• 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!

The disasterous failure of the early church

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
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".
I really wonder about you sometimes. In reality, you questioned whether it was scriptural to even believe that Christ's life was a model for us to follow making some ridiculous comment about the virgin birth
May I ask what scripture provides you with a basis to claim that every detail of Christ's life was a "model" for us?
Which, BTW, you attempt to immediately establish a straw man by suggesting I said something to the effect that we are to copy every detail of his life. Which I actually said
If Jesus' life is the model for Christians.
which obviously I meant generally and can clearly be seen when I said
No, but neither did he require baptism. Or the forgiveness of sin. Therefore it is a model.
specifically speaking of baptism. Which it seems an attempt to adroitly supplying both a misrepresentation of what I said, in a backhanded way, to characterize me, in way suggestive, of not adhering to scriptures, and avoid answering the true intent of my question which was
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.
This is your pattern. Set up strawmen to tear them down though the person you attribute the strawman never intended it in the manner you suggest. You are not attempting real discussion but are engaged in continual character assasination. You do this with everyone which you disagree under the guise of debate or discussion.

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.
That may be true as I believe that I'm saved by Grace through Faith working in Love. And it seems clear to me that you absent "working in Love" in that equation (so to speak) as you display none of that at least on this board. It seems to me that you believe you are saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone so you don't have to display the resulting Love naturally resulting from that Grace and Faith.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I really wonder about you sometimes. .

By your own admission I was being combative over teachings and this is a DEBATE forum but YOU make it personal and make personal attacks. This time, you cannot say I personally attacked you. I didn't say "i really wonder ABOUT YOU" or that YOU are being combative etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

evangelist-7

New Member
I agree, and that's why I could not be a Pentecostal or Charismatic. Those interpretations set up two classes of Christians.
Weren't there 2 classes of Jews in the OT ... God's prophets and the others?
God is in a box, right? ... He's not allowed to choose certain believers to anoint for special purposes!
C'mon, Mike baby, get real.

.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
By your own admission I was being combative over teachings and this is a DEBATE forum but YOU make it personal and make personal attacks. This time, you cannot say I personally attacked you.
I can say that you, attempted to assassinate my character by apply an untruth to what I said ie
Originally Posted by The Biblicist
May I ask what scripture provides you with a basis to claim that every detail of Christ's life was a "model" for us?
That is an intentional mischaracterization of what I said as I showed in the above post. Since its an intentional mischaracterization you reveal that it is not debate that seriously intrest you but primarily putting forth your individual opinions regarding your beliefs and assassinate the characters of everyone who opposes your view. So yes in a very real sense its a personal attack with out it being overtly so.

And still my question hasn't really been resolved or even discussed as you used it as an opportunity to mischaracterize my statement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Michael Wrenn

New Member
Weren't there 2 classes of Jews in the OT ... God's prophets and the others?
God is in a box, right? ... He's not allowed to choose certain believers to anoint for special purposes!
C'mon, Mike baby, get real.

.

When you learn to address me appropriately, I might consider trying to have an adult, rational discussion with you -- if that is even possible.

Anointing certain people for special purposes is another matter entirely than trying to set up two classes of Christians -- those who have received "the baptism" with the implication of spiritual superiority, and those who have not received " the baptism". That is totally unscriptural.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I can say that you, attempted to assassinate my character by apply an untruth to what I said ie

Sure you can say that, but if that were true then this whole forum would be nothing else but that as this is a DEBATE forum. If tIhat rule applied no one could challenge anyone about anything. The point is that I never made it personal, you did.



That is an intentional mischaracterization of what I said as I showed in the above post.

I made no assertions but asked questions! Go back and read it again.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
When you learn to address me appropriately, I might consider trying to have an adult, rational discussion with you -- if that is even possible.

Anointing certain people for special purposes is another matter entirely than trying to set up two classes of Christians -- those who have received "the baptism" with the implication of spiritual superiority, and those who have not received " the baptism". That is totally unscriptural.

More like ancient gnosticism and the have and have nots. The truth is that there is no spiritual superiority at all because gifts do not make anyone more or less spritiual as the Corinthians had all the gifts but were called "carnal" and Paul claimed they were not "spriitual" - 1 Cor. 3:1-3.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
Sure you can say that, but if that were true then this whole forum would be nothing else but that as this is a DEBATE forum.
One in which you are not engaged in debate but in insinuation intentionally mischaracterizing your opponents. You are also engaged in strawman arguments which essentially isn't a debate either.


If tIhat rule applied no one could challenge anyone about anything. The point is that I never made it personal, you did.
No, by intentionally mischaracterizing my statement is a subversive personal attack. Which is why I said it wasn't overtly so. And still you haven't even gotten to the question at hand.
 

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
:wavey::sleep::sleep:
One in which you are not engaged in debate but in insinuation intentionally mischaracterizing your opponents. You are also engaged in strawman arguments which essentially isn't a debate either.


No, by intentionally mischaracterizing my statement is a subversive personal attack. Which is why I said it wasn't overtly so. And still you haven't even gotten to the question at hand.

:sleeping_2: Questions are hardly subversive in nature.
 

Thinkingstuff

Active Member
:wavey::sleep::sleep:

:sleeping_2: Questions are hardly subversive in nature.

Look at the structure of your "question".
May I ask what scripture provides you with a basis to claim that every detail of Christ's life was a "model" for us?
The question which you are referring completed in the first half of your sentence. It is the second part of the "question" sentence that is the attack. The issue is the false claim may by you that I claimed "that every detail of Christ's life was a "model" for us" which is a blatant attempt to discredit me. Clearly you can see how that is an attack though not overt. You are thereby suggesting in your "question" that I made a claim BASED upon something I did not BASE it on. Also it is clear by your use of emoticons that you still wish to discredit me rather than provide proper debate about the topic. And as yet you still haven't answered my question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Look at the structure of your "question". The question which you are referring completed in the first half of your sentence. It is the second part of the "question" sentence that is the attack.

If you are that sensitive to that kind of question then boy why even enter into a debate forum?
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
More like ancient gnosticism and the have and have nots. The truth is that there is no spiritual superiority at all because gifts do not make anyone more or less spritiual as the Corinthians had all the gifts but were called "carnal" and Paul claimed they were not "spriitual" - 1 Cor. 3:1-3.

That is true, but that's not the practical outcome of Pentecostal/Charismatic theology. I know because I've seen it firsthand.
 

evangelist-7

New Member
Anointing certain people for special purposes is another matter entirely than trying to set up two classes of Christians -- those who have received "the baptism" with the implication of spiritual superiority, and those who have not received " the baptism". That is totally unscriptural.
Michael, sir ... or is it ... Sir Michael?
Names and titles always did confuse me ... Sorry.

The "implication" is yours, not mine.
I guess I've said this here about 1000 times ...
this baptism is an anointing (with gifts attached) for some special task.

You do your thing for Jesus ... whatever He tells you to do.
I do my thing for Jesus ... whatever He tells me to do.
Your thing requires different gifts than my thing.
Again, sorry, but that's just da way it is.

And please don't shoot the piano player ... I can't afford no bullet-proof vest!

.
 

evangelist-7

New Member

I've been informed by a RC that the RC church never has put out any cessationist doctrinal statements.

He says just look at the lives of the Saints.
I said I don't care about a few Saints, I'ze talkin' about all of the actual churches.

(Several books that are available on the subject say S-W-M were in effect in diminishing numbers
and mainly in smaller churches, which were not connected with the big church organizations.)

He says the whole thing started with the Protestants.
And he might just be partly correct ... as far as the BIG picture is concerned!

I might be off by 1300 years (1500 - 200)!
Hey, burn me at the stake, I don't care!

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What you say... In your view we get the glory due to our "free will".

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.

Jesus view: Only God gets the glory.

You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
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?
You are clearly a hypocrite and I say that in all sincerity and honesty.
You say that people should do the very things you believe in, and yet you yourself cannot do and find impossible to do. How hypocritical is that?

Two of the "gifts" following Mark 16 are stated here:
Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;
--But, hypocritically, you tell others they should do this, but won't do it yourself. What else is it, if it isn't hypocrisy? Don't allegorize the verse away. I know what the Greek says. It means exactly what it says. It was demonstrated in part by the apostle Paul, when a poisonous snake attached itself to him, and the pagans of the island thought that he would die. He shook it off into the fire, and then they thought he was a god.

Acts 28:4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
Acts 28:5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

Why not imitate Paul if you think these signs are for every one. You would be hypocritical not to. And why are you telling others that they should partake of the same when you won't do it? That is hypocritical.
Have you had your daily dose of Draino? HCl perhaps?

You claim to speak in tongues but you cannot.
Which languages have you spoken in? Cree? Mohawk? Maori? Hindi? Polish? German? Which?
That is what the word "tongue" means--"language." They were actual languages that people knew. But you don't know what language you speak in, and cannot know for it isn't a language. There is nothing Biblical about what you do that you call "tongues." It was something that was not practiced in Biblical times, except in the pagan past of the Corinthians (1Cor.12:2).

You cannot heal as Peter healed. Acts 5:16.
Acts 5:16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.
--That is a demonstration of the gift of healing.

You say these gifts are available to all. Why don't you have them? Why don't you demonstrate them? Why are you so hypocritical in that you say others should practice them, but you can't practice them yourself.

When is the last time you performed a miracle--walked on water perhaps?
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

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.

.

John the baptist was one of the greatest OT prophets, Jesus said greatest One, how many miracles did he do?

Did Spurgeon/moody/Whitefield/Graham?

Were all of them "powerless" in regarding ministries unto the lord?
 

evangelist-7

New Member
John the baptist was one of the greatest OT prophets, Jesus said greatest One, how many miracles did he do?
Did Spurgeon/moody/Whitefield/Graham?
Were all of them "powerless" in regarding ministries unto the lord?
He was only in the NT.
He was working long before the Holy Spirit replaced Jesus.
He was working before Jesus did His foist miracle.

I don't know if these 4 men did any S-W-M.
If they did NOT, it was because they did NOT believe in them.

Belief in the Lord's S-W-M diminished gradually over the 1800 years
until at the end of the 1800's there was NO belief left.

Then, the Lord revitalized modern-day Pentecost (for the end of the end times).

But then, Satan is involved in the affairs of man also ... as he always has been (allowed to).

.
 

Melanie

Active Member
Site Supporter
What DISASTROUS failure of the early church....it is still here afer 2000 years and yes it has lurched from catastrophe to catastrophe.....but it has NOT failed.
 
Top