Pentecostalism is more concerned with the outer manifestations than inward man.
It is more important to believe in One God, a subjective dress code, talk in tongues like a chinese laundry, than to be a person which exhibits the Fruit of the Spirit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
Alter Calls serve two purposes it seems now...1 it's where we pray visiters through to the Holy Spirit and 2 it's where saints repent....Oh My...how messed up is that?
We should have sinners repenting THEN praying through
__________________
A religious spirit allows people to tolerate hatred and anger under the guise of passion and holiness. Bill Johnson
Legalism has no pity on people. Legalism makes my opinion your burden, makes opinion your boundary, makes my opinion your obligation-Lucado
Some get spiritual because they see the light. Others because they feel the heat.Ray Wylie Hubbard
Definition of legalism- Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. TV
I have seen those who became so broken and sorrowful, that in the midst of
their repenting their sorrowing suddenly turned into joy. In their rejoicing they
received the Holy Ghost before they were baptized.
In Acts10: 44-48, there is an example of those who heard the word and believed, received the Holy Ghost. Then Peter said, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."
Why argue and squabble over not WANTING to do all that is commanded of us.
Why resist the wonderful things of God! Be as little children, open and honest.
If the Word says it, just do it!
Pentecostalism is more concerned with the outer manifestations than inward man.
It is more important to believe in One God, a subjective dress code, talk in tongues like a chinese laundry, than to be a person which exhibits the Fruit of the Spirit.
Now, you're getting down to true, authentic Holy Ghost revival territory. TRUE repentance is the second step right after initial conviction. It's a sad day in AOG and Pentecostal churches when we have convicted sinners who come to an altar or prayer room and cry right through that initial conviction and skip the step of true, Godly repentance. Crying through conviction and just saying some pre-concocted prayer is superficial and rootless.
We have people that are moved by the presentation of the Gospel message, but aren't truly of 'changed opinion' which equals repentance. Until that change of mind on a current lifestyle and set of behaviors come, you CAN NOT have the new birth experience. If you don't have a new birth experience you have a church full of people who will be the same in ten and twenty years as they are the day they we're touched by the message, but never powerfully changed. That's one reason Pastors have to spend way too much time trying to tend to the same folks who can't lead victorious lives, instead of spending time on new Christians or the lost.
We don't need any more outward manifestations to have a Holy Ghost revival, we need changed people in the pews.
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
The scripture doesn't say they DIDN'T speak with tongues, it just doesn't say they DID.
My question to TR was that it's just as reasonable of an assumption to believe that some received the HG without speaking in unknown tongues as it is to assume that EVERYONE speaks with tongues just because it's specificaly mentioned in some passages.
Well, Mike.
I'm still waiting for Bro. Jermyn to give me a bibical answer to my question. I'm getting the sense that he wont be able to provide one. This is because the assertion he made was based on an "argument from silence". I'm not trying to verbally "slap him around" with the question, so I hope he doesnt feel like I'm trying to abuse him here.
Still, your response actually underlines my point... which is, that he made a statement of something as being fact, when it is just an assumption. But your defense of that seems to be that it's a fair assumption(?) --- that it's fair to assume either way (?) Sorry MP. That doesn't fly.
If someone says, as he did, that those scriptures show that they got saved and DIDNT speak in tongues, then thats an invalid conclusion that's based on an assumption, not based on what's in the scripture.
Now for example, in the book of Acts it tells us about the conversion of Apollos (when Priscilla and Aquila shared the gospel with him). Based on Jermyn's type of argument, a person might say Apollos DIDN'T get baptized or filled with the Holy Ghost... simply because the text doesnt tell us he did. I dont think that would be a reasonable or even rational conclusion, and I'm going to guess that you wouldnt think so either. I think most of us would easily agree that for someone to state as fact that Apollos DID NOT get baptized/filled because the the text (Acts 18:24-28) doesn't specify that he did , would be an invalid argument. But that's the same type of argument Jermyn has used before regarding the Ethiopian eunuch and the Philippian jailer. No offense, but both arguments are simply not sound.
People can argue back and forth on the issue of "did they or didnt they speak in tongues". That is not my argument. I actually didnt come with an argument, but a question... and the question is designed to demonstrate a simple point, that is that Jermyn's line of argument was not valid. To make a conclusion, and state it as fact, while doing so with an invalid line of argument, just does not work.
__________________ http://endtimeobserver.blogspot.com
Daniel 12:3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever.
It appears you assume the infilling of the Holy Ghost is the final step of conversion.
The infilling of the Holy Ghost is a step, period. Repentance is a step. Baptism is a step.
The Bible says God wishes that everyone would repent. Repentance is more important to God than anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeinAR
Now, you're getting down to true, authentic Holy Ghost revival territory. TRUE repentance is the second step right after initial conviction. It's a sad day in AOG and Pentecostal churches when we have convicted sinners who come to an altar or prayer room and cry right through that initial conviction and skip the step of true, Godly repentance. Crying through conviction and just saying some pre-concocted prayer is superficial and rootless.
We have people that are moved by the presentation of the Gospel message, but aren't truly of 'changed opinion' which equals repentance. Until that change of mind on a current lifestyle and set of behaviors come, you CAN NOT have the new birth experience. If you don't have a new birth experience you have a church full of people who will be the same in ten and twenty years as they are the day they we're touched by the message, but never powerfully changed. That's one reason Pastors have to spend way too much time trying to tend to the same folks who can't lead victorious lives, instead of spending time on new Christians or the lost.
We don't need any more outward manifestations to have a Holy Ghost revival, we need changed people in the pews.
__________________
A religious spirit allows people to tolerate hatred and anger under the guise of passion and holiness. Bill Johnson
Legalism has no pity on people. Legalism makes my opinion your burden, makes opinion your boundary, makes my opinion your obligation-Lucado
Some get spiritual because they see the light. Others because they feel the heat.Ray Wylie Hubbard
Definition of legalism- Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. TV
while we are on the topic of "assumptions" - are we to just assume the apostles were baptized in Jesus name? I cannot find this in scripture. This is a questtion I have had for some time.
I could be missing it - I don't claim to be a bible scholar. when I have inquired with others about that I have gotten what I would call "assumptions".
Maybe this was addressed somewhere else and I have not been able to stumble on it.
while we are on the topic of "assumptions" - are we to just assume the apostles were baptized in Jesus name? I cannot find this in scripture. This is a questtion I have had for some time.
I could be missing it - I don't claim to be a bible scholar. when I have inquired with others about that I have gotten what I would call "assumptions".
Maybe this was addressed somewhere else and I have not been able to stumble on it.
while we are on the topic of "assumptions" - are we to just assume the apostles were baptized in Jesus name? I cannot find this in scripture. This is a questtion I have had for some time.
I could be missing it - I don't claim to be a bible scholar. when I have inquired with others about that I have gotten what I would call "assumptions".
Maybe this was addressed somewhere else and I have not been able to stumble on it.
Sorry to throw in a "rabbit trail" here.
thanks!
The apostles were baptized by Jesus Himself, and you don't get any more baptized in Jesus name than that:
(John 3:22) "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized."
After that, the disciples baptized those who became Christ followers:
(John 4:1-2) "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)"
*** Many commentators assume from the later passage (4:2) that only the disciples baptized, but I prefer the more literal reading of the text.
:
Linear Mode
