Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
And what rights, exactly, are you defending that you think I am violating?
Joseph Botwinick
Joseph Botwinick
-
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!
Pentecostal Man’s Glossolalia Echos NBA Rosters
- Thread starter Joseph_Botwinick
- Start date
tragic_pizza
New Member
read pages 1 through 21.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
That does not answer my question. Can you answer my question in one sentence? If not, then I would argue that you are not sure yourself.
Joseph Botwinick
Joseph Botwinick
They already have that right. It is indisputable. It is enshrined in the constitution. They can even be a member of the Church of Satan if they wish to be. That is their soul liberty or freedom of religion. What rights do they not have that need defending. Your position, logically, is non sequitor.
You are defending something that needs no defending.
As was already pointed out to you there is freedom of speech in this nation. You seem to believe that the Constitution should be changed and that freedom should be stripped. Is this so?
DHK
tragic_pizza
New Member
They already have that right. It is indisputable. It is enshrined in the constitution. They can even be a member of the Church of Satan if they wish to be. That is their soul liberty or freedom of religion. What rights do they not have that need defending. Your position, logically, is non sequitor.
You are defending something that needs no defending.
As was already pointed out to you there is freedom of speech in this nation. You seem to believe that the Constitution should be changed and that freedom should be stripped. Is this so?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I am guilty of letting you and Joe frame my argument for me.
I agree that you, Joe, and anyone else have the right to think anything at all, however ignorant of Scripture that position might be.
More clearly stated, my position is that Christians should be kinder to one another, whatever their ancillary theologies might be. It appears that you and Joe cannot even permit Pentecostals to be clssified as Christians, and this is what I am defending against. Pentecostals are most certainly in the family of Christ, no matter what you'd like to think.
I hope I have cleared up any confusiion created by allowing you to frame my argument for me.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
That is not a right. That is an opinion. You certainly have a right to an opinion, but you have no right to force that opinion on others. I have no obligation whatsoever to consider charasmatics who pervert the teachings of the Bible to be Christians.
Joseph Botwinick
Joseph Botwinick
tragic_pizza
New Member
No, Joe, of course you don't.
You do, however, have a Scriptural obligation to show the love of Christ to all people. That's all people, even those who don't fit into your frameset.
That's my point. Again.
You do, however, have a Scriptural obligation to show the love of Christ to all people. That's all people, even those who don't fit into your frameset.
That's my point. Again.
What Pentecostals? The ones that had been posting here? The United Pentecostals? The Oneness Pentecostals?
These are the ones that believe in:
#1. baptism is essential to salvation.
#2. tongues are necessary to salvation.
#3. They deny the trinity.
#4. A denial of the trinity, by default, is a denial of the deity of Christ, and of who Christ really is.
# 5. They deny justifcation by faith.
#6. They believe that salvation is through their cult and theirs alone.
#7. They believe that not only does baptism save, but it must be baptism by a Oneness preacher. Baptism outside the Oneness group is invalid.
Yes, I believe that this heretical group lies outside the boundaries of Christianity. You cannot believe in such doctrine and be saved at the same time. They worship a different Jesus than that of the Bible. In that you say correctly. I cannot consider them as Christians.
DHK
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Showing the love of Christ does not mean accepting, or even respecting their false theologies. One can show the love of Christ and even mock their beliefs and rebuke them in a harsh manner, unless, of course, you have a problem with the way Christ himself confronted those who were in sin (aka the pharisees). Again, you have no point whatsoever.
Joseph Botwinick
Brian30755
New Member
<<<Tongues is VERY clear in the Bible. I don't think anybody can argue that tongues that occurred at Pentecost was people hearing the message in their own languge (tongue).
Now, the funny part is that a church denomination would base a MAJOR doctrine on something that Paul was discouraging the use of in Corinthians. Sure Paul says, thank goodness I speak in more tongues. He was a missionary. He needed to speak to the people he visited.
He was really correcting the problems in the Corinth Church using diplomatic techniques. What good did it do for someone to speak in a language nobody understands in church if nobody speaks that language. This would be like me speaking in German at my church. It might edify me, if I can understand it, but otherwise it edifies no-one. Whereby if I prophecy (or teach) it edifies the entire church.
Paul does restrict tongues and even churches that use tongues in the wrong way today don't even follow his rules.
Paul said to have an interpreter. We had a Russian come to our church and speak. He spoke in Russian and had a translator translate it to us. Exactly the way Paul described to do it, if we have to do it.
Paul was using a "tongue in cheek" statement when he says, although he may talk in any language including the language of the angels, if you read the whole subject in context, this is very clear.
WHY a church would put such a big doctrine on something Paul was discouraging is beyond me. Besides, they don't even use it right. Acts tells how it ws used.
Tongues and unknown tongues simply means languages and unknown languages. An unknown language to your church is a language nobody speaks, such as Russian, if you are a United States church. THIS is the reason Paul says you need a translator.
What in the WORLD is so difficult about this?>>>
What in the world is so difficult to me about all this is this:
1. I can listen to someone who is well-versed in this subject explain, using scripture, why speaking in tongues should not be going on today, and I fully understand their point of view and believe they are correct.
2. I can listen to someone who is well-versed in this subject explain, using scripture, why speaking in tongues SHOULD BE AND IS going on today, and I fully understand their point of view and believe they are correct.
Now, to add to my difficulties:
3. I prayed, asked God to baptize me in the Holy Spirit and fill me with His Holy Spirit. He did. I now can pray in another language. Is it a real language? Is it gibberish? I don't know. It sounds like a real language to me, though I don't know what it is. Am I "faking it"? Absolutely not.
Do you understand WHY I am confused about speaking in tongues? What would you do if you were me?
Thanks,
Brian
Now, the funny part is that a church denomination would base a MAJOR doctrine on something that Paul was discouraging the use of in Corinthians. Sure Paul says, thank goodness I speak in more tongues. He was a missionary. He needed to speak to the people he visited.
He was really correcting the problems in the Corinth Church using diplomatic techniques. What good did it do for someone to speak in a language nobody understands in church if nobody speaks that language. This would be like me speaking in German at my church. It might edify me, if I can understand it, but otherwise it edifies no-one. Whereby if I prophecy (or teach) it edifies the entire church.
Paul does restrict tongues and even churches that use tongues in the wrong way today don't even follow his rules.
Paul said to have an interpreter. We had a Russian come to our church and speak. He spoke in Russian and had a translator translate it to us. Exactly the way Paul described to do it, if we have to do it.
Paul was using a "tongue in cheek" statement when he says, although he may talk in any language including the language of the angels, if you read the whole subject in context, this is very clear.
WHY a church would put such a big doctrine on something Paul was discouraging is beyond me. Besides, they don't even use it right. Acts tells how it ws used.
Tongues and unknown tongues simply means languages and unknown languages. An unknown language to your church is a language nobody speaks, such as Russian, if you are a United States church. THIS is the reason Paul says you need a translator.
What in the WORLD is so difficult about this?>>>
What in the world is so difficult to me about all this is this:
1. I can listen to someone who is well-versed in this subject explain, using scripture, why speaking in tongues should not be going on today, and I fully understand their point of view and believe they are correct.
2. I can listen to someone who is well-versed in this subject explain, using scripture, why speaking in tongues SHOULD BE AND IS going on today, and I fully understand their point of view and believe they are correct.
Now, to add to my difficulties:
3. I prayed, asked God to baptize me in the Holy Spirit and fill me with His Holy Spirit. He did. I now can pray in another language. Is it a real language? Is it gibberish? I don't know. It sounds like a real language to me, though I don't know what it is. Am I "faking it"? Absolutely not.
Do you understand WHY I am confused about speaking in tongues? What would you do if you were me?
Thanks,
Brian
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Man,
I totally understand your confusion. I have been there and bought the t-shirt. My only suggestion would be to stop listening to the so-called experts so much, and start immersing yourself in the Bible. It wasn't until I did this that God's will started to become clear to me and my confusion went away. I am not saying I have all the answers, but I am certainly not as confused as I used to be. Hope this helps.
Joseph Botwinick
tragic_pizza
New Member
What Pentecostals? The ones that had been posting here? The United Pentecostals? The Oneness Pentecostals?
These are the ones that believe in:
#1. baptism is essential to salvation.
#2. tongues are necessary to salvation.
#3. They deny the trinity.
#4. A denial of the trinity, by default, is a denial of the deity of Christ, and of who Christ really is.
# 5. They deny justifcation by faith.
#6. They believe that salvation is through their cult and theirs alone.
#7. They believe that not only does baptism save, but it must be baptism by a Oneness preacher. Baptism outside the Oneness group is invalid.
Yes, I believe that this heretical group lies outside the boundaries of Christianity. You cannot believe in such doctrine and be saved at the same time. They worship a different Jesus than that of the Bible. In that you say correctly. I cannot consider them as Christians.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Oneness Pentecostals don't so much deny the Trinity as they argue about the method God uses to be the Trinity. If you'll recall, MEE agreed with the tenets laid forth in the Apostle's Creed, which I posted in another thread. Thus I cannot agree that they deny Who Christ is, though I can't agree with how they get there.
As to salvation being the purview of one group over another, they aren't alone, and treating them like dogs only makes them more assured that they are right.
As to baptism being neccesary for salvation, I must ask you: if it is not neccessary, why must I be fully immersed to be a member of a Baptist congregation? This is a similar doctrine, in practice if not in letter. In any case, there are a host of denominations which require baptism as either a component or prerequisite of salvation.
To the last, I haven't heard MEE or any other Oneness tell me that the only valid baptism was one adminsitered by a Oneness minister. I hope you'll allow me the freedom to hear it from the horse's mouth, if you will.
In any case, I will reiterate that, to quote Brian McLaren, learning is not the consequence of teaching or writing, but of thinking. Beating someone over the head with angrily-typed words of judgement and condemnation can do little to convince them that they are incorrect in their belief system. Trust me, if your posts could have done that, every Oneness Pentecostal with an internet connection would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes. And spewing hatred and vitriol to people who, to every poor unwashen soul on the planet not privy to your special knowledge, most certainly look like Christians, serves only to drive those outside the faith farther and farther away.
How, praytell, can that be the work of Christ? Is your exclusive and particular theology the only possible way to enter Heaven? Is there no hope whatsoever for the many of us who dare to cast questions in the general direction of your canon? Or is it possible... just possible... that God is bigger and more loving and more complex than you or I could imagine? Is it possible that there are sons and daughters of His that you - or I - know not of?
tragic_pizza
New Member
Showing the love of Christ does not mean accepting, or even respecting their false theologies.</font>[/QUOTE]
No one is insisting you accept their theologies.
With all possible respect, Joe, that is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
Jesus confronted the Pharisees quite differently than he confronted others who were mired in sin. The Pharisees (see if this sounds at all familiar) were men who had God all figured out, and who used positions of authority to build up their own wealth while impoverishing others. Their smugness was equalled only by their hatred of any person not as holy as them - that is, not as keenly dedicated to keeping every letter of the law. Every letter, that is, except those letters whioh might negatively impact their own gravitas and pocketbooks. It was arguably because of their contempt for others, and accompanying disregard for the things that God really cared about, that produiced such passionate rebuke from the Messiah.
In contrast, look at how Christ treated the Roman centurion and Cyrophonecian woman. Look at how He treated unlearned fishermen, and despised tax collectors. What about, Joe, how He treated adulterers and even lepers?
Once again, by invoking Christ and the Pharisees, you're asking me to dance to architecture. It just doesn't float, Joe. It isn't that I have no point, it's that you're afraid to really see my point.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Pharisees were not people who had God all figured out. They were religous leaders who were lost in their sin.
Joseph Botwinick
Joseph Botwinick
1. I would thank God for the gift of tongues...
1Cr 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
1Cr 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
1Cr 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
2. Do not use them unless there is someone present to interpret. Otherwise just pray to God...
1Cr 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
1Cr 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
1Cr 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
3. Not let anyone teach that tongues are not for today...
1Cr 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
That's if I were you...
Some first century believers were obviously getting carried away with the use of tongues. Compared to love (1 Cr 13:1) and prophesying (1 Cr 14:5), tongues were clearly less important to the edification of the body of Christ. So Paul's statements throughout 1 Cr 14 was to put their use in check.
If tongues were to end, Paul would not have wrote that last verse. He explicitly ended the discourse on tongues by telling the Corinthians to not forbid anyone to speak in tongues. It is clear that though he needed to reign in tongue speaking at the gathering of Christians, he didn't want people to go to the opposite extreme and ban tongues outright.
I haven't read through the 20+ pages here but I don't think this verse was discussed. Honestly, I don't see how one goes from reading this verse to state that anyone who advocates tongues is a heretic. So whether or not one believes modern day Charismatics are actually speaking in tongues, claims of it being unbiblical or heretical are unfounded.
Ed
2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
2Ti 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
Attacking heretics is not the answer. One's attitude and demeanor often speaks louder than anything we can say.
The temptation is to get angry at those who are in error. Most often they have simply bought a lie from the father of lies...
Ed
Go ahead and laugh. On the Day of Pentecost mockers said that they were full of new wine.Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I posted it for those of us with a sense of humor.
Joseph Botwinick
Peter simply said that this is that which was prophesied by the Prophet Joel.
You have a sick sense of humor.
Go ahead and laugh. On the Day of Pentecost mockers said that they were full of new wine.Originally posted by atestring:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I posted it for those of us with a sense of humor.
Joseph Botwinick
Peter simply said that this is that which was prophesied by the Prophet Joel.
You have a sick sense of humor. </font>[/QUOTE]I'll have to agree atestring!
Night!!
MEE
Marcia
Active Member
Tragic-Pizza, this is not true. They DO deny the Trinity. They argue against it and denounce it. They openly are against it.
You must not have read all those links I and others have put up on the Oneness beliefs, so I am not bothering to put them up again since you don't read them.
Marcia
Active Member
That's because the Apostle's creed does not confess belief in the Trinity. And the Oneness followers have a different definition for God and Jesus. Sure they say they believe in God and Jesus, but they believe that God and Jesus are the same person/being.
In other words, Jesus was not praying to the Father when he was on earth, but praying to himself. When Jesus said, "My Father," which he said many times - just count 'em -- he was referring to himself. How do you like them apples?