Featured Do you attend a "Full Gospel" Church?

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).

 

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

 

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.

 

Read Charismatic Chaos as well.

 

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).
.

 

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

If then this is the case why are you harsh on people who disagree with you?

Why do you say this?

What are you trying to use to support your position?

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.

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.

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?

 

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.
.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I'm Certain they would beg to differ.

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 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.

Remember I'm not Pentecostal. Though I have studied with them and know their mind.

I

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.

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" 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

Though its nice you show that scripture don't interpret themselves.

 

I freely admitted that they do assert it or did you read what I said? Apparently not!

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 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.

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.