ is ever characterized as "praying in tongues" and both were filled with the Spirit and walked in the Spirit and PRAYED IN THE SPIRIT as prayer in the Spirit has nothing to do with tongues but with prayer guided by the Spirit of God.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
1 Cor. 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?


The King James Translators translated the Greek text in the form of a set of rhetorical questions that call for a "no" or negative answer and that is probably the correct way to translate this text. However, the Greek student knows that Paul inserts the word "no" (Gr. me or pronouned "may") in every phrase.

Hence, Paul is flatly denying that all Christians are given the gift of Biblical tongues.

This means tongues are not essential for salvation (UPC heresy).

This means tongues are not essential for progressive sanctification (Pentecostal heresy).

This means tongues are not essential to walk, live, pray, sing, preach "in the Spirit".

In fact, neither John the Baptist or Christ is ever characterized as "praying in tongues" and both were filled with the Spirit and walked in the Spirit and PRAYED IN THE SPIRIT as prayer in the Spirit has nothing to do with tongues but with prayer guided by the Spirit of God.

You didn't even read my post now did you? Its clear what you posted here and once again Pentecostals are nothing alike. It is true Catholics aren't sola scriptura that we hold the deposit of faith as passed down from the apostles to this day (Tradition) to be joint with the scriptures as they are two pieces of the one whole. Pentecostals though in practice just like you hold to this view but neither of you are honest about it. I can trace Catholic doctrine down through history to the writing of the NT which speaks for its Tradition. However, just as clear you both read scripture through your own tradition tainted glasses. It just so happens your traditions are different. He reads those verses and believes tongues must be manifest, you read it and believe that is not for today. Who's right among you? We'll you can never tell because both of you are equally authorities on interpreting scripture. The difference between you guys and Catholics is that Catholics are honest about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You didn't even read my post now did you? Its clear what you posted here and once again Pentecostals are nothing alike. It is true Catholics aren't sola scriptura that we hold the deposit of faith as passed down from the apostles to this day (Tradition) to be joint with the scriptures as they are two pieces of the one whole. Pentecostals though in practice just like you hold to this view but neither of you are honest about it. I can trace Catholic doctrine down through history to the writing of the NT which speaks for its Tradition. However, just as clear you both read scripture through your own tradition tainted glasses. It just so happens your traditions are different. He reads those verses and believes tongues must be manifest, you read it and believe that is not for today. Who's write among you? We'll you can never tell because both of you are equally authorities on interpreting scripture. The difference between you guys and Catholics is that Catholics are honest about it.

Pentecostals do not believe in sola scriptura and it is very easy to demonstrate they do not. Yes they make that claim but they do not really believe it because they do not really practice it.

For example, my interpretation of 1 Cor. 12:29-30 is exegetically sound and destroys the very heart of Charismatic/Pentecostal doctrine. What is their exegetical response? They don't have one. Here is how they always reply - "you don't have the Spirit of God and scripture must be spiritually discerned" - interpretation = your interpretation is wrong not on the basis of exegesis but on the basis of experience which you do not have - period.

I do believe in sola scriptura in the theological context by which it is defined.

We do not believe the Word of God interprets itself but rather the Word of God is wholly sufficient in that it provides EVERYTHING or is completely SUFFICIENT for all doctrine, instruction, correction, reproof thus lacking NOTHING for the man of God to arrive at the contextual based truth.

The text does not say it supplies what is necessary to understand or to arrive at EVERYTHING it speaks about. There are geographical and cultural statements and/or ambigous sttements that context does not provide sufficient information.

So don't pit these kind of things against doctrine, instruction, correction and reproof kind of things in your attempt to invalidate sola scriptura. The Bible clearly states it is all inspired by God and for what precise reasons that inspiration benefits the child of God - 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Pentecostals do not believe in sola scriptura and it is very easy to demonstrate they do not. Yes they make that claim but they do not really believe it because they do not really practice it.
I'm Certain they would beg to differ.

For example, my interpretation of 1 Cor. 12:29-30 is exegetically sound and destroys the very heart of Charismatic/Pentecostal doctrine.
This comment by you is typical of you. You take one verse and exegete it according to your own view (you already have a view in mind) and claim that it is the only correct view. Which means you already have an established pretext by which you read the passage of scripture.

What is their exegetical response? They don't have one.
I wouldn't say they. Evangelist7 may not. But I've been around enough professors of the Pentecostal persuasion to know they do have an answer to you.

Here is how they always reply - "you don't have the Spirit of God and scripture must be spiritually discerned" - interpretation = your interpretation is wrong not on the basis of exegesis but on the basis of experience which you do not have - period.
Remember I'm not Pentecostal. Though I have studied with them and know their mind.

I
do believe in sola scriptura in the theological context by which it is defined.
First of all Sola Scriptura is not defined in scriptures nor is it mentioned in scriptures. To hold to Sola Scriptura is to hold a consept beyond the instruction of scriptures. It is a principle promulgated by reformers.

We do not believe the Word of God interprets itself but rather the Word of God is wholly sufficient in that it provides EVERYTHING or is completely SUFFICIENT for all doctrine, instruction, correction, reproof thus lacking NOTHING for the man of God to arrive at the contextual based truth.
I think you need to read 2 Tim 3:16 again and maybe the whole chapter of 2 Tim 3. 2 Tim 3:16-17 says
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Note what the passage doesn't say. It doesn't say it provides "EVERYTHiNG or is completely SUFFICIENT for all doctrine, instruction, ocrrection, reproof, but lacks NOTHING for the man of God to arrive at the contextual based truth" That verse doesn't say anything close to it. What it does say is that it is profitable (not everything nor completely sufficient) for "teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training". In Doctrine? No. For "contextual based truth"? No. But what specifically? For EVERY GOOD WORK. Yes work I know you hate that word. But there it is in scripture. And also look how the word complete is used. That the man of God may be complete in that he is equipped for good works. Not that he's entirely complete on scripture alone but that what he already has by direct teaching of the Apostles (ie deposit of faith) to which scripture is added for completion so that both the oral instruction and the scriptures work together to make the man complete for good works Ie 2 Tim 3:14-15
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom[a] you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings,
Though its nice you show that scripture don't interpret themselves.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm Certain they would beg to differ.
I freely admitted that they do assert it or did you read what I said? Apparently not!


This comment by you is typical of you. You take one verse and exegete it according to your own view (you already have a view in mind) and claim that it is the only correct view. Which means you already have an established pretext by which you read the passage of scripture.

I don't want to start an exchange of insults, so let me say this as careful as I can. Neither you, nor any penetcostal theologian can deny that Paul inserts the word "no" in each phrase in 1 Cor. 12:29-30 - that is indisputable! If you can dispute it, do so but stop making unprovable charges against me or my interpetation that you cannot defend rationally, reasonably or exegetically - be honest.

Second, the repeated negative means exactly what it says. God did NOT give tongues to all Christians - that is a FACT of this repeated "no" phrases.

Third, that means tongues cannot be essential for salvation as salvation is essential to be a Christian. Thus the UPC doctrine that tongues are the "seal" of salvation is false.

Fourth, that means tongues cannot be essential for progressive sanctification as progressive sanctification is a reality for all Christians and prayer, worship are essentials of progressive sanctification. Thus the doctrine that this is the evidence of the baptism in the Spirit or necessary for spiritual prayer, etc. is false! That destroys the very heart of Pentecostalism.



I wouldn't say they. Evangelist7 may not. But I've been around enough professors of the Pentecostal persuasion to know they do have an answer to you.

I started in this movement. I have tons of family in this movement. I have read every major Pentecostal book defending this movement. I have conversed, studied and immersed myself for nearly 40 years with this movement. I have exegetically studied every single passage in scripture that is used by this movement. That does not mean some other non-Pentecostal may have more experience/background than I do, but don't tell me that I lack hands on, exegetical based, long term experience with this subject.


I think you need to read 2 Tim 3:16 again and maybe the whole chapter of 2 Tim 3. 2 Tim 3:16-17 says Note what the passage doesn't say. It doesn't say it provides "EVERYTHiNG or is completely SUFFICIENT for all doctrine, instruction, ocrrection, reproof, but lacks NOTHING for the man of God to arrive at the contextual based truth"

Pure semantics! If it did not provide everything necessary to arrive at doctrine, iinstruction, correction and reproof than to relate the man of God to that statement in this context would be pure foolishness.
 
Top