Revival is the Baptism By fire

[theefaith]

Do these “pastors or elders” have authority to forgive sins?

 

[Stumpmaster]

Since Galatians is all about not being under the law of Moses and having to circumcise, the Galatians two passage is talking about Jewish Christians who were insisting that they and all Christians need to keep the law of Moses and be circumcised, so the Context of the passage is about that and not about demonic spirits manifesting in a revival today, and has nothing at all to do with demonic or spiritual manifestations, but about those wanting to put Christians under the law.

The context of David H's verse from Galations does allow for blanket application, given that since Paul wrote it false brethren have continued to operate in ekklesias.

Years ago I did extensive research into the Azusa Street Revival and found well documented accounts from those present of spurious wildfire and opportunistic hijacking.

 

[David H.]

Do these “pastors or elders” have authority to forgive sins?

This Post is about revival, Please find somewhere else to post your Catholic Propaganda.

 

[David H.]

The context of David H's verse from Galations does allow for blanket application, given that since Paul wrote it false brethren have continued to operate in ekklesias.

Years ago I did extensive research into the Azusa Street Revival and found well documented accounts from those present of spurious wildfire and opportunistic hijacking.

The Other side of Hijacking of true revival is the Quenching of that revival. Revival is not a mental thing and often it is those who are trying to understand them mentally that bring this quenching. Rationalizing the supernatural is a sure way to snuff out the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Curtis]

only Peter receives the keys of jurisdictional authority Isa 22:21-22
And all my other questions

Jesus told the apostles that none of them would be above the others - Peter was not given preeminence:


Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him,and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:


Peter didn’t think he was anything but a fellow elder:


1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am ALSO an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:


And Jesus did not tell Peter that the church would be built on him:


Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


Jesus spoke of two different rocks: Peter is Petros in the Greek - small rock - and the rock the church is built on is Petra - bedrock.


In the Greek Jesus said: thou art PETROS, and upon this PETRA I will build my church.


The language God chose for the New Testament to be written in, explicitly states there are two different rocks there.


Also, the Greek word for church , kuriakos ,is not found in Matthew 16:18 - the word used is ekklesia, meaning a congregation of people assembled together - it does not mean a church organization of Pope, cardinals, bishops, and priests, as the Roman sect wants us to believe.


And in fact the church of Christ isn’t built on any single individual apostle or prophet:


Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


Built on the foundation of apostles, PLURAL, and prophets, PLURAL - not on Peter alone.


In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives Peter keys (authority) and the power to bind and loose - yet 2 chapters later when He met the other apostles, Jesus gives the same power of binding and loosing to them, too, in Matthew 18:18 - so Peter has no special authority beyond what the 12 shared.

 

[Curtis]

The context of David H's verse from Galations does allow for blanket application, given that since Paul wrote it false brethren have continued to operate in ekklesias.

Years ago I did extensive research into the Azusa Street Revival and found well documented accounts from those present of spurious wildfire and opportunistic hijacking.

View attachment 18056

Spiritual gifts are for today and end when Jesus returns and they’re not needed anymore, so trying to disprove brownsville or Azusa does not negate that fact.

 

[Curtis]

The first thing wrong with claiming Peter founded and was the head of the RCC, is the fact that God made him the apostle to the Jews, and the Roman church consisted of gentiles.


In the New Testament, Peter is shown multiple times in the Jerusalem church - the Jewish Christian church - and is never found once in the gentile Roman church.


Scripture says Paul is the apostle to the gentiles, and that Peter is the apostle to the Jews (to the circumcision), so Peter would not be the head of a gentile Roman church!


To whit:


Gal 2:7 On the contrary, they saw that God had given me the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the task of preaching the gospel to the Jews.


Gal 2:8 For by God's power I was made an apostle to the Gentiles, just as Peter was made an apostle to the Jews.


That explains why the apostle to the gentiles, Paul, wrote the book of Romans instead of Peter, the supposed head of the RCC.


And Paul calls those in the Roman church, gentiles - in case someone wants to claim that the Roman church isn’t a gentile church.


Romans 1:13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among OTHER Gentiles.


And when Paul wanted to visit Peter 3 years after his conversion on Damascus road, he had to go to Jerusalem, where Peter and the Jewish Christian church was, instead of to Rome:


Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.


Peter was not in Rome being the pope - he was at Jerusalem where the Jewish Christian church was.


The second thing wrong with the claim that the first and original church was founded in Rome by Peter, is found in Acts 2, where it’s clear that the church started in Jerusalem, with Peter preaching there to the first 3,000 converts to Christianity.


It’s historical fact that the Jerusalem church was the first church, and was the preeminent church from its beginning in Acts 2, until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.


Wikipedia:


Jerusalem was the first center of the church, according to the Book of Acts, and according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the location of "the first Christian church".[8] The apostles lived and taught there for some time after Pentecost.[9] James, the brother of Jesuswas a leader in the church, and his other kinsmenlikely held leadership positions in the surrounding area after the destruction of the city until its rebuilding as Aelia Capitolina, c. 130, when all Jews were banished from the city.[9]

In about 50, Barnabasand Paulwent to Jerusalem to meet with the "pillars of the church",[10] James, Peter, and John. Later called the Council of Jerusalem, according to Pauline Christians, this meeting (among other things) confirmed the legitimacy of the mission of Barnabas and Paul to the gentiles, and the gentile converts' freedom from most Mosaic law, especially circumcision.

When Peter left Jerusalem after Herod Agrippa Itried to kill him, James appears as the principal authority.[14] Clement of Alexandria(c. 150–215) called him Bishop of Jerusalem.[14] A second-centurychurch historian, Hegesippus, wrote that the Sanhedrinmartyred him in 62.[14]

In 66, the Jews revolted against Rome.[9] Rome besieged Jerusalem for four years, and the city fell in 70.[9] The city, including the Temple, was destroyed and the population was mostly killed or removed.[9] According to a tradition recorded by Eusebiusand Epiphanius of Salamis, the Jerusalem church fled to Pellaat the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt.


Notice that the first church council was held in the Jerusalem church - because it was the preeminent church - not Rome.

Peter was not a Bishop, or Pope in the Roman church - ever.


Linus was the first bishop/pope of the Roman church, according to the Orthodox Church.


Peter, the apostle to the Jews, is found in the NT only in the Jerusalem church - the Jewish Christian church - not in the gentile Roman church.


And when Paul visited Peter 3 years after his conversion on Damascus road, he had to go to Jerusalem, where Peter and the Jewish Christian church was:


Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.


Peter was not in Rome being a pope.

 

[theefaith]

This Post is about revival, Please find somewhere else to post your Catholic Propaganda.

mad touchy as an old setting hen? No questions allowed? Ok

 

[theefaith]

Where is revival in the Bible?

why do you think the church is dead?

 

[David H.]

mad touchy as an old setting hen? No questions allowed? Ok

Just stick to the topic.

Where is revival in the Bible?

why do you think the church is dead?

The church dies when it gets consumed with the things of this world and building earthly kingdoms of the will of man.... Catholic "church militant" doctrines in a nutshell just to use as an example. This dross weighs down the church and causes it to begin to slumber and not fully rely on the providence of God and instead causes them to rely on their own will and strength.

Examples of this are found throughout scripture in the Story of the Israelites, For example when Eli and his sons became corrupt, God raised up Samuel, or when Saul became corrupt he raised up David.... a Holy remnant being raised is the OT shadow of Revival, and in the church this is seen in the ministry of Jesus as well, when His numbers swelled and people were following him for to feed their bellies he would use controversial sayings to separate the dross from the metal. The church itself has experienced this many times in its history, the reformation being a prime example, as was every transition between church ages. When Fundamentalism began to die in its textualism He had a Remnant that sought holiness and from that was born the Asuza revival....we are now sitting at a time of complacency in the church as a whole, a time when the prevailing statement is to say "we are in need of nothing" due to the church's prosperity and riches. From this complacency a Holy Remnant will be raised and the Latter rain will fall upon them all, all the while many in the church will continue to slumber.... this is the end of the Laodicean age of the church.

You lack this vision because you are stuck in a dead church supporting the very doctrines of that dead church here on this forum. Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE..... Where Jesus is there is life and the word of God is alive, by that I mean the word of God is quick and powerful and cuts to the marrow, not repetitive masses being recited in Latin that have no effect on the people who listen to them other than religious rigor that makes them feel like they are doing something for God.

 

[bbyrd009]

Baptism by fire is the presence of the LORD coming upon the church as is so frequently described in those who have experienced revival

maybe, but maybe not too ok
prolly not, although i admit to not knowing

imo our current idiom for the phrase (or for that matter many or most of the problematic Scriptural phrases that have somehow made it into our idiom) is likely pretty close to spot on

 

[theefaith]

Just stick to the topic.



The church dies when it gets consumed with the things of this world and building earthly kingdoms of the will of man.... Catholic "church militant" doctrines in a nutshell just to use as an example. This dross weighs down the church and causes it to begin to slumber and not fully rely on the providence of God and instead causes them to rely on their own will and strength.

Examples of this are found throughout scripture in the Story of the Israelites, For example when Eli and his sons became corrupt, God raised up Samuel, or when Saul became corrupt he raised up David.... a Holy remnant being raised is the OT shadow of Revival, and in the church this is seen in the ministry of Jesus as well, when His numbers swelled and people were following him for to feed their bellies he would use controversial sayings to separate the dross from the metal. The church itself has experienced this many times in its history, the reformation being a prime example, as was every transition between church ages. When Fundamentalism began to die in its textualism He had a Remnant that sought holiness and from that was born the Asuza revival....we are now sitting at a time of complacency in the church as a whole, a time when the prevailing statement is to say "we are in need of nothing" due to the church's prosperity and riches. From this complacency a Holy Remnant will be raised and the Latter rain will fall upon them all, all the while many in the church will continue to slumber.... this is the end of the Laodicean age of the church.

You lack this vision because you are stuck in a dead church supporting the very doctrines of that dead church here on this forum. Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE..... Where Jesus is there is life and the word of God is alive, by that I mean the word of God is quick and powerful and cuts to the marrow, not repetitive masses being recited in Latin that have no effect on the people who listen to them other than religious rigor that makes them feel like they are doing something for God.

Then Christ is dead? Christ and his church are one acts 9:4
The so called reformation the so called great awakenings auzzuza spiritism Pentecostal charismatics are all nonsense
Unbiblical


not the true church founded by Christ on Peter matt 16:18-19 shall not prevail

 

[theefaith]

Where is revival in the Bible?

why do you think the church is dead?

revival means to bring back to life

 

[Curtis]

Then Christ is dead? Christ and his church are one acts 9:4
The so called reformation the so called great awakenings auzzuza spiritism Pentecostal charismatics are all nonsense
Unbiblical


not the true church founded by Christ on Peter matt 16:18-19 shall not prevail

The RCC is not Christ’s church.

 

[Stumpmaster]

Spiritual gifts are for today and end when Jesus returns and they’re not needed anymore, so trying to disprove brownsville or Azusa does not negate that fact.

Wouldn't dream of such "disproving", or "disapproving", but "discerning" the real from the counterfeit . . . you better believe it!

 

[theefaith]

The RCC is not Christ’s church.

what is?

did Christ not found a church?

on Peter and the apostles and their successors?

 

[theefaith]

The RCC is not Christ’s church.

How do you know this? Where is this in the Bible alone?

 

[marks]

I just read what the author wrote and what John said

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”


1. John baptizes in water based on repentance of the person
2. Jesus who is mightier, will baptize with the HS and Fire. (His is a far greater baptism that mine)
3. A winnowing fan is used to separate wheat from chaff This winnowing fan would be the HS
4. Those baptized with the spirit (the wheat, or believers) are placed in the barn (here representing heaven)
5. The chaff (non believer) he will baptize in the fire that will never be quenched (hell)

the fires you spoke of were not unquenchable fire. And there was no baptism involved.

Sadly people take these actions of immersion and try to make some religious application. When we should just take them literally for what they are

I think you've got this right. This is simple and straightfoward. Complex or not, the Bible says what it says.

Much love!

 

[marks]

"Revival" is NOT a biblical term. In our day the word either gets watered down to the point of being meaningless or muddied up by vague jargon (e. g. "baptism by fire") with no clear application to Christian experience of the Spirit.

That's what I find also. Non-biblical terminology can mean whatever the speaker wants, since there is no actual Scritptural connection.

He convincingly explains the difference between real revival and occasional times of refreshing" "In a real revival the Holy Spirit falls primarily on the unchurched."

This is how I think of revival.

For "revival" in the Christians, I think more in terms of "renewing the mind", as we are already alive in Christ.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Yes agreed one needs to be rightly dividing the word. Which is at it's core linguistic. This is where most of the problems with the doctrines of men stem from not understanding and rightly dividing the word.

Please understand this next phrase "Our English Bibles are translations of The Bible! which was written in another language predominately Hebrew and within another culture far different from our own westernized modern culture."

We cannot get our doctrines from the Modern English context, we must go back to the best of our ability and learn the times and languages our Bibles were written in. Part of this is hugely linguistic. As in the original Bible there were no chapters, verses, punctuation. They used other grammatical tools such as the form of root words to explain the tense whether the action was past, present or future, the words are gender based in Hebrew which is masculine or feminine or in Greek masculine, feminine and neuter.

They have different forms to describe the different intensity of an action etc etc. All of this matters in correctly dividing the word. In my experience the majority of churches have no clue what our Bibles are actually teaching and saying. The extreme danger of this is what we have ended up with today is thousands of denominations, many churches unintentionally in sin because of ignorance (not understanding the word) redefining many passages of scripture because of lack of understanding reading from a modern English western view, causing many to stumble.
Looking at the fruit of many major denominations today and seeing what is acceptable now it is evident that the Word of God is not being divided correctly.

So yes with all due respect I think linguistics is a massive part of rightly dividing the word. Every teacher and pastor of the word will be held accountable for how they divide and teach the word, the Bible puts a lot of weight and heaviness on those who teach.
This is not taught at the Bible seminaries or colleges which by the way have a denominational bias. Having some letters after your name does not mean a thing. Did Paul, Peter, Andrew, James etc have letters after their names and all the hundreds and thousands of 1st century believers?
One who teaches should know these things to the best of their ability.

Understanding this has totally changed my life and the way I now teach. I am ashamed of how I use to teach and preach in total ignorance. I went to the Bible college did not get taught a thing about rightly dividing the word. I repented.
I thank YHWH for helping me see how big of a deal this really is. Preaching and teaching IS NOT about being popular, telling funny stories and drawing the crowd into your message it is about Him and Him alone (GOD) and doing all you can to help people draw closer to Him and understand His word a little more each week. It is about challenging people so they grow and change.

Line upon line, precept upon precept.

It's not about having thousands in a building or numbers and fame. I would rather be with 50 people totally devoted to following YHWH than be in a place of thousands and thousands that do not seem to know how to.
You know them by their fruit.

Shalom

Amen!!!!!

Much love!