The Catholic Church gets put down a lot, but it was all that could help

[OzSpen]

As we know one denomination can use the "historical, contextual, grammatical interpretation of Scripture" to teach their sheep that Baptism is symbolic. The other denomination says it actually does something (washes away sins) and is necessary for salvation.

If I go along the historical route to answer my question I come up with Ulrich Zwingli (500 years ago) who is credited with starting the "symbol" movement. However, when I go further back I find the Letter of Barnabas and Hermas Of Rome and Second Clement (all from 1900 years ago) who say the opposite. Lets say I read both their arguments and they both make sense to me, Tom55. Do the guys from 1900 years ago pre-empt the guys from 500 years ago?

D Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a Protestant who lived during my lifetime. Wouldn't it be best to expand my knowledge and hear both sides of the argument? Who would you recommend on the Orthodox or RCC side of the isle to read?

Thank you for your advise.

Tom,

You are engaging in historical theology with your examples. I was discussing how to interpret Scripture as 'historical, contextual, grammatical interpretation of Scripture'. While studying the history of the issue of baptism may be valuable for some, it leads to confusion for others.

Take this passage:

36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [37] 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing (Acts 8:36-39 NIV).

Verse 37 is not in later translations because it is found in only a few later MSS and is not in the older MSS.

Interpreted historically, contextually and grammatically, what evidence is there here that this is a symbolic interpretation of baptism?

If you read the letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas with 2 opposing views of baptism and they both make sense to you, something is amiss with your hermeneutics. It is important to realise that symbols and figures of speech are included in literal interpretation when one is seeking a plain reading of the text.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

I expect that there could be people on this forum (and I'm one of them) who would not believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. Your view is thus encouraging at least two types of Christians: Pentecostal and non-Pentecostal, but the Pentecostals have the superior biblical experience of the Holy Spirit.

There is no doubt that there are people here who do not believe that speaking in tongues and see initial evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. I for one used to be one of those, even though I experienced the contrary. It took me years and studying this to arrive at my current point of view. If you read Acts and all the events of the baptism of the Holy Spirit you will note that all but one of them mention that the receivers spoke in tongues. The one that doesn't explicitly state that does state that, "when they saw they had received the Holy Spirit", implies that there was and outward sign. As tongues of fire was only ever recounted in Acts 2:4, we must assume that the outward sign was the speaking in tongues. I'll leave it up to you to do the reading.

You can't have the baptism of the Holy Spirit of primary importance and studying the word of God as of primary importance. Primary means 'Of chief importance; principal' (Oxford dictionaries 2016. s v primary). If receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit is of primary importance, that makes it of chief importance and studying the word of God becomes of secondary importance. Of course, the vice versa also applies.
Baptism with the Holy Spirit and studying the word of God cannot both be of primary importance - based on the definition of 'primary'.

I beg to differ. Salvation is of primary importance and afterwards receiving the Holy Spirit is a primary importance and after that studying the word of God is a primary importance. That's how Walking In Christ is it's a series of events that leads us to work our ultimate goal. In my opinion if these milestones were taught to new believers in that way, as they were in the NT, then they wouldn't move on until THEY achieved what the primary importance was in their life at that time. I'm sure you've heard the old saying, that 'you don't put the cart before the donkey'?
I do not want to strive about words, so please don't give me definitions that you know I know. The issue is one of single-mindedness, and in an age where everybody thinks it's great to multitask Kama I for one believe it is better to focus on one job at a time. Research has proven that those who focus on one job at a time, do that job better than the multitaskers. 2 Peter 3:8 shows us that God has no time table in these things.

 

[StanJ]

So am I to cast out Lloyd-Jones' biblical teaching in favour of your Pentecostal view? Lloyd Jones provides considerable biblical evidence to support his view in Lloyd-Jones (1985).

Well I don't agree with Lloyd-Jones conclusions so you can do with him whatever you want. I gave you my perspective in the previous post. You see I tend to stay in the Here and Now and not use authors that are way out of date. This is not a new issue within Pentecostalism. There are indeed two sides to the fence but in Canada and in the U.S. the two major Pentecostal denominations accept and believe that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism/infilling of the Holy Spirit. To me, that's enough to know that it is a consensus opinion, and as it is what I see evidence in the scripture I can only concur.

 

[ScaliaFan]

Scalia, I think the answer you are looking for is that no human being is infallible.

Not me, certainly, or Stan, or Mj, or any other poster here...including you.

And not the pope, either.

not true. We are all infallible at certain times, like when we are in the Presence, the tangible presence of Jesus Christ and not in mortal sin (while there)

obviously the pope lives in the Real Presence. If you attend a RCIA class, you will learn more about this and other peculiarly Catholic issues/teachings/doctrines.. The classes are free, usually held Sept to EAster in all Catholic churches

There is a lot of weird stuff (unchristian) going on in the Church but there is nothing wrong w/ the official teachings of the RCC

 

[StanJ]

not true. We are all infallible at certain times, like when we are in the Presence, the tangible presence of Jesus Christ and not in mortal sin (while there)

obviously the pope lives in the Real Presence. If you attend a RCIA class, you will learn more about this and other peculiarly Catholic issues/teachings/doctrines.. The classes are free, usually held Sept to EAster in all Catholic churches

There is a lot of weird stuff (unchristian) going on in the Church but there is nothing wrong w/ the official teachings of the RCC

And here we have the exact definition of inculcation.

 

[OzSpen]

There is no doubt that there are people here who do not believe that speaking in tongues and see initial evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. I for one used to be one of those, even though I experienced the contrary. It took me years and studying this to arrive at my current point of view. If you read Acts and all the events of the baptism of the Holy Spirit you will note that all but one of them mention that the receivers spoke in tongues. The one that doesn't explicitly state that does state that, "when they saw they had received the Holy Spirit", implies that there was and outward sign. As tongues of fire was only ever recounted in Acts 2:4, we must assume that the outward sign was the speaking in tongues. I'll leave it up to you to do the reading.


I beg to differ. Salvation is of primary importance and afterwards receiving the Holy Spirit is a primary importance and after that studying the word of God is a primary importance. That's how Walking In Christ is it's a series of events that leads us to work our ultimate goal. In my opinion if these milestones were taught to new believers in that way, as they were in the NT, then they wouldn't move on until THEY achieved what the primary importance was in their life at that time. I'm sure you've heard the old saying, that 'you don't put the cart before the donkey'?
I do not want to strive about words, so please don't give me definitions that you know I know. The issue is one of single-mindedness, and in an age where everybody thinks it's great to multitask Kama I for one believe it is better to focus on one job at a time. Research has proven that those who focus on one job at a time, do that job better than the multitaskers. 2 Peter 3:8 shows us that God has no time table in these things.

Stan,
I have presented my evidence to refute your view of tongues as the initial physical evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit in, Tongues and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

The evidence from Acts 2:4; Acts 10:44-46 and Acts 19:2-7 demonstrates the filling or baptism of the Holy Spirit in the early church (with tongues) as fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. The Pentecostal requirement of everyone since Acts 2:4 to speak in tongues as initial physical evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit is not consistent with what the Scriptures teach.

For me, the definitive moment in my understanding of the interpretation of these sometimes difficult verses came when I studied the Greek language of I Cor. 12:29-30 which uses the Greek negative me, thus requiring that a negative answer be given to the question, “Do all speak in tongues?” which is confirmed by the NASB translation: “All do not speak with tongues, do they?”

Since the baptism of the Holy Spirit is available to all believers, I Cor. 12:30 confirms that tongues cannot be the initial physical evidence for all believers, since tongues is not given to all.

This has led charismatic church leader and pastor of a Vineyard church (USA), George Mallone, to state: “Beyond doubt, one of the greatest theological tragedies to befall the church is the suggestion that tongues is a visible sign of having been baptized or filled with the Spirit” (Mallone 1983:90).

D Martyn Lloyd-Jones was no novice in seeking the baptism with the Holy Spirit or dealing with Pentecostal-charismatics. He wrote: 'If the suggestion is made that all who have the baptism of the Spirit must speak in tongues and this is repeated and repeated, it is not surprising that people begin to speak in tongues. But the question then arises as to what they are doing.... But all I am concerned about at the moment is that we should never forget the power of suggestion'. In the same exposition, Prove All Things, he also wrote that 'it is possible for a man to be baptized with the Holy Spirit without ever speaking in tongues, and, indeed, without having some of these other gifts' (Lloyd-Jones 1985:101, 146).

Concerning 'primary importance'. One cannot have three things, salvation, baptism with the Holy Spirit, and studying the word of God, as of 'primary importance' because that contradicts the meaning of 'primary'. We can have all three as of importance, with salvation being of 'primary importance'. All three cannot be of primary importance because of the meaning in English dictionaries of 'primary'. See the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of 'primary'.

Oz
Works consulted
Lloyd-Jones, D M 1985. Prove All Things: The Sovereign Work of the Holy Spirit. Eastbourne: Kingsway Publications.
Mallone, G. 1983. Those Controversial Gifts. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

 

[OzSpen]

Well I don't agree with Lloyd-Jones conclusions so you can do with him whatever you want. I gave you my perspective in the previous post. You see I tend to stay in the Here and Now and not use authors that are way out of date. This is not a new issue within Pentecostalism. There are indeed two sides to the fence but in Canada and in the U.S. the two major Pentecostal denominations accept and believe that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism/infilling of the Holy Spirit. To me, that's enough to know that it is a consensus opinion, and as it is what I see evidence in the scripture I can only concur.

No, Stan, it is NOT a consensus opinion. It is a Pentecostal opinion supported by the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC), Assemblies of God (A/G), Apostolic Faith Mission South Africa, Elim churches, etc.

There are major Christian denominations around the world who do not accept that view. These include Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, Reformed, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox,Lutherans, Anabaptists (e.g. Mennonites), etc. When you can use 'consensus opinion' for 2 denominations, you have redefined consensus. There is NO consensus opinion among the major denominations around the world to make tongues the initial physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

So you 'tend to stay in the Here and Now and not use authors that are way out of date'. So are you wanting to throw out the teachings of Martin Luther? If you are a Protestant, you are a product of the ministry of a man, Luther, whose ministry is 'out of date' from your perspective. His ministry is as up to date as Scripture.

For Luke to be able to write his Gospel, he depended on authors who were 'way out of date' - those who 'from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us' (Lk 1:2 ESV). If church history is a waste of space to you, then forget about the Azusa Street revival for your Pentecostal verification because it is 'way out of date'.

Your 'way out of date' perspective makes you a sitting duck for heretical intrusion into any assembly/church. We know how to identify heresy because of the godly teachers God has given to the church (Eph 4:11-16) who have equipped the saints for the work of ministry and the building up of the body of Christ. We are helped to identify heresy by those who have gone before. Athanasius was instrumental in doing this to confront Arius and his anti-trinitarianism at the Council of Nicea. But that's not important to Stan!

Heb 11:4 (NIV) disagrees with your 'way out of date' view, 'By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead'. Abel, though way out of date and dead many thousands of years, still speaks.

Stan's 'way out of date' short-sightedness will be gone in a few years, and God's gifted teachers from history will still speak: Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Arminius, Calvin, Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, Spurgeon, Seymour, Hodge, Olson, Sproul, Mohler, etc. Stan, it really is pathetic that you want to have nothing to do with God's great teachers from church history who led the way to where we are today. Your ministry will be impoverished when you denigrate or exclude these teachers.

Why did God give teachers (past and present) to the church? See Eph 4:11-16 (ESV). But Stan excludes them and their influence!

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

There is a lot of weird stuff (unchristian) going on in the Church but there is nothing wrong w/ the official teachings of the RCC

Scalia,

Last week I attended a funeral led by a Roman Catholic priest. The person who died was an evangelical Anglican whose Saviour was Jesus Christ. He had a long battle with cancer and the last 3 years of his life were in a RC nursing home.

At the beginning of the service, the RC priest sprinkled holy water over the closed coffin. At the end of the service, after family had viewed the body and the lid was closed, the priest sprinkled holy water again and then lit incense in a device and waved it near the coffin as it was wheeled to the hearse.

Please tell me how these RC practices can be justified. Where in Scripture are they found? Or, is it RC teaching that needs no confirmation from Scripture? Has it been invented by the RCC?

Oz

 

[StanJ]

I have presented my evidence to refute your view of tongues as the initial physical evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit in, Tongues and the Baptism with the Holy Spirit.
The evidence from Acts 2:4; Acts 10:44-46 and Acts 19:2-7 demonstrates the filling or baptism of the Holy Spirit in the early church (with tongues) as fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. The Pentecostal requirement of everyone since Acts 2:4 to speak in tongues as initial physical evidence of the baptism with the Holy Spirit is not consistent with what the Scriptures teach.

The first one does but not the subsequent ones. There is no Pentecostal requirements for speaking in tongues.
It is a precedent-setting observation that that's how we know people are filled with the Holy Spirit.
What about Acts 8:17-18? How did Simon know and what would cause him to want to spend his money on it?
I think three or four occasions is very consistent especially when the fourth occasion indicates that something alerted Simon to the fact that those people were filled with the Holy Spirit. The Bible indeed shows this and is consistent. The question is why do you think it's stopped in Acts? Are we no longer in the last days?
Sorry but there's no reason for me to go through your so-called evidence when I already know what the facts are.

For me, the definitive moment in my understanding of the interpretation of these sometimes difficult verses came when I studied the Greek language of I Cor. 12:29-30 which uses the Greek negative me, thus requiring that a negative answer be given to the question, “Do all speak in tongues?” which is confirmed by the NASB translation: “All do not speak with tongues, do they?”

Well then I guess you misunderstood the context of First Corinthians 12. It's not talking about speaking in tongues as a prayer and praise language it's talking about the gift of speaking in tongues with the requirement of interpretation. Paul explains it very succinctly in chapter 14. Like you said what happened in Acts was what Joel prophesied about. Joel did not prophesy about spiritual gifts. In fact Joel didn't even prophesied about speaking in tongues because the issue was not the people speaking in tongues but how they presented themselves as being drunk and disorderly to the God-fearing Jews that Peter spoke to. This has happened ever since then as Peter promised in vs 38 - 39

This has led charismatic church leader and pastor of a Vineyard church (USA), George Mallone, to state: “Beyond doubt, one of the greatest theological tragedies to befall the church is the suggestion that tongues is a visible sign of having been baptized or filled with the Spirit” (Mallone 1983:90).
D Martyn Lloyd-Jones was no novice in seeking the baptism with the Holy Spirit or dealing with Pentecostal-charismatics. He wrote: 'If the suggestion is made that all who have the baptism of the Spirit must speak in tongues and this is repeated and repeated, it is not surprising that people begin to speak in tongues. But the question then arises as to what they are doing.... But all I am concerned about at the moment is that we should never forget the power of suggestion'. In the same exposition, Prove All Things, he also wrote that 'it is possible for a man to be baptized with the Holy Spirit without ever speaking in tongues, and, indeed, without having some of these other gifts' (Lloyd-Jones 1985:101, 146).

These men are mistaken as apparently are you. I can post links to all kinds of articles that you could read but I'm sure you wouldn't agree. Seems you consider yourself a scholar by publishing online articles that you feel everybody should agree with. Sorry but I have studied the facts and all you're giving me above are opinions, not facts.

Concerning 'primary importance'. One cannot have three things, salvation, baptism with the Holy Spirit, and studying the word of God, as of 'primary importance' because that contradicts the meaning of 'primary'. We can have all three as of importance, with salvation being of 'primary importance'. All three cannot be of primary importance because of the meaning in English dictionaries of 'primary'.

I explained this to you as succinctly as possible, so if you didn't or can't understand, I can't do any better.
Is your primary importance today the same as it was twenty years ago or two years ago or two days ago?

 

[StanJ]

No, Stan, it is NOT a consensus opinion. It is a Pentecostal opinion supported by the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC), Assemblies of God (A/G), Apostolic Faith Mission South Africa, Elim churches, etc.
There are major Christian denominations around the world who do not accept that view. These include Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, Reformed, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox,Lutherans, Anabaptists (e.g. Mennonites), etc. When you can use 'consensus opinion' for 2 denominations, you have redefined consensus. There is NO consensus opinion among the major denominations around the world to make tongues the initial physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I have a hard time believing that you actually didn't understand what I said or meant. My comment was within the context of Pentecostal denominations. Why would I say it was a consensus opinion outside of people who don't believe in speaking in tongues? BTW, you forgot Foursquare and Church of God. As a matter of fact in my 45 years of being a Pentecostal believe her I've never heard of one Pentecostal denomination that does not believe in speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. For sure there are many individuals such as yourself that don't believe this, but they are a definite minority and as far as I can tell have never produced any facts to contradict that it isn't.

So you 'tend to stay in the Here and Now and not use authors that are way out of date'. So are you wanting to throw out the teachings of Martin Luther? If you are a Protestant, you are a product of the ministry of a man, Luther, whose ministry is 'out of date' from your perspective. His ministry is as up to date as Scripture. For Luke to be able to write his Gospel, he depended on authors who were 'way out of date' - those who 'from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us' (Lk 1:2 ESV). If church history is a waste of space to you, then forget about the Azusa Street revival for your Pentecostal verification because it is 'way out of date'. Your 'way out of date' perspective makes you a sitting duck for heretical intrusion into any assembly/church. We know how to identify heresy because of the godly teachers God has given to the church (Eph 4:11-16) who have equipped the saints for the work of ministry and the building up of the body of Christ. We are helped to identify heresy by those who have gone before. Athanasius was instrumental in doing this to confront Arius and his anti-trinitarianism at the Council of Nicea. But that's not important to Stan!Heb 11:4 (NIV) disagrees with your 'way out of date' view, 'By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead'. Abel, though way out of date and dead many thousands of years, still speaks. Stan's 'way out of date' short-sightedness will be gone in a few years, and God's gifted teachers from history will still speak: Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Arminius, Calvin, Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, Spurgeon, Seymour, Hodge, Olson, Sproul, Mohler, etc. Stan, it really is pathetic that you want to have nothing to do with God's great teachers from church history who led the way to where we are today. Your ministry will be impoverished when you denigrate or exclude these teachers.Why did God give teachers (past and present) to the church? See Eph 4:11-16 (ESV). But Stan excludes them and their influence! Oz

I was saved in 1971 under the tutelage of Bob Johnson. He himself was mentored by Dr. C.M. Ward who was greatly influenced by John Wesley. If pedigree is your thing then there's enough pedigree there for me. The point is that all these men had their Ministry at their time but the only historical characters that I am concerned with are those that are represented in the Bible. Nothing I have ever learned from reading any thing by the ECF's and all these men down through history has enlightened me one bit. What does enlighten me is my Bible. It is what has taught me that many of these men taught false Doctrine. I tend to want to live in the present, the Here and Now and not be preoccupied with what has gone on before, accept as it relates to my Lord and Savior. I don't denigrate them I just don't deify them or put them up on a pedestal for everyone to look at. They served their purpose, but they're dead now and God is not the God of the dead but of the living. If all you have to say is based on your knowledge of what these men taught and you have none of it yourself, then exactly what is it you do know other than what you read in books about them? It's great that you have been able to recently secure your doctorate and I applaud you for that but that doesn't mean is that do you need to use all these past Scholars to justify your opinions. Those opinions should be justified and corroborated by the word of God.
The thing you don't seem to get Oz is that this is a discussion forum with live people and I can't very well question and discuss with those who are dead and gone as to why they thought what they did. You see I know how to think for myself. Maybe you should try it?

 

[OzSpen]

Stan,

You stated: 'BTW, you forgot Foursquare and Church of God'.

Don't you know the meaning of etc. when I wrote: 'Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC), Assemblies of God (A/G), Apostolic Faith Mission South Africa, Elim churches, etc.'?

Stan, you wrote: 'I tend to want to live in the present, the Here and Now and not be preoccupied with what has gone on before, accept as it relates to my Lord and Savior'. But you are prepared to chastise me because I 'forgot' Foursquare and Church of God. They are historical denominations with roots in the past that extend to the present, but the same applies to Baptists and Lutherans. So it's OK to mention PAOC, A/G, Foursquare, and Church of God (Pentecostal) when it suits you. But they also have historic roots that are outside the realm of your interest as 'I tend to want to live in the present, the Here and Now and not be preoccupied with what has gone on before'.

Frankly, that's myopic and is not supported by Scripture. God has given the gift of teachers to the church for the edification and equipping of the church. These are teachers - present AND past (Eph 4:11-16). To only include what is 'in the present' is your invention, Stan. It is without biblical precedent.

It's time you learned about Athanasius and his fight against heretical doctrines in the 3rd-4th centuries. The same applies to Irenaeus and Against Heresies (written about AD 180) - a great document exposing false doctrine. Who was it who dealt with Gnosticism in the early church. How can those teachers - sent by God - help us today?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Stan,

You see I know how to think for myself. Maybe you should try it?

This sarcasm is totally unnecessary and is not indicative of a godly response to me.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

As a matter of fact in my 45 years of being a Pentecostal believe her (sic) I've never heard of one Pentecostal denomination that does not believe in speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. For sure there are many individuals such as yourself that don't believe this, but they are a definite minority and as far as I can tell have never produced any facts

Stan,

Vineyard Churches USA, a leading Pentecostal-charismatic denomination, in its Statement of Faith on the 'Ministry of the Holy Spirit', does not state it believes in tongues as the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

You are engaging in historical theology with your examples. I was discussing how to interpret Scripture as 'historical, contextual, grammatical interpretation of Scripture'. While studying the history of the issue of baptism may be valuable for some, it leads to confusion for others.

Take this passage:
Verse 37 is not in later translations because it is found in only a few later MSS and is not in the older MSS.
Interpreted historically, contextually and grammatically, what evidence is there here that this is a symbolic interpretation of baptism?
If you read the letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas with 2 opposing views of baptism and they both make sense to you, something is amiss with your hermeneutics. It is important to realise that symbols and figures of speech are included in literal interpretation when one is seeking a plain reading of the text.

Oz

You are correct, I am using historical theology in my example because I wanted to make the point that the writings of the men who were alive during the Apostles life or shortly thereafter seemed to think that baptism did something; it was not a symbol. I used that example because that is what I thought you meant when you said "historical"!

If they (Apostolic Fathers) did not see it as a symbol then they were either reading scripture and coming to that conclusion on their own or they were talking to other church leaders who convinced them or they came to an agreement it was not a symbol. So why should I care what some theologian thinks about baptism 1500 years later? If one reads the Church Fathers writings the issue of baptism seemed to be a settled matter within 100 years after the death of Jesus.

That brings me back to my original point: One denomination can use the "historical, contextual, grammatical interpretation of Scripture" to teach their sheep that Baptism is symbolic. The other denomination says it actually does something (washes away sins) and is necessary for salvation. BOTH came to different conclusions with all the same information available to them. So how do we know who is right of Scripture is God breathed truth?

You suggested I read D Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I have already read tons of Protestant books. Wouldn't it be best to expand my knowledge and hear both sides of the argument? Which books on the Orthodox or RCC side of the isle have you read that you would recommend to me?

Respectfully.....Tom

 

[OzSpen]

You suggested I read D Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I have already read tons of Protestant books. Wouldn't it be best to expand my knowledge and hear both sides of the argument? Which books on the Orthodox or RCC side of the isle have you read that you would recommend to me?

Respectfully.....Tom

Tom,

I think you know more about this than you are telling me.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

You stated: 'BTW, you forgot Foursquare and Church of God'.
Don't you know the meaning of etc. when I wrote: 'Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC), Assemblies of God (A/G), Apostolic Faith Mission South Africa, Elim churches, etc.'?

Well you did forget and usually when people put excetera that means I can't remember. I put them down because before the last two you mention they are much larger in North America.

Stan, you wrote: 'I tend to want to live in the present, the Here and Now and not be preoccupied with what has gone on before, accept as it relates to my Lord and Savior'. But you are prepared to chastise me because I 'forgot' Foursquare and Church of God. They are historical denominations with roots in the past that extend to the present, but the same applies to Baptists and Lutherans. So it's OK to mention PAOC, A/G, Foursquare, and Church of God (Pentecostal) when it suits you. But they also have historic roots that are outside the realm of your interest as 'I tend to want to live in the present, the Here and Now and not be preoccupied with what has gone on before'.

Come on Oz, it was far from chastising even though you do tend to get nitpicky about an unimportant issues.
Baptist and lutherans don't speak in tongues do that so why do you keep bringing up denominations that don't speak in tongues? Don't bother answering, I'm pretty sure I know.

Frankly, that's myopic and is not supported by Scripture. God has given the gift of teachers to the church for the edification and equipping of the church. These are teachers - present AND past (Eph 4:11-16). To only include what is 'in the present' is your invention, Stan. It is without biblical precedent.

Actually myopia is supported in scripture... Paul had it. Are all your responses to be going to be striving about words instead of actually dealing with the issues? Because at this point you're being very myopic. Maybe you can show me in the New Testament where all the Old Testament Scholars are mentioned?

It's time you learned about Athanasius and his fight against heretical doctrines in the 3rd-4th centuries. The same applies to Irenaeus and Against Heresies (written about AD 180) - a great document exposing false doctrine. Who was it who dealt with Gnosticism in the early church. How can those teachers - sent by God - help us today?

Do you have a big problem with gnosticism in Australia Oz, because in all my 62 years of life I've never encountered one gnostic. And if I do it wouldn't be a problem dealing with them or recognizing the false teaching because I know my Bible and have the Holy Spirit, so I don't need somebody like Irenaeus to teach me what I already know.

 

[StanJ]

Vineyard Churches USA, a leading Pentecostal-charismatic denomination, in its Statement of Faith on the does not state it believes in tongues as the initial physical evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

It doesn't say they don't either but my point was I was bringing up the majority of you which is held by the PFNA,
Pentecostal Fellowship of North America, and the ones I mentioned are charter members.
Quite frankly you need to impress others by showing us how much you know and disagree with us is getting rather tedious. I love to have one conversation with you where you put yourself into it and don't constantly fill it with links and definitions that really have no bearing on the subject except to maybe deflect from the real issue.

 

[StanJ]

This sarcasm is totally unnecessary and is not indicative of a godly response to me.

. Yeah sure, okay Mr. Teapot

 

[tom55]

Tom,

I think you know more about this than you are telling me.

Oz

I am not sure what you mean by your statement. If you are suggesting I may know more about baptism and what different Christian theologians have written about it over the last 2000 years, you are correct.

If you are suggesting I may know more about which RCC or Orthodox authors YOU have read to help you come to your conclusion about baptism I don't have a clue. That is why I asked: Which books on the Orthodox or RCC side of the isle have you read that you would recommend to me?

I didn't know about D Martyn Lloyd-Jones until you told me about him.

 

[OzSpen]

It doesn't say they don't either but my point was I was bringing up the majority of you which is held by the PFNA,
Pentecostal Fellowship of North America, and the ones I mentioned are charter members.
Quite frankly you need to impress others by showing us how much you know and disagree with us is getting rather tedious. I love to have one conversation with you where you put yourself into it and don't constantly fill it with links and definitions that really have no bearing on the subject except to maybe deflect from the real issue.

Stan,

You can't admit you got it wrong when I provided you with a link to a Pentecostal-charismatic denomination that did not believe as you said.

Then you launch into a red herring fallacy and an ad hominem fallacy.

I took you off Ignore so that we might have a discussion, but with the fallacious reasoning and personal attacks on me, you are now back on Ignore.

Bye, Oz