Charismatic Sweep

[Bro Flame]

My Pastor shared this on our church's Facebook page some time ago. I've often thought about it and I decided to share it here.

The Charismatic movement's effect on traditional Pentecostalism seems to have been generally negative from many perspectives.

From the words of Elder Steve Eply:

I saw the early days of the Charismatic movement as a boy. Initially many were hungry for more of God that was preached and experienced by their denomination. But it didn't take long to realize they were interesting in the blessing but not in the cost. Their movement exploded across the globe. Real experiences were quickly replaced by sensationalism rife with strange doctrines and practices. Huge mega churches blossomed with unconverted people praying in a "prayer language" and bopping to the newest trends in music.

Now in my senior years I reflect we did not convert many of them. They were like the people Jeremiah prophesied about "wild asses in the wind". But their effect on the Pentecostal movement has been devastating. Even the late Bishop Gilbert Patterson of the Church of God in Christ bemoaned the fact the congregants of his movement were not receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost because there was no change in their lives.

The influence of this delusional movement has forever altered some areas of our movement. Flashing lights, smoke machines, Hillsong-style music, folks dressed like they are going to a picnic instead of church. They are like the folks who spoke half Ashdod and half the language of the Jews.

The doctrine of Balaam is what it is.

Holiness standards are too heavy a burden to bear. Jewelry becomes acceptable, makeup, cut hair, immodest dress. No clear doctrinal distinctions. Hollywood is no big deal. Professional sports is in. Preaching separation is out.

My voice may not be much be I am going to lift it in pleading and defending the old paths.

We are just going to keep on doing doing what we have always done.

Preaching, Prayer, Praise.

Holiness is still in style.

[coksiw]

He put in words what I actually think.

[Bro Flame]

He put in words what I actually think.
It seems to be a fairly common consensus among us in the Apostolic realm.

[diakonos]

It seems to be a fairly common consensus among us in the Apostolic realm.

We’re in a realm now

[diakonos]

This thread has a video of a message by an Assembly.. Assemblies... of God pastor. You may find it interesting.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=52239&highlight=Clendennen

[Truthseeker]

I agree with the overall point, but cutting hair isn't sin.

The hyped up services with the lights and graphics seems to be the big trend. Telling people they got the Holy Ghost when they didn't is huge where I am from. Saw an evangelist tell do it at a tent revival. Same evangelist preached about uncut hair in relation to angels(Stoneking is his mentor) then had sisters lower their hair at the end of service. Some ate it up, but it was all hype.

I could go on. It can be discouraging.

[consapente89]

I agree with the overall point, but cutting hair isn't sin.

The hyped up services with the lights and graphics seems to be the big trend. Telling people they got the Holy Ghost when they didn't is huge where I am from. Saw an evangelist tell do it at a tent revival. Same evangelist preached about uncut hair in relation to angels(Stoneking is his mentor) then had sisters lower their hair at the end of service. Some ate it up, but it was all hype.

I could go on. It can be discouraging.

I believe a lady who cuts her hair is in rebellion against the Word of God. However, I concur with EVERYTHING else in your post.

[Bro Flame]

We’re in a realm now
Realm, arena, movement, sect.

The Apostolic faith we are.

:happydance:happydance

[Bro Flame]

This thread has a video of a message by an Assembly.. Assemblies... of God pastor. You may find it interesting.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=52239&highlight=Clendennen
I've had someone else bring this video up to me before, I'm sure. I'm certainly going to listen to it when I have the chance to do so.

Thanks!

[Bro Flame]

I agree with the overall point, but cutting hair isn't sin.

The hyped up services with the lights and graphics seems to be the big trend. Telling people they got the Holy Ghost when they didn't is huge where I am from. Saw an evangelist tell do it at a tent revival. Same evangelist preached about uncut hair in relation to angels(Stoneking is his mentor) then had sisters lower their hair at the end of service. Some ate it up, but it was all hype.

I could go on. It can be discouraging.
The Bible tells us if a woman is shorn or shaven (i.e. cuts her hair), it is a shame (1 Corinthians 11:6).

[Bro Flame]

Speaking in tongues seems to grab a lot of headlines within the Christian community these days. I remember finding one article discussing what the writer called the "vogue of speaking in tongues". The argument was that many people perhaps do not have the genuine gift of the Holy Ghost, but yet spoke in other tongues to "fit in" with those the genuinely have the Spirit of God dwelling within them.

Likewise, there are just as many articles circling about the continuing decline of the Spirit baptism and the movement of the Spirit within most self-proclaiming Pentecostal churches. There was an Assemblies of God pastor that said something along these lines: Christians don't like standing out unless they have to, and that's why many Pentecostal churches have dwindled in terms of Spirit-filled services because these churches want to move into the mainstream.

They've traded the real deal for trash.

[n david]

This thread has a video of a message by an Assembly.. Assemblies... of God pastor. You may find it interesting.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=52239&highlight=Clendennen

Listening to it now. This was the AoG my mother grew up in as a young girl before attending a UPC church. She tells of when the AoG church she attended believed in the New Birth (necessity not added benefit) and holiness dress standards.

[Truthseeker]

I believe a lady who cuts her hair is in rebellion against the Word of God. However, I concur with EVERYTHING else in your post.

We can't be right in everything. :)

[Truthseeker]

The Bible tells us if a woman is shorn or shaven (i.e. cuts her hair), it is a shame (1 Corinthians 11:6).

I have looked at that chapter I dont know how many times. The uncut hair doctrine is just not there. Not trying to derail the thread with a hair discussion. Not that I mind discussing it.

[diakonos]

Listening to it now. This was the AoG my mother grew up in as a young girl before attending a UPC church. She tells of when the AoG church she attended believed in the New Birth (necessity not added benefit) and holiness dress standards.

There are still some AG that live holiness. A rare find.

[coksiw]

I have looked at that chapter I dont know how many times. The uncut hair doctrine is just not there. Not trying to derail the thread with a hair discussion. Not that I mind discussing it.

Some interesting information that can help:

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7061-hair

Fashions Among Women.

Among women long hair is extolled as a mark of beauty (Cant. iv. 1, vii. 6). A woman's hair was never cut except as a sign of deep mourning or of degradation (Jer. vii. 29; comp. Deut. xxi. 12). Women gave much thought to the care and decoration of their hair (II Kings ix. 30; Cant. iv. 1, vi. 4, vii. 5; Judith x. 3). The prophet Isaiah derides the many aids used by the women in curling and tending their hair (Isaiah iii.). Josephus mentions the custom—still obtaining in the East—of sprinkling gold-dust on the hair in order to produce a golden shimmer ("Ant." viii. 7, § 3).

I think the concern about trimming it came because of the trend to let the hair down and flow freely outside the house. Women back then used to wear their hair up in complex braids or even covered. Leaving the hair down and flowing was something you did at home.

[Esaias]

I have looked at that chapter I dont know how many times. The uncut hair doctrine is just not there. Not trying to derail the thread with a hair discussion. Not that I mind discussing it.

The main point of the chapter is that Christian women ought to have their head covered when praying or prophesying, otherwise they might as well cut off their hair.

[Truthseeker]

The main point of the chapter is that Christian women ought to have their head covered when praying or prophesying, otherwise they might as well cut off their hair.

So cut hair is ok as long as they wear a head covering?

[good samaritan]

If women do not cover their heads then they should just cut off their hair. This is what Western women do. They don’t cover their and then they whack off their hair.

[Esaias]

So cut hair is ok as long as they wear a head covering?

It is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. That is why if she will not cover her head she ought to be shorn or shaven, because a woman praying uncovered is unseemly (shameful, inappropriate).

[Esaias]

If women do not cover their heads then they should just cut off their hair. This is what Western women do. They don’t cover their and then they whack off their hair.

And thus they bear their shame. The problem is the churches generally refuse to point it out, so they feel no shame. Same thing with immodest clothing, effeminacy in men, and a host of other shameful things prevalent in society that the churches for the most part fail to address.

[Bro Flame]

There are still some AG that live holiness. A rare find.
Extremely rare in my area, but that might be because the AG isn't terribly prominent around me. What few are around a pretty much Baptist churches that just haven't gotten around to changing their signs.

There are a few holiness churches, however. They're not Oneness, but believe in strict separation, outwardly, from secular entertainment, and all that sort of stuff. Some of them believe in the Holy Ghost, others do not.

[Barb]

There are still some AG that live holiness. A rare find.

Several years ago my mom and I met a sweet family at a Collingsworth Family concert from Goshen, IN. We didn’t know they were AoG, and they didn’t know we were Apostolic because we all looked the same.

She was a young widow with 2 small children the night she asked mom to pray for her as you went back to nursing school in order to provide for her little family. Down through the years we have become good friends, understanding the differences, yet with loving kindness showing them a more and perfect Way.

I shared this just to say that we have met other AoG folks at the CFam concerts who yet cling to the Holiness teaching…

[Esaias]

Extremely rare in my area, but that might be because the AG isn't terribly prominent around me. What few are around a pretty much Baptist churches that just haven't gotten around to changing their signs.

There are a few holiness churches, however. They're not Oneness, but believe in strict separation, outwardly, from secular entertainment, and all that sort of stuff. Some of them believe in the Holy Ghost, others do not.

It's amusing how we always think in terms of holiness=standards. When pressed everyone of us will admit that holiness is a matter of the heart, yet we routinely say things like a particular church is a holiness church because of their standards of dress etc. We never say "There's a few holiness churches around, not oneness but they believe in purity of heart and separation to God in all things".

On a side note, if oneness is the truth there cannot be holiness apart from oneness. Otherwise fundamental Mormons are holy and have holiness. But then again, since most of us only think in terms of holiness=appearance plus no tv etc we don't seem bothered by the inconsistencies. Holiness is separation to God. Which god, then? Or does it even matter anymore?

[diakonos]

It's amusing how we always think in terms of holiness=standards. When pressed everyone of us will admit that holiness is a matter of the heart, yet we routinely say things like a particular church is a holiness church because of their standards of dress etc. We never say "There's a few holiness churches around, not oneness but they believe in purity of heart and separation to God in all things".

On a side note, if oneness is the truth there cannot be holiness apart from oneness. Otherwise fundamental Mormons are holy and have holiness. But then again, since most of us only think in terms of holiness=appearance plus no tv etc we don't seem bothered by the inconsistencies. Holiness is separation to God. Which god, then? Or does it even matter anymore?

Good point. But I use it as it is understood- a dress code.

[Truthseeker]

It is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. That is why if she will not cover her head she ought to be shorn or shaven, because a woman praying uncovered is unseemly (shameful, inappropriate).

Cut hair is not the same as shorn or shaven though.

[diakonos]

Cut hair is not the small horn or shaven though.

What?

[Truthseeker]

What?

Oops I fixed it.

[consapente89]

It's amusing how we always think in terms of holiness=standards. When pressed everyone of us will admit that holiness is a matter of the heart, yet we routinely say things like a particular church is a holiness church because of their standards of dress etc. We never say "There's a few holiness churches around, not oneness but they believe in purity of heart and separation to God in all things".

On a side note, if oneness is the truth there cannot be holiness apart from oneness. Otherwise fundamental Mormons are holy and have holiness. But then again, since most of us only think in terms of holiness=appearance plus no tv etc we don't seem bothered by the inconsistencies. Holiness is separation to God. Which god, then? Or does it even matter anymore?

It’s scriptural. Man looks on the outward appearance and God looks on the heart. We can’t see the heart (except by some sort of divine revelation) so we see someone that dresses in a fashion that God would be pleased with and we say “oh they must be holiness”. When in fact only God really knows if they are holiness or not. We DO know that the ladies cutting they’re hair aren’t holiness. We DO know that the men wearing skirts and the women wearing pants are not holiness. We do know that the men and women with earrings, makeup, wedding bands and such are not holiness. What we don’t really know is if that godly looking lady with her uncut hair, shame facedness and modest attire is really holiness or not, but God does. We don’t know for sure if that man with a godly looking hair cut and nice long sleeved shirt is really holiness or not, but God does!

[consapente89]

In other words...we don’t always know when it is, but many times, we know when it isn’t!

[diakonos]

In other words...we don’t always know when it is, but many times, we know when it isn’t!

What?

[Esaias]

Cut hair is not the same as shorn or shaven though.

Shorn literally means cut, like "cropped". Most people can grasp what it means for a woman to be shorn, it implies her long beautiful hair is chopped off. That is what the Bible says should be done to a woman who refuses to be covered while praying.

I think only oneness pentecostals split hairs on "well exactly how much is to be cut off to qualify as cut?"

[Esaias]

It’s scriptural. Man looks on the outward appearance and God looks on the heart. We can’t see the heart (except by some sort of divine revelation) so we see someone that dresses in a fashion that God would be pleased with and we say “oh they must be holiness”. When in fact only God really knows if they are holiness or not. We DO know that the ladies cutting they’re hair aren’t holiness. We DO know that the men wearing skirts and the women wearing pants are not holiness. We do know that the men and women with earrings, makeup, wedding bands and such are not holiness. What we don’t really know is if that godly looking lady with her uncut hair, shame facedness and modest attire is really holiness or not, but God does. We don’t know for sure if that man with a godly looking hair cut and nice long sleeved shirt is really holiness or not, but God does!

The problem is most of the things you listed as indicators of possible holiness are debateable, and have been debated, by sincere people on both sides.

As for a "godly looking haircut" the only hairstyle the Bible remotely indicates is godly is the uncut hair of a man under a Nazarite vow. So there's that. :)

[consapente89]

The problem is most of the things you listed as indicators of possible holiness are debateable, and have been debated, by sincere people on both sides.

As for a "godly looking haircut" the only hairstyle the Bible remotely indicates is godly is the uncut hair of a man under a Nazarite vow. So there's that. :)

Debatable because people debate about them...sure. People debate the essentialist of water and spirit also. Doesn’t make it less true.

Short hair on men is the biblical hair style.

[Esaias]

Debatable because people debate about them...sure. People debate the essentialist of water and spirit also. Doesn’t make it less true.

Short hair on men is the biblical hair style.

What I was saying is the specific items you listed are debated by sincere believers because there are no verses that say anything about for example sleeve length. Somebody debating against water baptism for example is not being sincere, because they are arguing against the direct and explicit statements of Scripture, and not merely against an opinion derived from principles mediated by culture with no explicit passages addressing the particular issue in the argued context.

Holiness is way more than clothing styles or an approved innocent amusements list. As long as people continue to immediately think holiness=dress standards it will be needful to emphasise that holiness=entire sanctification of the whole person and all areas of the whole life dedicated to Christ. That means how you live, vote, manage your finances, everything.

[KeptByTheWord]

What I was saying is the specific items you listed are debated by sincere believers because there are no verses that say anything about for example sleeve length. Somebody debating against water baptism for example is not being sincere, because they are arguing against the direct and explicit statements of Scripture, and not merely against an opinion derived from principles mediated by culture with no explicit passages addressing the particular issue in the argued context.

Holiness is way more than clothing styles or an approved innocent amusements list. As long as people continue to immediately think holiness=dress standards it will be needful to emphasise that holiness=entire sanctification of the whole person and all areas of the whole life dedicated to Christ. That means how you live, vote, manage your finances, everything.

:thumbsup Excellent.

Holiness is always a matter of the heart. It's much easier to preach a dress code than to clean up the inside of the heart.

Jesus preached to the Pharisees who were impeccably dressed, and yet, it was always about their heart condition that He spoke to. When did Jesus ever condemn anyone for their outward dress and appearance?

Holiness should be directed to heart issues, which is what Jesus did, yet it always seems to make its way around to outward appearance, every time.

[Amanah]

I think outward conformity creates a sense of unity in the same way that following some of the obscure commandments in leviticus cemented Jews into a community. Leviticus strongly rejected non conformity by rejecting even things in nature that were outside of categories.

But the end result is a sense of community devoid of the weightier matters of love and justice and genuine religion if outward conformity is the main emphasis

[consapente89]

Holiness is way more than clothing styles or an approved innocent amusements list. As long as people continue to immediately think holiness=dress standards it will be needful to emphasise that holiness=entire sanctification of the whole person and all areas of the whole life dedicated to Christ. That means how you live, vote, manage your finances, everything.

Absolutely agreed!

[Bro Flame]

This thread has a video of a message by an Assembly.. Assemblies... of God pastor. You may find it interesting.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=52239&highlight=Clendennen
I listened to this message last night. I don't believe I've ever heard any of Bro Clendennen's messages before, but this one was very good and very needed at present.

I'm entirely sure how old this particularly message is, but it is something the Pentecostal church, in general, has needed to hear for quite some time. It's a word we need to grab a hold of and embrace. We've welcomed a counterfeit spirit into our churches, which has mocked the genuine move of God for many years.

It really hit me when he said: "We didn't change the horse. It changed us, and we called it revival." Ouch. Wake up church! Just because someone is talking in tongues, to use Bro Clendennen's term, doesn't mean they have the Holy Ghost. Their fruit and lifestyle will speak for the genuineness of being Spirit-filled. Just give it time.

I know he was primarily speaking to Assemblies of God churches (he does mention the Church of God, the Pentecostal Church of God, and others), but I cannot help but think of our Apostolic brothers and sisters who are leaving this marvelous Truth by the droves. It makes my heart weary to think of these people that know better, but have settled for compromise.

Lord Jesus help us all.

[Bro Flame]

Genuine holiness involves both inward and outward applications. An inward change generally occurs first, and then those inward changes cannot help but represent themselves on one's outward appearance.

Both inward and outward holiness can be traced to Scripture.

The issue is, just as some have already said, most people stress either inward without the outward, or vice versa. The two go hand-in-hand. I remember someone here on AFF saying that if both inner and outer holiness are one-in-the-same (or you cannot have one without the other) then people need to stop speaking of them as if they're two different components. I totally agree. Almost every one of us here would agree that both inner and outer holiness make up Biblical holiness, so let's stop differentiating them.

That's cleared up.

But, like I said, the issue is a lot of churches stress outward standards. Now, I'll be the first to agree that outward convictions, expectations, restrictions, or "standards" are necessary and needed in a maturing Christian's walk with God. Of course, we could get technical and literal and therefore debate that some outward standards are not clearly stated in the Word. Naturally, those are the ones that bring up discussions that evolve into arguments over what is and isn't sin and whether or not someone is holy because they may not follow a conviction as strictly as the next one.

On the flip side, there are just as many churches (if not more) that only stress the importance of inner cleansing and applications of holiness. As we've said, it starts there, but it does not end there. Many of the churches I've encountered that preach just the necessity of inner transformation generally speak against some outward representations of Christian living in some capacity. My mother use to go to a church where the attitude was basically this: "I shouldn't be able to look a someone and tell they're a Christian by the way they're dressed." This theology came from the First Lady of this congregation, a woman whose mother had started said church, and brought her family up in the strict holiness way. These people have rejected the foundation as it was taught to them, and instead proclaim new revelations and scriptural understanding to justify their ever-changing views on the Christian lifestyle.

It's sad, but it's becoming the norm in some churches.

Issues like this have the Apostolic church in a mess. It's started among ourselves pretty much, too. We've raised up people through the generations that don't genuinely have a love for holiness or understand its necessity in their hearts, and that's why so many churches are leaving it. They're quite simply broadening a road Jesus says is narrow, and it just doesn't work that way. And I know that many people say that some "standards" (whether based on attire or lifestyle in general) can be written off or discarded as traditional and therefore presently unnecessary, but such standards and expectations were taught by our elders for a reason. They obviously felt God expected it from His Church for one reason or another, and if it's making us closer to Jesus, then why change it? When in doubt, always take the holier route. It won't hurt any of us when done correctly and in the compassionate spirit Christ wishes for us to assert.

I could go on and tell you of at least six different churches my Pastors once enjoyed a healthy fellowship with, but quite simply can no longer do so because these other churches are sliding away from the Truth they once taught. I know people in all of these churches, and while some will agree that their churches have changed, and not necessarily for the better, the majority of them see not a single error in the route their churches are progressively taking. It's an issue of the attitude these people are possessing these days. There's no urgency to maintain doctrinal convictions or landmarks.

I'll get off my soap box now. I've given all of you way more than any of you asked for. :)

[diakonos]

but such standards and expectations were taught by our elders for a reason.

Doesn't make it right.

[Bro Flame]

Doesn't make it right.
Doesn't make it wrong, either.

[Tithesmeister]

Doesn't make it right.

Doesn't make it wrong, either.

Yes. It could very well be wrong. Some preachers think they have a license to change scripture. Remember the Pharisees. If it is not based on scripture, it could well be wrong. Holy Roller, what does this scripture mean to you?

Deut.4

[2] Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

[diakonos]

Yes. It could very well be wrong. Some preachers think they have a license to change scripture. Remember the Pharisees. If it is not based on scripture, it could well be wrong. Holy Roller, what does this scripture mean to you?

Deut.4

[2] Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
If something is not right then it is wrong. Right!?

[Tithesmeister]

If something is not right then it is wrong. Right!?

On the other hand, if something is wrong, then it sure ain’t right. Right?

[n david]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/durr.gif

[diakonos]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/durr.gif

Amen, hallelujah! :happydance

[Evang.Benincasa]

[you] is never wrong. :happydance

[consapente89]

Y’all wearing that out!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Y’all wearing that out!

[you] is so funny!


https://media1.giphy.com/media/TgOpmgdbRGxfWvpfi1/giphy.gif

[diakonos]

I’m out. Someone let me know when the old people have taken their meds

[Evang.Benincasa]

I’m out. Someone let me know when the old people have taken their meds

[you] is always grumpy. :(

[Bro Flame]

[you] is never wrong. :happydance
Thank you! :happydance

[Bro Flame]

[you] is always grumpy. :(
Not quite as often as people think.
:heeheehee

[Bro Flame]

[you] is so funny!


https://media1.giphy.com/media/TgOpmgdbRGxfWvpfi1/giphy.gif
Now this I can Amen!
:heeheehee:heeheehee:heeheehee

[Bro Flame]

Yes. It could very well be wrong. Some preachers think they have a license to change scripture. Remember the Pharisees. If it is not based on scripture, it could well be wrong. Holy Roller, what does this scripture mean to you?

Deut.4

[2] Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
That means we shouldn't add anything to the Word of God, just as it says.

[KeptByTheWord]

Where in scripture is holiness equated with an outward dress code?

Consider this scripture as a great model for how the Apostle Paul taught holiness. Not one mention of clothing. But far more serious... heart issues. The Apostle Paul taught holiness in this passage quite clearly. No clothesline message.

Heart issues. Holiness is a matter of the heart. God doesn't wear clothing. He is a Spirit. In order to be holy even as He is holy, it is our heart that must align with His.

Ephesians 4:22-32
That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
27 Neither give place to the devil.
28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

[KeptByTheWord]

We need to stop equating holiness with modesty.

Modesty needs to be preached, I agree. Some people have no concept of modesty at all. BUT MODESTY IS NOT HOLINESS.

Modesty will be a fruit of holiness of the heart, without doubt. But the two issues are separate. Teach holiness of heart, and modesty as a principle of living.

The cart has been before the horse for too long.

[Michael The Disciple]

So "Charismatic" equates to evil and "Apostolic" to righteousness?

[consapente89]

So "Charismatic" equates to evil and "Apostolic" to righteousness?

Charismatic refers to a movement. A movement which has certain spiritual attributes. The writer is concerned about many of those spiritual attributes infiltrating Oneness Pentecost. In some case, many cases, taking over various areas of oneness Pentecost. Unfortunately much of the Apostolic world is not close enough to God to discern the spirits infiltrating.

[Evang.Benincasa]

So "Charismatic" equates to evil and "Apostolic" to righteousness?

The Greek χάρισμα means to give grace, giving a gift without expecting a return. Charismatic on the other hand covers a group of people who believe everything from speaking in tongues to anointing inanimate objects with olive oil. The services have some flaky effeminacy within the men, and the females can get pretty MASCULINE (misunderstanding Debra's role in the OT). They tend to see a devil behind every bush. Generational curses are a big tool used to keep people under the power of leadership witchcraft. Yet, Charismatic as used by secular society blankets all tongue talkers. Apostolic on the other hand simply means to do as the Apostles prescribed. While some who call themselves Apostolic may be Cruzermatic, a Charismatic as I described can't be considered Apostolic.

[Bro Flame]

What's wrong with dressing modestly?

I agree that a "dress code", as some of you call it, is not salvation, nor is holiness necessarily.

BUT we do know there are scriptural evidence of attire. This again arises the constant differentiating of inner and outer holiness, when the two most coexist to equal Biblical holiness.

[Bro Flame]

Charismatic is generically used by modern Christendom to banner a faith, denomination, organization, or individual that believes in the validity of the spiritual gifts still being in operation. Now, to the variance these individuals or doctrines will validate such spiritual gifts will be diverse, but the word Charismatic is usually lazily used to unite them all.

[Michael The Disciple]

Charismatic refers to a movement. A movement which has certain spiritual attributes. The writer is concerned about many of those spiritual attributes infiltrating Oneness Pentecost. In some case, many cases, taking over various areas of oneness Pentecost. Unfortunately much of the Apostolic world is not close enough to God to discern the spirits infiltrating.

Having been around the 70's version of the Charismatic movement may not be the same experience as being around it today. My first Pentecostal Church experiences were among Trins.

I liked the fervency of prayer among them. That was about it. When I first discovered the Charismatic movement I perceived it as being deeper than the Pentecostal groups I had been around. I much preferred the style of worship as in those days it was getting much of their songs from the Jesus movement.

The teachers were more interesting than the Pentecostal Preachers. They would try to stay close to scripture and rightly divide it as compared to the shotgun style of the Pentecostals.

I met several groups in those days that I found very interesting. When I began to engage with Oneness people I saw right away they they had more scripture concerning the truth of the Godhead and new birth. This seemed really deep after being around the Charismatic and Pentecostal Trinitarians.

About 40 years down the road now I dont see much of what some others see about "Charismatic" taking over the Oneness movement. The Churches I have known and been part of in recent years ARE moving to a more Charismatic worship. IMO this is a good thing. Altho not as spiritual as the early songs of the Charismatic movement TO ME they are usually more so than the Pentecostal ones.

Now I have only been in probably 20 Oneness Churches since having embraced the doctrine so my perspective is not as great as some of yours. I do read articles by Apostolics and watch internet videos of them. I saw more of the gifts of the Spirit among the Charismatic movement than the Apostolic. I dont mean so much through the Preachers but through the believers themselves.

The Apostolics have more truth on the Godhead and new birth which as I said earlier was what drew me to them. In other areas of doctrine the Apostolics dont appear to be going any deeper than Charismatics as they agree with each other on pre trib rapture and immortal soul.

If one takes away the outward standards code Apostolics dont come across to me as being particularly more "spiritually minded" than the Charismatics.

True they have more big name obviously false teachers. Yet their movement is much larger than them. I mean there are many among them who are as offended by the false teachers as we are.

As far as I can tell in scripture God shows he accepts people by giving them the Holy Ghost. While Im pretty sure a percentage of them dont have the Spirit but the same can be said of the Apostolics.

Where I DO SEE a lot of agreement between Charimatics and Apostolic (apart from dress standards) is the matters of holiness and obedience. Both of the movements teach the "finished work" false doctrine. Both movements (in general) oppose the doctrine of perfection as given by Jesus.

This I have seen over and over.

[Esaias]

Neither the modern charismatic movement nor the modern oneness pentecostal movement teach the FINISHED WORK DOCTRINE OF INSTANTANEOUS ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION VIA FAITH IN THE WORK OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST. Instead, both teach the Baptist view of progressive but never finished this side of the grave sanctification with death of the body providing the final entire sanctifying perfection.

You have had this explained to you repeatedly but you persist in your mischaracterizations. It's why I have lost a lot of respect for your teaching ability. That and your refusal to answer hard questions about your doctrines.

[consapente89]

Having been around the 70's version of the Charismatic movement may not be the same experience as being around it today. My first Pentecostal Church experiences were among Trins.

I liked the fervency of prayer among them. That was about it. When I first discovered the Charismatic movement I perceived it as being deeper than the Pentecostal groups I had been around. I much preferred the style of worship as in those days it was getting much of their songs from the Jesus movement.

The teachers were more interesting than the Pentecostal Preachers. They would try to stay close to scripture and rightly divide it as compared to the shotgun style of the Pentecostals.

I met several groups in those days that I found very interesting. When I began to engage with Oneness people I saw right away they they had more scripture concerning the truth of the Godhead and new birth. This seemed really deep after being around the Charismatic and Pentecostal Trinitarians.

About 40 years down the road now I dont see much of what some others see about "Charismatic" taking over the Oneness movement. The Churches I have known and been part of in recent years ARE moving to a more Charismatic worship. IMO this is a good thing. Altho not as spiritual as the early songs of the Charismatic movement TO ME they are usually more so than the Pentecostal ones.

Now I have only been in probably 20 Oneness Churches since having embraced the doctrine so my perspective is not as great as some of yours. I do read articles by Apostolics and watch internet videos of them. I saw more of the gifts of the Spirit among the Charismatic movement than the Apostolic. I dont mean so much through the Preachers but through the believers themselves.

The Apostolics have more truth on the Godhead and new birth which as I said earlier was what drew me to them. In other areas of doctrine the Apostolics dont appear to be going any deeper than Charismatics as they agree with each other on pre trib rapture and immortal soul.

If one takes away the outward standards code Apostolics dont come across to me as being particularly more "spiritually minded" than the Charismatics.

True they have more big name obviously false teachers. Yet their movement is much larger than them. I mean there are many among them who are as offended by the false teachers as we are.

As far as I can tell in scripture God shows he accepts people by giving them the Holy Ghost. While Im pretty sure a percentage of them dont have the Spirit but the same can be said of the Apostolics.

Where I DO SEE a lot of agreement between Charimatics and Apostolic (apart from dress standards) is the matters of holiness and obedience. Both of the movements teach the "finished work" false doctrine. Both movements (in general) oppose the doctrine of perfection as given by Jesus.

This I have seen over and over.

I read the first 2 paragraphs.

[hometown guy]

I read the first 2 paragraphs.

Lol that’s funny. I actually did the same thing and when I saw your post it cracked me up! :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

Neither the modern charismatic movement nor the modern oneness pentecostal movement teach the FINISHED WORK DOCTRINE OF INSTANTANEOUS ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION VIA FAITH IN THE WORK OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST. Instead, both teach the Baptist view of progressive but never finished this side of the grave sanctification with death of the body providing the final entire sanctifying perfection.

You have had this explained to you repeatedly but you persist in your mischaracterizations. It's why I have lost a lot of respect for your teaching ability. That and your refusal to answer hard questions about your doctrines.

:thumbsup

[Evang.Benincasa]

I read the first 2 paragraphs.

I got as far as "having been around the 70's." Once he mentions that in one of his posts. It is usually the same old stuff I have read a thousand times. He needs to get a life past the internet. Then after he has currently achieved "something" Then come back and tell us how's it going in the 2000s.

[diakonos]

I read the first 2 paragraphs.

I read “Having been around the 70’s...”

[Evang.Benincasa]

I read “Having been around the 70’s...”

:highfive

[Michael The Disciple]

Neither the modern charismatic movement nor the modern oneness pentecostal movement teach the FINISHED WORK DOCTRINE OF INSTANTANEOUS ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION VIA FAITH IN THE WORK OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST. Instead, both teach the Baptist view of progressive but never finished this side of the grave sanctification with death of the body providing the final entire sanctifying perfection.

You have had this explained to you repeatedly but you persist in your mischaracterizations. It's why I have lost a lot of respect for your teaching ability. That and your refusal to answer hard questions about your doctrines.

If you have ever discussed holiness with the Evangelicals you will learn their version of the "finished work" doctrine. Jesus did it all on the cross. If you think you must DO anything to yet attain final salvation you are a heretic. I am saying that indeed both Charismatics and Pentecostals are now teaching this same thing and reject the truth of sinless perfection. I actually thought you and I agreed on this.

This is what Untraditional William was alluding to in his Hyper Grace Thread. He was saying it was getting into the Apostolic Movement just like you all are saying about the Charismatics getting in.

As far as answering hard questions I can say the same about you. You give answers that you THINK are correct and they dont seem to be. I give answers and you dont accept them.

Why should I have to explain something over and over when you just say Im not answering? Its true that I wont go on forever in threads where its obvious no one is paying attention.

Blessings to you.

[Esaias]

If you have ever discussed holiness with the Evangelicals you will learn their version of the "finished work" doctrine. Jesus did it all on the cross. If you think you must DO anything to yet attain final salvation you are a heretic. I am saying that indeed both Charismatics and Pentecostals are now teaching this same thing and reject the truth of sinless perfection. I actually thought you and I agreed on this.

This is what Untraditional William was alluding to in his Hyper Grace Thread. He was saying it was getting into the Apostolic Movement just like you all are saying about the Charismatics getting in.

As far as answering hard questions I can say the same about you. You give answers that you THINK are correct and they dont seem to be. I give answers and you dont accept them.

Why should I have to explain something over and over when you just say Im not answering? Its true that I wont go on forever in threads where its obvious no one is paying attention.

Blessings to you.

1. We've been round and round about your and the evangelicals false and historically incorrect understanding of the Pentecostal Finished Work view of entire sanctification. Once again your mischaracterization and utter lack of interest in at least using historically accurate terms and definitions means you simply have an agenda that is NOT focused on truth and accuracy.

2. Your failure to answer questions about your doctrine is NOT about you giving explanations I don't agree with. It's about you cutting and running and refusing to even respond to questions, like "if all things were made by the logos, but the logos was also made, then the logos made the logos, right?" etc.

3. I ALWAYS answer questions put to me about what I teach, EXCEPT when the questioner has already refused to answer questions put to them.

4. Sinless perfection means no sin. Sin is the transgression of the law, including the Fourth Commandment. So no, you and I do NOT agree on the doctrine of Christian perfection. You, like many others, redefine sin to exclude things you practice and allow, like Sabbath breaking.

Look, I generally like you. But you've got some serious hangups that are keeping you from the full apostolic truth. Apostolic as in "taught and practiced by the apostles".

[KeptByTheWord]

Look, I generally like you. But you've got some serious hangups that are keeping you from the full apostolic truth. Apostolic as in "taught and practiced by the apostles".

This statement really makes me want to laugh. What gives you the right to think you've got it all right as in "full apostolic truth"? Are you the Noah or the Peter or the Paul of our day? :nah

I think that everyone here has a genuine objective to spend eternity with Jesus. Questions are a part of learning, and discussion is good. But let's not destroy brothers and sisters with our desire to be number one.

Humilty is a fruit of the spirit you might look into, just sayin'...

[Esaias]

This statement really makes me want to laugh. What gives you the right to think you've got it all right as in "full apostolic truth"? Are you the Noah or the Peter or the Paul of our day? :nah

I think that everyone here has a genuine objective to spend eternity with Jesus. Questions are a part of learning, and discussion is good. But let's not destroy brothers and sisters with our desire to be number one.

Humilty is a fruit of the spirit you might look into, just sayin'...

Be quiet, men are talking doctrine. :thumbsup

[KeptByTheWord]

Be quiet, men are talking doctrine. :thumbsup

:foottap

[Esaias]

Lol :)

[diakonos]

:foottap

And put on a veil.

[KeptByTheWord]

And put on a veil.

:heeheehee:happydance:hanky

[KeptByTheWord]

In all seriousness, I love the discussions here on AFF.

We all are trying to get to heaven, and it's a good reminder for all of us that there is no need to destroy each other just to try to prove a point.

[Truthseeker]

Stay humble, no one today is full 100% apostolic. Only those who think they are.:thumbsup

[n david]

Be quiet, men are talking doctrine. :thumbsup

https://media.giphy.com/media/1d5Zn8FqmJqApu4hNU/giphy.gif

[Michael The Disciple]

1. We've been round and round about your and the evangelicals false and historically incorrect understanding of the Pentecostal Finished Work view of entire sanctification. Once again your mischaracterization and utter lack of interest in at least using historically accurate terms and definitions means you simply have an agenda that is NOT focused on truth and accuracy.

I am referring to the Evangelical "finished work" doctrine. I have encountered and opposed it many times against its Preachers. I teach sinless perfection from Jesus and the Apostles.

2. Your failure to answer questions about your doctrine is NOT about you giving explanations I don't agree with. It's about you cutting and running and refusing to even respond to questions, like "if all things were made by the logos, but the logos was also made, then the logos made the logos, right?" etc.

I have directed you to what I teach on the subject. I have multiple threads on the forum on the topic. I cannot make it any clearer than using scripture. If you want me to just use my own words and attempt to explain it in a few sentences apart from scripture let me know.

3. I ALWAYS answer questions put to me about what I teach, EXCEPT when the questioner has already refused to answer questions put to them.

If so why does not everyone who you say you answer questions for agree with you? Is it not because you may not be answering the questions accurately?

4. Sinless perfection means no sin. Sin is the transgression of the law, including the Fourth Commandment. So no, you and I do NOT agree on the doctrine of Christian perfection. You, like many others, redefine sin to exclude things you practice and allow, like Sabbath breaking.

There are plenty of refutations to the fact Christians are not under the law of Moses on the Forum. Several threads are up as we speak in the Deep Waters section. Some of the posts are by me. If you answer all questions why have you not converted lets say Mike Blume to law keeping? Could it be he like myself and others dont find your answers to be "answers" ON THIS TOPIC?

No doubt you DO have real answers on some topics which I respect and appreciate.

Should we start another thread about whether the New Covenant Christian is under the law? Or should I go to you and Mike Blumes thread already in process?

[Esaias]

I have directed you to what I teach on the subject. I have multiple threads on the forum on the topic. I cannot make it any clearer than using scripture. If you want me to just use my own words and attempt to explain it in a few sentences apart from scripture let me know.


If the logos made ALL THINGS THAT WERE MADE WITHOUT EXCEPTION, and the logos itself was made, then how is that not saying the logos made itself?


If so why does not everyone who you say you answer questions for agree with you? Is it not because you may not be answering the questions accurately?

Really? Are you under the impression that if you just answer questions perfectly the questioner will AGREE with you? I never claimed that. I DO however actually try to answer questions. You have a question to you that has been pending across multiple threads for quite some time now. Would you like to try to answer it?



There are plenty of refutations to the fact Christians are not under the law of Moses on the Forum. Several threads are up as we speak in the Deep Waters section. Some of the posts are by me. If you answer all questions why have you not converted lets say Mike Blume to law keeping? Could it be he like myself and others dont find your answers to be "answers" ON THIS TOPIC?

Neither I nor anybody else on this forum claims anybody is "under the law of Moses". You don't see the need to obey the ten commandments because you want your Saturdays for yourself to do what you want without the Word dictating what you ought or ought not to do. Has nothing to do with me answering questions. Again, answering questions does not equate to succcessfully convincing anyone of anything. I never said it did.

But I notice you love you some straw men and red herrings. Tells me you either can't follow the discussion or don't wanna face the holes in your teachings.

No doubt you DO have real answers on some topics which I respect and appreciate.

See? The only "real answers" anybody can give you are those you ALREADY AGREE WITH! How you can't see the problem with that is mind blowing. Perhaps the answers God has been sending your way are the ones the rub your flesh the wrong way? Like God calling from heaven "Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy"?

Should we start another thread about whether the New Covenant Christian is under the law? Or should I go to you and Mike Blumes thread already in process?


Who did you play in the Wizard of Oz?

Anyways, nobody is under the law of Moses. That never was the issue. Do you think saying "As a Christian you must obey God's Word" is being a Judaizer? Legalist? Works salvation? Sound familiar? You are sounding just like the evangelical antinomians you complain about.

[Michael The Disciple]

If the logos made ALL THINGS THAT WERE MADE WITHOUT EXCEPTION, and the logos itself was made, then how is that not saying the logos made itself?

Before creation God was invisible omnipresent Spirit. He was alone and by himself. No one existed with him so he had no need for a form. At or before the creation he formed, created, or begat a visible image of HIMSELF to manifest his presence to that which he would make.

The Logos was Gods image not the totality of Gods essence. It was the omnipresent Spirit that brought forth the Logos not the other way around.

That which was IN THE LOGOS created all things THROUGH THE LOGOS.

God himself was the Logos. God made all things alone and by himself through the Logos.

Really? Are you under the impression that if you just answer questions perfectly the questioner will AGREE with you? I never claimed that. I DO however actually try to answer questions.

That is my point to you. My answer was given in various threads on the forum with scripture with which you disagreed. When you accuse someone of not answering a question it APPEARS that means its not answered IN YOUR understanding.

Having said that I will not go over and over and over in a discussion something that I believe I have answered the best I know how already. Now if someone new comes into the discussion I may go over it anew as in the last Logos thread on this very topic. Otherwise there probably is no point in telling someone the same thing over and over when they have already rejected it.

Neither I nor anybody else on this forum claims anybody is "under the law of Moses".

Strange. In the Hyper Grace thread you did that very thing in an attack against me using 1 John 3:4.

See? The only "real answers" anybody can give you are those you ALREADY AGREE WITH! How you can't see the problem with that is mind blowing.

Hmmm I COULD say the same about you!

I would inject this into what you said. I am one who has changed practically EVERYTHING I started out believing. It was in cases where I was taught things and accepted them as true but later on when scripture was pointed out in more of a rightly divided way I was able by Gods grace to change and move on.

Who did you play in the Wizard of Oz?

Anyways, nobody is under the law of Moses. That never was the issue. Do you think saying "As a Christian you must obey God's Word" is being a Judaizer? Legalist? Works salvation? Sound familiar? You are sounding just like the evangelical antinomians you complain about.

Well if we are not under the law of Moses obviously we are not required to keep Sabbath. Its nowhere else taught in the Bible except in reference to the law of Moses.

A "Judaizer" in common discussion is one trying to bring people under the law of Moses. That is what you SEEM to be doing by teaching the Sabbath.

[Esaias]

Before creation God was invisible omnipresent Spirit. He was alone and by himself. No one existed with him so he had no need for a form. At or before the creation he formed, created, or begat a visible image of HIMSELF to manifest his presence to that which he would make.

The Logos was Gods image not the totality of Gods essence. It was the omnipresent Spirit that brought forth the Logos not the other way around.

That which was IN THE LOGOS created all things THROUGH THE LOGOS.

God himself was the Logos. God made all things alone and by himself through the Logos.

So the logos didn't make all things, rather God made all things while sitting inside the logos? Except the logos itself, which was made by Not-The-Logos? So the Logos didn't make ALL things?

Okay, thanks for your answer. From what you said, it is clear you do not believe that "everything that was made, was made by the Word". It also seems clear you believe the Word was not "in the beginning". And that the Word was not in fact GOD. Although you then say "God Himself was the Logos" which contradicts your statements about the logos being a thing God made. So my conclusion is you are confused.





Well if we are not under the law of Moses obviously we are not required to keep it. Its nowhere else taught in the Bible except in reference to the law of Moses.

Like the prohibition against bestiality? Is the Third Commandment "taught in the Bible" anywhere "except in reference to the law of Moses"?

When God said He would make a new covenant, and write His laws in the hearts and minds of His people, did He mean "I will write some new laws in their hearts"? Or "I will write most of my laws in the hearts but not all"? What did He mean?

And what does this passage mean to you, especially verse 7?

Romans 8:3-9 KJV
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. [8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. [9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

A "Judaizer" in common discussion is one trying to bring people under the law of Moses. That is what you SEEM to be doing by teaching the Sabbath.

So are you a judaizer because you seem to be trying to bring people under the law of Moses by teaching One God and no idolatry?

[Michael The Disciple]

Charismatic Sweep?

[Michael The Disciple]

So the logos didn't make all things, rather God made all things while sitting inside the logos? Except the logos itself, which was made by Not-The-Logos? So the Logos didn't make ALL things?

Okay, thanks for your answer. From what you said, it is clear you do not believe that "everything that was made, was made by the Word". It also seems clear you believe the Word was not "in the beginning". And that the Word was not in fact GOD. Although you then say "God Himself was the Logos" which contradicts your statements about the logos being a thing God made. So my conclusion is you are confused.







Like the prohibition against bestiality? Is the Third Commandment "taught in the Bible" anywhere "except in reference to the law of Moses"?

When God said He would make a new covenant, and write His laws in the hearts and minds of His people, did He mean "I will write some new laws in their hearts"? Or "I will write most of my laws in the hearts but not all"? What did He mean?

And what does this passage mean to you, especially verse 7?

Romans 8:3-9 KJV
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [5] For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. [6] For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. [7] Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. [8] So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. [9] But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.



So are you a judaizer because you seem to be trying to bring people under the law of Moses by teaching One God and no idolatry?

So a minute ago you were saying no one is saying we must keep the law of Moses. Now we are.

Seeing this is someone elses thread about a topic he choose maybe a new thread on Moses law and the New Covenant Church should be established.

[Esaias]

Charismatic Sweep?

It's how Benny Hinn dusts the house.

[Esaias]

So a minute ago you were saying no one is saying we must keep the law of Moses. Now we are.

Seeing this is someone elses thread about a topic he choose maybe a new thread on Moses law and the New Covenant Church should be established.

Wow, the 70s really did a number on you.

[Michael The Disciple]

Wow, the 70s really did a number on you.

I will certainly agree to that! It was glorious. Im praying the times ahead will be much more glorious!

Jesus has manifested himself to me from 1974 till now.:highfive

Blessings to you.

[Nicodemus1968]

I will certainly agree to that! It was glorious. Im praying the times ahead will be much more glorious!

Jesus has manifested himself to me from 1974 till now.:highfive

Blessings to you.

I’m sorry I’m not understanding this? How did Jesus Manifest himself to you?

[Michael The Disciple]

I’m sorry I’m not understanding this? How did Jesus Manifest himself to you?

Answered prayers, prophetic dreams, being led by the Spirit. Ways in which Jesus makes himself real to a person.

[diakonos]

I’m sorry I’m not understanding this? How did Jesus Manifest himself to you?

In a space suit

[Nicodemus1968]

Answered prayers, prophetic dreams, being led by the Spirit. Ways in which Jesus makes himself real to a person.

I believe in all three of them.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I’m sorry I’m not understanding this? How did Jesus Manifest himself to you?

Through Jerry Garcia

[Nicodemus1968]

Through Jerry Garcia

Then I guess Micheal The Disciple is Grateful.

[Michael The Disciple]

I believe in all three of them.

:highfive

[Michael The Disciple]

Then I guess Micheal The Disciple is Grateful.

Michael is a disciple of JESUS ONLY.:highfive

[Michael The Disciple]

Hope for modern Charismatics?

Preaching the true gospel? 58 minutes in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M4cNAijw0Y

[diakonos]

No. No hope. This is their fruit.

Some of TLR's staff came to Phoenix about a year ago. I attended one of their "Kickstart" sessions, met and spoke with Peter Ahlman, TLR Sweden's leader, and several who came with him from Sweden, China and other areas.

I have not met or heard Torbin speak in person, but I have watched the entire Pioneer
School series. It appears there may be some differences between Torbin and Peter.

From what I remember, Torbin believes in the oneness of God. Peter is Trinitarian. Both believe in the new birth experience of Acts 2:38 - repentance, baptism and receiving the HG.

During the "Kickstart" session I attended, someone asked if a person should be re-baptized if they either had only been baptized as a child in the Catholic church or had been baptized in a church which did not believe the necessity of the new birth experience. One of the men with Peter was conducting this Q&A and stated they did not believe in re-baptism.

We went in groups out to various nearby stores and malls. A couple groups were told to leave the malls. I was paired with the leader for TLR in AZ. Unfortunately, he didn't have much success at getting anyone to stop or pray for anyone.

I did witness Peter praying for a girl who had a leg short than the other. I'm cautious about saying outright that it was fake, but there seemed to be some manipulation in the way the girl sat and how it was presented. I also know that these type of healings are very popular with faith healers and have a history of being faked.

A young man I know from an apostolic church here got very involved with TLR. His job moved him to KC, where he joined up with IHOP. He's a mess now. He follows Todd White and hangs on every word White says. He visits "healing rooms" (associated with John Lake) and has told me of his friends who have healed people by blowing in their ear or even spitting on people.

[Michael The Disciple]

No. No hope. This is their fruit.

So one can do Acts 2:38 believe in the Oneness of God and set their life to serve God and have no apparent sin in their life and there is NO HOPE for them?

I see.

[diakonos]

So one can do Acts 2:38 believe in the Oneness of God and set their life to serve God and have no apparent sin in their life and there is NO HOPE for them?

I see.

They don’t baptize in Jesus’ name.

[Michael The Disciple]

They don’t baptize in Jesus’ name.

That SEEMS to contradict what he calls "the gospel" Acts 2:38.

[diakonos]

That SEEMS to contradict what he calls "the gospel" Acts 2:38.

I’ve seen videos of them baptizing... they don’t even call on the titles.

[diakonos]

Know why he came here for “asylum?”

[Nicodemus1968]

Hope for modern Charismatics?

Preaching the true gospel? 58 minutes in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M4cNAijw0Y

Micheal, I would be careful with that group.

[diakonos]

Micheal, I would be careful with that group.

Let him. He embraces charismatic and complainants about apostolics.

[Michael The Disciple]

Know why he came here for “asylum?”

No enlighten me.

[Nicodemus1968]

No enlighten me.

I’m not sure why he is here for asylum. I listened to a message or meeting from him and my skin crawled. Just be careful.

[Michael The Disciple]

I’ve seen videos of them baptizing... they don’t even call on the titles.

I have not observed anything of him in some time. The last I knew he was promoting Apostolic baptism in Jesus name. In the video I posted he SEEMED to be saying one of the big problems with the big Charismatic Preachers is they dont follow baptism in Jesus name. He specifies Todd Bently.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I have not observed anything of him in some time.

Nothing outside of the 1970s

[Michael The Disciple]

I’m not sure why he is here for asylum. I listened to a message or meeting from him and my skin crawled. Just be careful.

Is there any specifics what is making him evil? Or just a feeling?

[n david]

They don’t baptize in Jesus’ name.
Years ago I saw videos of Torben baptizing in Jesus Name. He certainly believes it, as shown in his video below.
https://youtu.be/vzkYSvQcG6w

[n david]

Is there any specifics what is making him evil? Or just a feeling?
I'd take his comment with a grain of salt.

[n david]

I’m not sure why he is here for asylum. I listened to a message or meeting from him and my skin crawled. Just be careful.
:dogpat

[n david]

Is there any specifics what is making him evil? Or just a feeling?

I'm a little surprised, because Nicodemus is into the "devil behind every bush" thing and Torben is also into demons being cast out everywhere.

[Michael The Disciple]

Years ago I saw videos of Torben baptizing in Jesus Name. He certainly believes it, as shown in his video below.
https://youtu.be/vzkYSvQcG6w

Much excellent teaching! He says when you know what is right you need to act on it. He does not have the revelation of the Oneness of God, neither did I when I was baptized into the name of Jesus.

I have seen several Charismatic groups go this direction. They see HOW to baptize. In Jesus name. Very good. Yet they fear being identified with Oneness Pentecostals. So they go and baptize into his name and give the impression they are bringing the new revelation!

They dont want to give credit where credit is due that is to the Oneness Pentecostals. They also have been brainwashed to believe in the 3 co equal co eternal person theory and are afraid to open their hearts to listen to Oneness.

As to Torben having lived in Denmark his whole life he may not have had much if any contact with Oneness people. My hope and prayer will be that when he begins to run into some of them he will come all the way in.

[Michael The Disciple]

Let him. He embraces charismatic and complainants about apostolics.

I "embrace" Charismatic in this sense. Most of them believe in receiving the Holy Spirit. I believe a percentage of them (how many I know not) actually do receive it. I received the Holy Ghost never having been in either a Charismatic or Pentcostal Church.

The early Christians believed receiving the Spirit was God showing he bears witness of the persons faith. Acts 15:8. With the myriad of Churches around I can certainly understand why many get confused early in their walk and follow men who they THINK can help them. I was the same way.

I will love them and pray for them as I have opportunity. While I know that 95% of them dont see the Oneness and Acts 2:8 new birth as essential foundation truth I have faith the time is coming many of them will.

I embrace "Apostolics" in this sense. As I sought God for more knowledge of him he sent some of them into my life along the way. I discovered they had more truth concerning the Oneness of God and new birth. I consider myself "Apostolic" or "Oneness Pentecostal".

Yet I would not be ashamed to be thought of as "Charismatic". I believe in the gifts of the Spirit. Some Charismatics are consecrated and holy people. I WOULD be ashamed to be considered a follower of practically any of the big name teachers they admire.

Neither am I ashamed to be called "Apostolic" Some of them are consecrated and holy people. I cant think of any of their big name Preachers I get excited about either.

To me they are both just movements that sprang up from God as he brings a people back to the true New Testament faith. All he calls are called to be overcomers and walk in truth. All his disciples are called to be LIKE HIM.

Whoever fails the grace of God will be lost. While attempting to love all that call on the Lord we must be sure out first loyalty is to the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.

[diakonos]

Much excellent teaching! He says when you know what is right you need to act on it. He does not have the revelation of the Oneness of God, neither did I when I was baptized into the name of Jesus.

I have seen several Charismatic groups go this direction. They see HOW to baptize. In Jesus name. Very good. Yet they fear being identified with Oneness Pentecostals. So they go and baptize into his name and give the impression they are bringing the new revelation!

They dont want to give credit where credit is due that is to the Oneness Pentecostals. They also have been brainwashed to believe in the 3 co equal co eternal person theory and are afraid to open their hearts to listen to Oneness.

As to Torben having lived in Denmark his whole life he may not have had much if any contact with Oneness people. My hope and prayer will be that when he begins to run into some of them he will come all the way in.

The credit goes to Jesus

[Michael The Disciple]

The credit goes to Jesus

Of course!:highfive

Nonetheless I am glad Jesus sent some Oneness people into my life that gave me the push I needed to press on.

[Nicodemus1968]

:dogpat
:thumbsup

[Nicodemus1968]

I'm a little surprised, because Nicodemus is into the "devil behind every bush" thing and Torben is also into demons being cast out everywhere.

I don’t believe there is a demon behind every bush or tree. However it is sad when the world sees what the church should.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Of course!:highfive

Nonetheless I am glad Jesus sent some Oneness people into my life that gave me the push I needed to press on.

They gave you a push and you later applied the brakes. :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

Is there any specifics what is making him evil? Or just a feeling?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6R8TMwOtJY&ab_channel=TLRis-a-cult

[Evang.Benincasa]

I don’t believe there is a demon behind every bush or tree. However it is sad when the world sees what the church should.

How about a devil behind every boot? :heeheehee

[Esaias]

I don’t believe there is a demon behind every bush or tree. However it is sad when the world sees what the church should.

There world does not see what the church should. If that's the case, then the world has the truth and the church does not.

And Luke 16:8 isn't about "spiritual discernment".

[Nicodemus1968]

How about a devil behind every boot? :heeheehee

Never heard that one.

[Nicodemus1968]

There world does not see what the church should. If that's the case, then the world has the truth and the church does not.

And Luke 16:8 isn't about "spiritual discernment".

Of course not.

Luke 19:44
And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

I want to ask you a question? What do you believe about the zealots?

[Michael The Disciple]

They gave you a push and you later applied the brakes. :heeheehee

They were farther along in the Godhead truth than me. I needed them. In other areas of truth it seems tho THEY have put on the brakes! Not everyone of course but to many.

[Evang.Benincasa]

They were farther along in the Godhead truth than me. I needed them. In other areas of truth it seems tho THEY have put on the brakes! Not everyone of course but to many.

But you believe in two seperate things working together as two.

[Michael The Disciple]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6R8TMwOtJY&ab_channel=TLRis-a-cult

I perceive a lot of editing there to make him look bad. It would be very interesting when he says he is a liar if we saw the context. When he says he dont cast demons out of kids that could just be a GENERAL STATEMENT. Many times there are exceptions to general statements.

Does it make one a cult if they go to pray for the sick in the hospital? I applaud such faith. Its what Evangelicals always throw in our face. At least he is trying.

When he says he was not re baptized he means that in the sense of his first baptism was no baptism at all.

Now really Dom my point is not to say I agree with everything he believes and does. My point in putting up the video I put up was to show that he was warning about Todd Bently from 2008. He also repented of following the prosperity type Preachers years ago.

So Im saying men can learn. They can grow. I believe God has been moving in his ministry. I define a move of God as when a Baptist gets the Holy Ghost. He moved forward. Even a Catholic becoming a Baptist is a move of God. One is MOVING ON with God.

For Torben to have started out as a Lutheran and now be preaching Acts 2:38 and holiness I'd say was quite a move of God! For him to be ministering on the streets of the nations is pretty dynamic IMO.

I want to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. If I hear of him walking in unconfessed sin I will be disappointed. If somewhere down the road he meets an Apostolic teacher who shares Oneness with him and he fights it I would be dismayed.

He has probably baptized more people into the name of Jesus than many Oneness ministers.

[Esaias]

Why are people so caught up in e-celebs? It's like people who argue football or baseball. It's not like any of us are actually directly involved in this guy's activities.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Why are people so caught up in e-celebs? It's like people who argue football or baseball. It's not like any of us are actually directly involved in this guy's activities.

Picture this, Mike lives in his trailer behind a computer screen. Thinks the golden age of Christianity was the 1970s. No further explanation is necessary :heeheehee

[diakonos]

Picture this, Mike lives in his trailer behind a computer screen. Thinks the golden age of Christianity was the 1970s. No further explanation is necessary :heeheehee

https://media1.tenor.com/images/ddbbe3be2e0d139040d581472dca471b/tenor.gif?itemid=16322705

[Michael The Disciple]

Picture this, Mike lives in his trailer behind a computer screen. Thinks the golden age of Christianity was the 1970s. No further explanation is necessary :heeheehee

Blessings Dom:highfive

[Bro Flame]

Charismatic Sweep?
Yes, as in the Charismatic trends and doctrines sweeping through the Church.

[Nicodemus1968]

Yes, as in the Charismatic trends and doctrines sweeping through the Church.

Just as long as using “Holy Spirit” doesn’t make me charismatic, or preaching about love more than judgement.

[consapente89]

Just as long as using “Holy Spirit” doesn’t make me charismatic, or preaching about love more than judgement.

Holy Ghost.

[Nicodemus1968]

Holy Ghost.

:highfive

[Michael The Disciple]

Yes, as in the Charismatic trends and doctrines sweeping through the Church.

What specific Charismatic doctrine is taking hold in Oneness Churches?

[Bro Flame]

What specific Charismatic doctrine is taking hold in Oneness Churches?
Well, such doctrines can be hard to pinpoint in some cases, but I can think of a few:

Decreased importance on holiness, modesty, and separation.
The lack of preaching against sin.
The weakening of the Gospel to the point to where Jesus' Name baptism and being Spirit-filled, evidenced by tongues, are considered optional.
A desire to obtain theological stature equal to other mainline churches.

While these may not be "Charismatic doctrines" accepted by the majority, I think we Apostolic folk would agree that such doctrines are important and that many within the Charismatic community don't express their significance.

[Evang.Benincasa]

What specific Charismatic doctrine is taking hold in Oneness Churches?

Using Hebrew names, and greetings.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Well, such doctrines can be hard to pinpoint in some cases, but I can think of a few:

Decreased importance on holiness, modesty, and separation.
The lack of preaching against sin.
The weakening of the Gospel to the point to where Jesus' Name baptism and being Spirit-filled, evidenced by tongues, are considered optional.
A desire to obtain theological stature equal to other mainline churches.

While these may not be "Charismatic doctrines" accepted by the majority, I think we Apostolic folk would agree that such doctrines are important and that many within the Charismatic community don't express their significance.

Some doctrines can be hard to pinpoint?

Ha Ha Ha :lol

[diakonos]

Using Hebrew names, and greetings.

That’s a good one

[diakonos]

Some doctrines can be hard to pinpoint?

Ha Ha Ha :lol

:lol

[n david]

Well, such doctrines can be hard to pinpoint in some cases, but I can think of a few:

Decreased importance on holiness, modesty, and separation.
The lack of preaching against sin.
The weakening of the Gospel to the point to where Jesus' Name baptism and being Spirit-filled, evidenced by tongues, are considered optional.
A desire to obtain theological stature equal to other mainline churches.

While these may not be "Charismatic doctrines" accepted by the majority, I think we Apostolic folk would agree that such doctrines are important and that many within the Charismatic community don't express their significance.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/a95e58377174a2ec3b261e9a6d5dc4a4/tenor.gif?itemid=10451321

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/a95e58377174a2ec3b261e9a6d5dc4a4/tenor.gif?itemid=10451321

Ha Ha Ha Ha :lol

[Michael The Disciple]

Using Hebrew names, and greetings.

While its true I dont know as much about Charismatics as I used to I cant think of one Charismatic Church that regularly uses Hebrew names. Of course Charismatic is like Pentecostal there are thousands of Churches making it impossible to know what they all do.

[Evang.Benincasa]

While its true I dont know as much about Charismatics as I used to I cant think of one Charismatic Church that regularly uses Hebrew names. Of course Charismatic is like Pentecostal there are thousands of Churches making it impossible to know what they all do.

Charismatics are big Hebrewists. They love coming up with their own spellings and pronunciations of Hebrew names and greetings.

Shalom y'all :heeheehee

[Michael The Disciple]

But if they were to call Jesus by the name his family and the Apostles called him it would certainly not be wrong.

[Evang.Benincasa]

But if they were to call Jesus by the name his family and the Apostles called him it would certainly not be wrong.

Mike you assume they were all speaking Hebrew. You like Mel Gibson think that the community of Jerusalem and Galilee of the GENTILES were all speaking nothing more than Hebrew/Aramaic. I gave you the arguments for the Greek speaking Roman occupied Hellenized Eastern world. How the New Testament quotes a GREEK copy of the Old Testament. How Jesus spoke to the Syrain woman and called her the name of a scrap eating dog which is only found in GREEK. Further more calling Peter a stone, and that the revelation Jesus is the Christ is the Rock only works in Greek. Is further proof. Yet the kicker is that Jesus had disciples who were called by Greek only names which have no Hebrew/Aramaic origins. Even Nicodemus a RULER of the Judeans had a Greek only name. Jesus was taken as a child to a Judean community in Egypt were GREEK was the lingua franca. So, what Mary and the Apostles called Him is the Greek transliterated name Iesous, which we know today as Jesus. For over 2000 years we have been calling Him Jesus. Only since the 70s have we had the infilertration of everything HEBREW. In an effort to sound more Jewish? Mike the Apostle Paul would of address the church in Greek and used Jesus’ Greek name.
You moan about traditions of men, but you hold on to your Hebrew Onlyism just as tightly as any standard. It’s 2020 Mike, time for you to wake up.

[Michael The Disciple]

And yet Josephus who lived during that time who is considered to be reputable among many historians said he only knew a few Jews who spoke Greek and that he himself did not do it well.

Im sure some of them spoke Greek. It is written that on the cross the words were written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. There was a reason for that.

As far as Hellenists the book of Acts makes clear they were the minority.

[Evang.Benincasa]

And yet Josephus who lived during that time who is considered to be reputable among many historians said he only knew a few Jews who spoke Greek and that he himself did not do it well.

Im sure some of them spoke Greek. It is written that on the cross the words were written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. There was a reason for that.

As far as Hellenists the book of Acts makes clear they were the minority.

Mike, do you know anything other than what you were told about Uncle Joe?
If you EVER took the time to read the writings of Josephus you find total contradictions and utter falsehoods. I was a fan of Uncle Joe at one time. But Brother William Chalfant compelled me to look further into the writings. What I found was surprising. As far as you being sure some of them spoke Greek means nothing. Because it is totally based on your feelings, same as someone who feels it’s right to grow or not to grow a beard. I give hard evidence stemming from a totally GREEK New Testament. Which was NEVER originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic. The whole Messianic Charismatic YAHwists are not only wrong, but silly, and baseless.

[Evang.Benincasa]

The message on the cross was threefold just like the Rosetta Stone.
It was how rulers got their message across to all the occupied subjects of the kingdom. All knew how to read, and all understood the message. The folks out in small villages around Judea would of spoke Aramaic, as well as some words in Latin. Greek was the language of commerce, Latin the language of the Western Roman Empire. Aramaic the language of the villagers out in the country. Yet all spoke Greek. Just like English today is the universal language abroad, and of commerce. So was Greek in the ancient world. We even see that in our own modern English, the effects of Greek, and Latin roots. Even Turkish uses Greek words. But, sadly you are stuck in your Hippy YAH ecclesiastical wonderland were you are the perfect prophet. Stuck in your past, and unwilling to face the future. Good luck with that.

[diakonos]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/67a01ce149c1b63e19da3e9a7398f77a/tenor.gif?itemid=7986116

[Bro Flame]

https://media1.tenor.com/images/a95e58377174a2ec3b261e9a6d5dc4a4/tenor.gif?itemid=10451321
Yes, I know of quite a few "Charismatic churches" where they don't believe (or no longer believe) that baptism in Jesus' name or speaking in tongues as the initial sign of Spirit baptism as necessities.

The first thing usually to go is tongues being the initial outward sign on baptism in the Holy Ghost, which leads to such doctrines on baptism and other issues to change as well.

[Michael The Disciple]

Mike, do you know anything other than what you were told about Uncle Joe?
If you EVER took the time to read the writings of Josephus you find total contradictions and utter falsehoods. I was a fan of Uncle Joe at one time. But Brother William Chalfant compelled me to look further into the writings. What I found was surprising. As far as you being sure some of them spoke Greek means nothing. Because it is totally based on your feelings, same as someone who feels it’s right to grow or not to grow a beard. I give hard evidence stemming from a totally GREEK New Testament. Which was NEVER originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic. The whole Messianic Charismatic YAHwists are not only wrong, but silly, and baseless.

Well I never intended to take Holy Rollers thread off topic. I personally just cant think of any Charismatic groups that have a doctrine about Hebrew names. As one who sought information about Hebrew names in the past I noticed that the Hebrew name only groups were GENERALLY LAW KEEPERS. Not Charismatics.

I think of Dr. Michael Brown as being Charismatic. As a Jew he also is Charismatic. Yet even he minimizes any Gentiles using the name Yeshua. But as I have said There are thousands of Charismatic Churches so apparently you know some that promote Hebrew names only.

[n david]

Yes, I know of quite a few "Charismatic churches" where they don't believe (or no longer believe) that baptism in Jesus' name or speaking in tongues as the initial sign of Spirit baptism as necessities.

The first thing usually to go is tongues being the initial outward sign on baptism in the Holy Ghost, which leads to such doctrines on baptism and other issues to change as well.
Okay. I thought you were talking about Oneness A/P churches.

In my experience with "Charismatic churches," they believe in tongues (most call it "prayer language") but they believe it's just an added benefit for a believer rather than a necessity for salvation. And baptism is merely a person getting dunked in front of people to prove their decision to follow Christ.

For them it's like buying a car. There's the base model (salvation at repentance), and then you can add upgrades if you want (not necessary, but available).

I spoke with an "Executive Pastor" of a church nearby about their statement of faith and beliefs about salvation. I was told they believe in the new birth and believe everyone should have the new birth experience, BUT salvation is at repentance and they "strongly urge" believers to seek for the HG and exercise their "prayer language."

I asked him how he believed salvation at repentance was the new birth, since repentance = death, baptism = burial and the infilling of the HG = resurrection. I said there's no resurrection. There was a death, and most of the time there's a burial, but they're still in the grave. Some have attended for years and never sought after or received the HG because they don't believe it's necessary.

He said he understood my argument as he grew up in the Spanish Apostolic organization, but from reading scripture he believed salvation occurs at repentance, regardless of the "man-made symbolism" for the new birth.

Sad.

[consapente89]

Mike, do you know anything other than what you were told about Uncle Joe?
If you EVER took the time to read the writings of Josephus you find total contradictions and utter falsehoods. I was a fan of Uncle Joe at one time. But Brother William Chalfant compelled me to look further into the writings. What I found was surprising. As far as you being sure some of them spoke Greek means nothing. Because it is totally based on your feelings, same as someone who feels it’s right to grow or not to grow a beard. I give hard evidence stemming from a totally GREEK New Testament. Which was NEVER originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic. The whole Messianic Charismatic YAHwists are not only wrong, but silly, and baseless.

There’s a name I haven’t heard in a while!

[Nicodemus1968]

Okay. I thought you were talking about Oneness A/P churches.

In my experience with "Charismatic churches," they believe in tongues (most call it "prayer language") but they believe it's just an added benefit for a believer rather than a necessity for salvation. And baptism is merely a person getting dunked in front of people to prove their decision to follow Christ.

For them it's like buying a car. There's the base model (salvation at repentance), and then you can add upgrades if you want (not necessary, but available).

I spoke with an "Executive Pastor" of a church nearby about their statement of faith and beliefs about salvation. I was told they believe in the new birth and believe everyone should have the new birth experience, BUT salvation is at repentance and they "strongly urge" believers to seek for the HG and exercise their "prayer language."

I asked him how he believed salvation at repentance was the new birth, since repentance = death, baptism = burial and the infilling of the HG = resurrection. I said there's no resurrection. There was a death, and most of the time there's a burial, but they're still in the grave. Some have attended for years and never sought after or received the HG because they don't believe it's necessary.

He said he understood my argument as he grew up in the Spanish Apostolic organization, but from reading scripture he believed salvation occurs at repentance, regardless of the "man-made symbolism" for the new birth.

Sad.

I spoke with an "Executive Pastor" of a church nearby about their statement of faith and beliefs about salvation.

This is going to be off topic, but when I saw this n-David, I had to bring it up. I was at a A/P church in Chicago (hometown) and they call the Pastors wife “First lady?” I heard it again several other times since then. When did that start happening?

[hometown guy]

I spoke with an "Executive Pastor" of a church nearby about their statement of faith and beliefs about salvation.

This is going to be off topic, but when I saw this n-David, I had to bring it up. I was at a A/P church in Chicago (hometown) and they call the Pastors wife “First lady?” I heard it again several other times since then. When did that start happening?

First Lady title has been around for years. Just a respectful title to call the pastors wife.

[Nicodemus1968]

First Lady title has been around for years. Just a respectful title to call the pastors wife.

I must be out of the loop. I know black church’s used to call their Pastors wife that. They probably still do.

[Esaias]

Okay. I thought you were talking about Oneness A/P churches.

In my experience with "Charismatic churches," they believe in tongues (most call it "prayer language") but they believe it's just an added benefit for a believer rather than a necessity for salvation. And baptism is merely a person getting dunked in front of people to prove their decision to follow Christ.

For them it's like buying a car. There's the base model (salvation at repentance), and then you can add upgrades if you want (not necessary, but available).

I spoke with an "Executive Pastor" of a church nearby about their statement of faith and beliefs about salvation. I was told they believe in the new birth and believe everyone should have the new birth experience, BUT salvation is at repentance and they "strongly urge" believers to seek for the HG and exercise their "prayer language."

I asked him how he believed salvation at repentance was the new birth, since repentance = death, baptism = burial and the infilling of the HG = resurrection. I said there's no resurrection. There was a death, and most of the time there's a burial, but they're still in the grave. Some have attended for years and never sought after or received the HG because they don't believe it's necessary.

He said he understood my argument as he grew up in the Spanish Apostolic organization, but from reading scripture he believed salvation occurs at repentance, regardless of the "man-made symbolism" for the new birth.

Sad.

There are actually quite a few (although a minority) UPC churches that believe salvation occurs at repentance. It was a big ongoing topic here and on nFCF and FCF for years.

[Esaias]

First Lady title has been around for years. Just a respectful title to call the pastors wife.

Seems...pretentious. Just my opinion.

[diakonos]

Seems...pretentious. Just my opinion.

Yep

[Nicodemus1968]

Yep

Your were down in Texas, did you hear them call the Pastors wife, First Lady? Austin was of the places where I heard that.

[aegsm76]

I spoke with an "Executive Pastor" of a church nearby about their statement of faith and beliefs about salvation.

This is going to be off topic, but when I saw this n-David, I had to bring it up. I was at a A/P church in Chicago (hometown) and they call the Pastors wife “First lady?” I heard it again several other times since then. When did that start happening?

I grew up around PAW, UPCI and ALJC. PAW was where I first heard the "First Lady" term used.
It has since wandered over to most Apostolic Pentecostal Churches.

[n david]

I spoke with an "Executive Pastor" of a church nearby about their statement of faith and beliefs about salvation.

This is going to be off topic, but when I saw this n-David, I had to bring it up. I was at a A/P church in Chicago (hometown) and they call the Pastors wife “First lady?” I heard it again several other times since then. When did that start happening?
I first heard the term used in PAW or black A/P churches. However, recently I've heard and seen the term used in other churches as well.

[diakonos]

Your were down in Texas, did you hear them call the Pastors wife, First Lady? Austin was of the places where I heard that.

No. But I didn’t attend white church :lol

[Barb]

Seems...pretentious. Just my opinion.

Yep

Not pretentious at all.

I was 24 years in the COOLJC, and it is used as a sign of respect and honor to the wife of the pastor.

[Nicodemus1968]

Not pretentious at all.

I was 24 years in the COOLJC, and it is used as a sign of respect and honor to the wife of the pastor.

What’s the COOLJC?

[Tithesmeister]

What’s the COOLJC?

The “CHURCH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST ”

[n david]

What’s the COOLJC?

https://cooljc.org/

[Esaias]

Not pretentious at all.

I was 24 years in the COOLJC, and it is used as a sign of respect and honor to the wife of the pastor.

"Most Holy Right Revererend" is also a sign of respect and honour. Doesn't make it proper, though. Just sayin'.

[Nicodemus1968]

"Most Holy Right Revererend" is also a sign of respect and honour. Doesn't make it proper, though. Just sayin'.

Thats brutal and polite all at the same time. :heeheehee

[Nicodemus1968]

The “CHURCH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST ”

:thumbsup

[Tithesmeister]

:thumbsup

I used to think COOLJC sounded like a rap artist.

[diakonos]

"Most Holy Right Revererend" is also a sign of respect and honour. Doesn't make it proper, though. Just sayin'.

Exactly. I heard a minister refer to the pastor and his wife as the king and queen of the church. SMH

[diakonos]

I used to think COOLJC sounded like a rap artist.

LL Cool J :cool:

https://media.tenor.com/images/bd20b0ee2a3610bb3f80a2337a3ccd00/tenor.gif

[Tithesmeister]

LL Cool J :cool:

Aha! I wasn’t totally wrong. It is similar.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Well I never intended to take Holy Rollers thread off topic. I personally just cant think of any Charismatic groups that have a doctrine about Hebrew names.

You live in your trailer, and the 70s is your most memorable time in Christianity. You use two Hebrew words yourself YAH and Yeshua, because you believe one is the body of God, and the other is God Himself. Yes, Mike, I get around way more than you do. Some groups? Try talking about a lot of different churches using Yeshua, Yahshua, Yahvahashua, Yehoshuavasti, and whatever other name they would like to make up.



As one who sought information about Hebrew names in the past I noticed that the Hebrew name only groups were GENERALLY LAW KEEPERS. Not Charismatics.

I think of Dr. Michael Brown as being Charismatic. As a Jew he also is Charismatic. Yet even he minimizes any Gentiles using the name Yeshua. But as I have said There are thousands of Charismatic Churches so apparently you know some that promote Hebrew names only.

Mike, you are stuck in your trailer with your computer, wife, and two dogs. You obviously don't know a lot outside of your cloistered existence.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I used to think COOLJC sounded like a rap artist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odiv7fkFhvQ&ab_channel=deloc1

[n david]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odiv7fkFhvQ&ab_channel=deloc1

:happydance

[Barb]

"Most Holy Right Revererend" is also a sign of respect and honour. Doesn't make it proper, though. Just sayin'.

Oh please!!! :foottap

[Barb]

Exactly. I heard a minister refer to the pastor and his wife as the king and queen of the church. SMH

Referring to a pastor's wife as 'First Lady' is NOT the same thing. I know of the 'Queen' thing, too, but that is not in the same league as what I'm talking about...

[Barb]

Aha! I wasn’t totally wrong. It is similar.

Church Of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith. Broke off from the PAW in 1919, founded by Bishop RC Lawson...

[Esaias]

Oh please!!! :foottap

I do not mean to offend, not by any means. I will not pursue the issue further.

[Michael The Disciple]

You live in your trailer, and the 70s is your most memorable time in Christianity. You use two Hebrew words yourself YAH and Yeshua, because you believe one is the body of God, and the other is God Himself. Yes, Mike, I get around way more than you do. Some groups? Try talking about a lot of different churches using Yeshua, Yahshua, Yahvahashua, Yehoshuavasti, and whatever other name they would like to make up.

First off, blessings to you.

I never questioned that MANY groups are trying to understand the Hebrew names for God and Jesus. What I am questioning is do the groups you are referring to call themselves CHARISMATIC?

Mike, you are stuck in your trailer with your computer, wife, and two dogs. You obviously don't know a lot outside of your cloistered existence.

And yes I live in a trailer with my wife. We have 4 dogs not 2. One just passed away 2 weeks ago.

Did I like the 70's? Yes. Was God greater in the 70's than he is now? No.

[diakonos]

Referring to a pastor's wife as 'First Lady' is NOT the same thing. I know of the 'Queen' thing, too, but that is not in the same league as what I'm talking about...

It is. The First Lady is the wife of the POTUS. Not the wife of the pastor.

[Barb]

It is. The First Lady is the wife of the POTUS. Not the wife of the pastor.

That has not been my experience, SO in that experience I can say with surety it is NOT the same thing.

[Barb]

I do not mean to offend, not by any means. I will not pursue the issue further.

Thank you, and I apologize as well. I certainly didn’t mean to offend anyone.

I am fully aware that sometimes when we see or hear something that is unfamiliar to our experience it may seem odd, or as you say, pretentious. We are good... :nod