Featured The disasterous failure of the early church

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

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

which obviously I meant generally and can clearly be seen when I said

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

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.

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.

 

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.

 

I can say that you, attempted to assassinate my character by apply an untruth to what I said ie

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

:wavey::sleep::sleep:

:sleeping_2: Questions are hardly subversive in nature.

 

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. 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.

 

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

 

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

 

What you say... In your view we get the glory due to our "free will".

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.