The disasterous failure of the early church

[evangelist-7]

Most Christians don’t want to hear that God has anointed others
with powerful spiritual gifts … when they have not been.
This attitude has resulted in a weak and powerless church over the years.

Yes, this is the condition of the church today … but it started some 1800 years ago!
This selfish attitude caused God’s Church to become man’s church.
And God said, “Okay, if you insist on going in this direction, I’ll back off.”
(Remember, it has always been God’s plan to accomplish His goals on earth
with a co-operative effort between Himself and man, who has free will.)

However, Satan had a huge part in this …
“the god (ruler) of this world (age)” (John 12:31, 2 Corinthians 4:4)
has always had a great influence in the affairs of man.
Satan did not want the churches to have spiritual power …
for the churches’ S-W-M were a great confirmation of the truth of the gospel,
which can help people come to the Lord,
and these S-W-M are what produce miraculous healings, etc.

Those in charge of the big churches 1800 years ago wanted to be in control.
The following is what these men did NOT want:
-- God to be in control of the churches (this includes His use of S-W-M)
-- ditto for God’s anointed apostles and prophets (who ran the NT churches)
-- to acknowledge S-W-M
-- anyone in the church with more anointing than they had
-- to look spiritually inferior to anyone
-- to risk losing their power, prestige, jobs, etc.

These are the reasons why men in control of the large post-apostolic churches
increasingly chose to fight against God’s anointing of certain believers
who had some of the 9 spiritual power gifts (1 Corinthians 12:1-11).
So, they came up with the excuse that S-W-M ceased with the passing of the apostles.

Jesus is the One who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11, Mk. 1:8, Lk. 3:16, Jn. 1:33).
And His special anointing baptism has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.
The experience is simply called “the baptism with the Holy Spirit”,
and the initial evidence (confirmation) of receiving it is speaking in tongues.
The tongues here is a one-time sign, just a confirmation of what happened.
I’m not talking about the spiritual gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:10).

This baptism also was claimed to have ceased with the passing of the apostles.
And other excuses were devised by Satan and man to weaken the churches’ spiritual power.
.

 

[SovereignMercy]

You've got a little jesus and a BIG DEVIL.

My Jesus, on the other hand, said, "I will build My church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

 

[SolaSaint]

Good reply SM, I'll trust in God to bring about His church in the manner He wishes. The OP sounds like God is impotent against Satan and cannot move within the church. Not my God.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Most Christians don’t want to hear that God has anointed others
with powerful spiritual gifts … when they have not been.
.

Sorry, brother. I had to stop you after your first sentence. It's just not true and you cannot prove it to be true.

 

[Revmitchell]

We probably ought to let this fella beat his own dead horse by himself.

 

[Scarlett O.]

We probably ought to let this fella beat his own dead horse by himself.

I agree.....

 

[Jack Matthews]

The experience is simply called “the baptism with the Holy Spirit”,
and the initial evidence (confirmation) of receiving it is speaking in tongues.

I believe in the baptism with, of, by, the Holy Spirit, since Jesus describes it. But the problem is that in looking at this experience, there is no supporting scripture which states that the initial evidence of receiving it is speaking in tongues. At Pentecost, that was a unique event, accompanied by other signs as well, including sound and sight. But there is nothing in the Pentecost narrative that leads to the conclusion these three sign gifts, or any one of them alone, will accompany the baptism of the Holy Spirit anywhere else.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I believe in the baptism with, of, by, the Holy Spirit, since Jesus describes it. But the problem is that in looking at this experience, there is no supporting scripture which states that the initial evidence of receiving it is speaking in tongues. At Pentecost, that was a unique event, accompanied by other signs as well, including sound and sight. But there is nothing in the Pentecost narrative that leads to the conclusion these three sign gifts, or any one of them alone, will accompany the baptism of the Holy Spirit anywhere else.

I agree, and that's why I could not be a Pentecostal or Charismatic. Those interpretations set up two classes of Christians.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I have a question. If Jesus' life is the model for Christians. And we see that as he was baptised (not that he needed it but for "all righteousness to be fulfilled" and as an example for us) that the Holy Spirit descended upon him. Do you think it can be looked at that upon our belief and subsequent baptism (under normal circumstances not that circumstance may change)that the Holy Spirit at that time descends upon us in which a "Pentecost" experience is not necissary going forward? It also seems to me that upon reciept of faith even before baptism with Cornelius that the Holy Spirit descended whereby the special circumstance for Peter was to provide a sign in which even gentiles are called to the kingdom. But in both cases the Holy Spirit is fully revealed at the begining for us at Faith with its gifting. Reminder this is just my speculation not a laying down of Doctrine for me.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have a question. If Jesus' life is the model for Christians. And we see that as he was baptised (not that he needed it but for "all righteousness to be fulfilled" and as an example for us) that the Holy Spirit descended upon him. Do you think it can be looked at that upon our belief and subsequent baptism (under normal circumstances not that circumstance may change)that the Holy Spirit at that time descends upon us in which a "Pentecost" experience is not necissary going forward? It also seems to me that upon reciept of faith even before baptism with Cornelius that the Holy Spirit descended whereby the special circumstance for Peter was to provide a sign in which even gentiles are called to the kingdom. But in both cases the Holy Spirit is fully revealed at the begining for us at Faith with its gifting. Reminder this is just my speculation not a laying down of Doctrine for me.

But did the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus after baptism in order to regenerate or indwell him? Or to provide spiritual gifts for him? The Spirit came "upon" him for public service. Baptism is the first public step toward public service for God and we need to be "filled' or "LED" (Mt. 4:1) by the Spirit if our service is to be acceptable in God's sight and overcome Satan, because service to God is in reality entering into spiritual warfare with Satan (Mt. 4).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But did the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus after baptism in order to regenerate or indwell him?

No, but neither did he require baptism. Or the forgiveness of sin. Therefore it is a model. A model in which we see the Holy Spirit descend upon him and the Father signifying familial relationship to him and the Fathers pleasure. So, consequently therefore, as this model is played out is it thus not applied to believers?

But the more important part of my question isn't necissarily baptism itself but necissarily (as it is the topic of this thread) how the Holy Spirit is applied with his giftings. The Charistmatic or Pentecostal believers believe there are two baptisms one of water the other of the Spirit. In which case they believe there must be a pentecost experiece subsequent to already having faith. But if the Spirit is recieved with his giftings prior at faith and baptism what need is there for a subsequent "pentecost" in the believer's life as we don't see this model played out in Jesus life but rather at the institution of the Apostolic ministry to build the Church.

Again, this is just musing on my part not a citing of an established doctrine.

 

[awaken]

Most Christians don’t want to hear that God has anointed others
with powerful spiritual gifts … when they have not been.
This attitude has resulted in a weak and powerless church over the years.

Yes, this is the condition of the church today … but it started some 1800 years ago!
This selfish attitude caused God’s Church to become man’s church.
And God said, “Okay, if you insist on going in this direction, I’ll back off.”
(Remember, it has always been God’s plan to accomplish His goals on earth
with a co-operative effort between Himself and man, who has free will.)

However, Satan had a huge part in this …
“the god (ruler) of this world (age)” (John 12:31, 2 Corinthians 4:4)
has always had a great influence in the affairs of man.
Satan did not want the churches to have spiritual power …
for the churches’ S-W-M were a great confirmation of the truth of the gospel,
which can help people come to the Lord,
and these S-W-M are what produce miraculous healings, etc.

Those in charge of the big churches 1800 years ago wanted to be in control.
The following is what these men did NOT want:
-- God to be in control of the churches (this includes His use of S-W-M)
-- ditto for God’s anointed apostles and prophets (who ran the NT churches)
-- to acknowledge S-W-M
-- anyone in the church with more anointing than they had
-- to look spiritually inferior to anyone
-- to risk losing their power, prestige, jobs, etc.

These are the reasons why men in control of the large post-apostolic churches
increasingly chose to fight against God’s anointing of certain believers
who had some of the 9 spiritual power gifts (1 Corinthians 12:1-11).
So, they came up with the excuse that S-W-M ceased with the passing of the apostles.

Jesus is the One who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11, Mk. 1:8, Lk. 3:16, Jn. 1:33).
And His special anointing baptism has absolutely nothing to do with salvation.
The experience is simply called “the baptism with the Holy Spirit”,
and the initial evidence (confirmation) of receiving it is speaking in tongues.
The tongues here is a one-time sign, just a confirmation of what happened.
I’m not talking about the spiritual gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:10).

This baptism also was claimed to have ceased with the passing of the apostles.
And other excuses were devised by Satan and man to weaken the churches’ spiritual power.
.

For the most part I agree...
But I do not believe that tongues is the only evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

I believe satan has power where we let him! God gave us a choice to follow satan's ways or His.
There is a true church out there...they are called out ones that allow the Holy Spirit free reign in their lives and worship services.

I will also agree with others that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His true church...so if hell is against churches today and they are not manifesting the power of the Holy Spirit in their churches..what is this saying about those churches?

 

[The Biblicist]

No, but neither did he require baptism. Or the forgiveness of sin. Therefore it is a model. A model in which we see the Holy Spirit descend upon him and the Father signifying familial relationship to him and the Fathers pleasure. So, consequently therefore, as this model is played out is it thus not applied to believers?

May I ask what scripture provides you with a basis to claim that every detail of Christ's life was a "model" for us? How about his virgin birth? How about walking on water? How about......? What makes you think that the Holy Spirit coming upon him at baptism is a "model" for us any more than hearing a voice out of heaven speak to him is a model for us?

But the more important part of my question isn't necissarily baptism itself but necissarily (as it is the topic of this thread) how the Holy Spirit is applied with his giftings. The Charistmatic or Pentecostal believers believe there are two baptisms one of water the other of the Spirit. In which case they believe there must be a pentecost experiece subsequent to already having faith. But if the Spirit is recieved with his giftings prior at faith and baptism what need is there for a subsequent "pentecost" in the believer's life as we don't see this model played out in Jesus life but rather at the institution of the Apostolic ministry to build the Church.

However, is not the promise of the Spirit baptism to those who are already baptized believers (Mt. 3:11; Acts 1:5)?

 

[The Biblicist]

I will also agree with others that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His true church...so if hell is against churches today and they are not manifesting the power of the Holy Spirit in their churches..what is this saying about those churches?

So how do you interpret "gates of hell"?

It seems that you make manifest SIGN gifts the evidence of true salvation and those without such gifts in their services are being prevailed against by the gates of hell?

 

[awaken]

So how do you interpret "gates of hell"?

It seems that you make manifest SIGN gifts the evidence of true salvation and those without such gifts in their services are being prevailed against by the gates of hell?

I have never said the manifest signs are evidence of a true believer...but Mark 16 does lay out the signs that will follow a believer???

Most people have the power within and upon to manifest...they just have wrong teachings/doctrines. Can you manifest something you do not believe exist?

The church question was something to ponder! If satan cannot hinder a church then where is the power in most churches?

 

[The Biblicist]

I have never said the manifest signs are evidence of a true believer...but Mark 16 does lay out the signs that will follow a believer???

Either they will or they will not! Which is it? If they will then they are necessary signs of true believers and thus those without such signs are not true believers.

The church question was something to ponder! If satan cannot hinder a church then where is the power in most churches?

Still you have not answered my questions. What do you believe "gates of hell" means? And what does it mean "shall not prevail against it"?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

May I ask what scripture provides you with a basis to claim that every detail of Christ's life was a "model" for us?

It seems you are clearly confused not distinguishing what is meant by model. You are so stuck in being combative that you immediately make such a ridiculous statement about the incarnation whereas I'm speaking about modeling our lives after his. When I say Christ's life was a model for us I mean like a mentor would model activities for a student(ie providing an example with which one is to follow). It is clear in scriptures that we are to be immitators of God (Eph 5:1 Cor 11:1) and 1 Peter 2:21

For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps

, and there are things Jesus specifically asks us to do which he models in his life for us to follow as we see with the washing of feet in John 13 where he says

For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.

. Baptism is another such practice which we see modeled in his life.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm speaking about modeling our lives after his. When I say Christ's life was a model for us I mean like a mentor would model activities for a student(ie providing an example with which one is to follow). It is clear in scriptures that we are to be immitators of God (Eph 5:1 Cor 11:1) and 1 Peter 2:21 , and there are things Jesus specifically asks us to do which he models in his life for us to follow as we see with the washing of feet in John 13 where he says . Baptism is another such practice which we see modeled in his life.

I never questioned submitting to baptism as a "model" but what I questioned is your connection of the Holy Spirit with his baptism as a "model".

"If Jesus' life is the model for Christians. And we see that as he was baptised .... that the Holy Spirit descended upon him. Do you think it can be looked at that upon our belief and subsequent baptism (under normal circumstances not that circumstance may change)that the Holy Spirit at that time descends upon us in which a "Pentecost" experience is not necissary going forward?"

Obviously the public manifestation of the Spirit can't be our model in connection with baptism. Moreover, in addition to questioning that connection as a "model" I pointed out that baptism in the case of Christ was not salvational but the first PUBLIC act of SERVICE and that the filling of the Spirit is essential to serving God as that is in reality engaging Satan in spiritual warefare. I also pointed out that Matthew 4:1 says he was "led" by the Spirit and that is really the meaning of being "filled" or to "walk in the Spirit." My point is that filling is reoccurring and by submitting to baptism we ought to be "led" by the Spirit in that act of obedience as in any act of obedience.

In regard to being combative. You and I have no common ground concerning salvation or service for God and so in every essential it can only be combative ultimately.

 

[evangelist-7]

I believe in the baptism with, of, by, the Holy Spirit, since Jesus describes it. But the problem is that in looking at this experience, there is no supporting scripture which states that the initial evidence of receiving it is speaking in tongues. At Pentecost, that was a unique event, accompanied by other signs as well, including sound and sight. But there is nothing in the Pentecost narrative that leads to the conclusion these three sign gifts, or any one of them alone, will accompany the baptism of the Holy Spirit anywhere else.

Hi Jack,

Please remember that all of the details of an event are rarely recorded.
And in the early days, tongues were an every-day occurrence.

The evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit baptism:
“… the Holy Spirit fell upon all those (Gentiles) who heard the word
… the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
For they (Peter and his companions) heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter asked, ‘Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be
baptized (in water) who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’
And he commanded them to be (water) baptized in the name of the Lord.“ (Acts 10:44-48)

Peter recalls the event above:
“… the Holy Spirit fell upon them (the Gentiles), as upon us (the Jews) at the beginning.
Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water,
but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ … God gave them the same gift
as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 11:15-17)

Another occasion where believers received the Holy Spirit baptism:
“… they (the Ephesian disciples) were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them,
and they spoke with tongues and prophesied …” (Acts 19:5-6)

You might be interested that this "gift" above, as well as "the promise",
are none other than the baptism with the Holy Spirit ... and that's a fact I can prove.

Also, this gift of the Spirit baptism ALWAYS comes UPON the one being anointed.
It has nothing to do with the Spirit coming INSIDE (when one is born-again).
.

 

[The Biblicist]

Hi Jack,

Please remember that all of the details of an event are rarely recorded.
And in the early days, tongues were an every day occurrence.

The evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit baptism:
“… the Holy Spirit fell upon all those (Gentiles) who heard the word
… the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.
For they (Peter and his companions) heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
Then Peter asked, ‘Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be
baptized (in water) who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’
And he commanded them to be (water) baptized in the name of the Lord.“ (Acts 10:44-48)

Peter recalls the event above when the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit baptism:
“… the Holy Spirit fell upon them (the Gentiles), as upon us (the Jews) at the beginning.
Then I remember the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water,
but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ … God gave them the same gift
as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 11:15-17)

The problem is what you leave out! The nearest reference point Peter could give the church at Jerusalem for what he described as the baptism in the Spirit was "AT the beginning" (Acts 11:15-16). However, thousands had been saved SINCE Pentecost. This proves that the baptism in the Spirit was not a repeated experience with individuals since Pentecost but only occurred "AT" Pentecost and at the house of Corneilus for obvious reasons once the baptism in the Spirit is grasped for what it really is.

Also, between Acts 2 to Acts 6:5 no one but the apostles performed sign gifts. From Acts 6:5 forward sign gifts were performed only upon those whom the apostles laid their hands.

Tongues and other sign gifts were imparted directly by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in connection with the baptism in the Spirit. From that point forward they were imparted by apostolic laying on of hands (Acts 6:5; 8:14-17; 19:6; Rom. 1:11). Churches constituted by apostles had these gifts imparted to them and churches not contituted by apostles needed apostles to come to them to impart such sign gifts (Rom. 1:11) as such power was "the sign" of the apostolic office (2 Cor. 12:12).