What do you think... what is the "perfection" that Paul refers to concerning spiritual gifts? I have my own opinion, I have heard many in Bible College and Seminary, what is yours? Then hows does this relate to us and how do we deal with those Christians who practice these supernatural spiritual gifts?

-- Anonymous, October 19, 1999

Answers

AKelly, (a partial quote) "with those Christians who practice these supernatural spiritual gifts"

Are any Christians practicing these supernatural spiritual gifts?

simply an initial thought.... Dave

-- Anonymous, October 19, 1999

David,

My train of thought for saying that, is this point... we cannot assume that everyone who does not belong to our movement is not a Christian. Plus, we cannot assume that everyone caught up in the Pentecostal Movement is "not" a Christian either. For example, I personally know many immersed believers who claim to speak in glossia or who have experienced a real healing or who have claimed to have prophesied- "forth tell" a spiritual truth. I would simply like some feed back on this subject. I know one of my professors in Bible College (FCC) would say that the "perfect" is the NT. But, another I had (JBC) concluded it was Christian maturity. Even though I have my mind made up on a particular view, I would like others input.

Yours In Christ

-- Anonymous, October 19, 1999

I agree with Mr. Kelly. Who are we to say that anybody is not a Christian. Like Mr. Kelly, I know of one man who has been baptized who has spoken in glossia and has prophesied and is in the Church of Satan. Hey, after all he was baptized! Who do we think we are ? Such a judgemental attitude should never be taken by those within the Restoration Movement.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 1999

To conclude that "teleion" refers to the canonized Scriptures from 1 Corinthians 13 is an utter travesty of hermeneutics. But many do that very thing because it nicely "fits" with the rest of the anti- pneumatology that is prevalent in our movement. There can be no better case of reactionary hermeneutic.

To conclude the above said meaning for "teleion" would mean that one has to interpolate this as a hapax legomena (a one-time-usage) and dogmatically assert its meaning to the absolute silence of all other occurrences of "teleion" in the Scriptures.

Now the typical argumentation will ensue, and I have not asserted that I think that Paul did not know he was writing Scripture. I think he had that understanding, but to assert that Paul knew the Scriptures would be canonized is a leap into a whole other universe. It is quite the trick to me to assume I know what is going on in the mind of anyone much less the Apostle Paul at the penning of his wonderful letter to the church in Corinth. We know some things with a good deal of certainty but to be so arrogant to conclude that absolutely beyond any shadow of any doubt that Paul knew and fully understood the forthcoming canonization process that would occur is ludicrous. Not to mention how we fit this interpretation of "teleion" with its other occurrences.

-- Anonymous, October 20, 1999

The "perfect" is neuter and probably should not be "maturity" or "love" because of gender relationships in Greek grammar. An old, but still viable interpretation is the whole "event" of the Second Coming of Christ when the consummation of all things ("perfect")will take place. Both "love" and "maturity" will be in a sense "finalized" there (see 1 John 3:1-2)and we "shall become like Him for we shall see Him as He is!" Does anyone else agree? I certainly agree that the "canon" is not an option here, unfortunately held by so many in our heritage.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

I've been reading this forum for quite a while and after reading Mr. Prentice's reply, felt compelled to post a reply of my own. My background is Christian Church (Central in St. Petersburg, Florida) and a graduate of Atlanta Christian College. I am saddened at replies such as Mr. Prentice's....it seems to me the heighth of arrogance and a judgemental spirit to believe that it is not possible to be a Christian and practice any of the spiritual gifts. Is it any wonder that anyone looking at the Christian Church movement would think us "legalistic"...and sometimes quite dead? While not everyone who practices the gifts is necessarily a Christian....I've also noted that not everyone who has been immersed (or even serve as spiritual leaders) exhibit the fruits of the spirit either, thereby noting that they quite often exhibit the opposite fruits (not of Christ). I believe that would throw them in the Non-Christian category. Maybe Mr. Prentice needs to get out a bit more and fellowship with people that don't wear his clerical clothing? There ARE Christians outside of the Christian church.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Vicki, please say hello for me to Dick and Carolyn Laneau for me... they are members in your church and very good friends of mine. Plus, I agree with you to a point.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Thank God that his is moving many in the Restoration Movement to permit if not pursue all the gifts of the Spirit. I decided years ago not to force 1 Cor. 13:10 into an antisupernatural mold. My God has grown so much bigger as I have permited him to work in ways beyond my rational ability to understand.

If God has moved you from prohibiting to permitting supernatural gifts, be open to the possibility that he could be guiding you to pursue. God blesses me and others when I pray in the Spirit or receive a word of wisdom for a brother or sister. But ultimately, it is about growing to passionately love Christ and his body. I am so encouraged to see that the vast majority of responses have shown that love of Christ. My personal testimony would be that seeking to live a Spirit filled and empowered life has led me to display the fruit of the Spirit more fully. One day in the future, I will stand perfect in his presence and will no longer need the gifts of the Spirit. Until then, I will rely on the Spirit's empowering presence in my life.

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1999

I wholeheartedly agree with and appreciate Walt Zorn's reply to the question of "the perfect" of I Cor. 13. How does the cannon open up for us to see "face to face" or to be "fully known"? These seem definitely to be second-coming terms. From an old student of Walt's...late 70's at Great Lakes (Bible) Christian College.

-- Anonymous, November 02, 1999

Wish I had more time to discuss this right now. Will respond more as time allows. My initial response to AKelly's thread was not ment to be one of judgement on who were and were not Christians. My statement was more to the point that we can discuss as seems the tenor of the thread. That being, are the supernatural spiritual gifts, as utilized by the Holy Spirit, still being utilized in the church today?

I know that many 'claim experiences' of these gifts. But I would think that no one in this forum would expect that to be the proof of thier existence.

I would have reworded your initial question. (this is the quote from AKelly) "Then hows does this relate to us and how do we deal with those Christians who practice these supernatural spiritual gifts?"

The question supposes a truth not established. That being that these supernatural spiritual gifts are the same in purpose, function and transmission as in the early 1st century church.

1. If, in truth, these gifts are being used by the Holy Spirit to accomplish the will of God, then many need to get with the program.

2. If, in truth, these gifts are not being used by the Holy Spirit, rather that they are counterfeit, then we need to declare them as such.

So, let us determine the first, in order to establish how we respond to those who 'claim' to practice the supernatural spiritual gifts.

Oh, may I add--- without support for right now --- I don't believe that what is being practiced today in many denominations are in any way a work of the Holy Spirit. I do believe them to be counterfeit.

I will write more as time provides.......

Keep the study going..... Dave

-- Anonymous, November 03, 1999

Dave, I would partially agree that many claim to use the gifts are indeed misled or being douped by Satan. There will always be an abuse of the gifts as Paul tries to iron out in I Cor. 12-14. But, there must be an overall thought that we do have to think through. If indeed the gifts "supernatural" are not used by the Holy Spirit; where does the Word of God say this? I mean, how can we truly know for sure that the gifts are no longer used? If we rely on the "perfect" arguement then that will not do. For there is much evidence that the perfect is not the canon of the scriptures. Once our professors in Bible Colleges used to teach this, but from what? There is insufficient evidence to say that the gifts had died. Furthermore, if we rely on the argument that the gifts ceased becaused they were solely given by the laying on hands by the Apostles, where is the evidence? In truth there is not any evidence. All we have to go by is Paul's reference in Romans 1:11. But, this one verse of scripture is not enough to denounce some as teaching false if they encourage the gifts. I remember a challenge issued to my professors in Bible College (FCC) to debate the issue. The student who issued the challenge claimed to speak in tongues and he wanted any professor to debate him to prove otherwise. They would not. Was this silence due to the fact that we cannot prove that they do not exist? It is like the aguement for the existance of God... you cannot put God into a test tube- but you see His handy work in creation and we have His Word as an evidence that He is real. We cannot assume that the gifts are completely gone or that the Holy Spirit does not function that way anymore. Because that is a pure assumption without any evidence. Can God give the Biblical gift of glossia to someone in need? Does God grant the use of prophecy or discernment to those in need? Does God still heal? What about the smaller gifts we all enjoy? Such as love , hospitality, etc. We all have specific spiritual gifts that God gives us. If we still have those, such as serving or teaching or preaching? Then why or where does God say only the more "supernatural" are gone?

-- Anonymous, November 03, 1999

This is not going to be a definitively answering explanation in all people's minds, but it's worth considering. I have appreciated Swindoll's understanding of the sign gifts (healings, languages, and miracles). As Hans and Franz might say, "Read it now, and evaluate it later."

1) God's great eras of revelation each began with great displays of miracles. a - The creative miracles began it all, as God revealed himself through the creation. b - Moses brought the next great revelation of God, the law and the designation of His people, and it was accompanied by great miracles for all to see. c - Elijah brought the period of prophetic revelation to the earth, accompanied by a rebirth of the miraculous as sign. d - Jesus brings the penultimate revelation, accompanied by great miracles. The apostles direct the beginning of the church, carrying on the miraculous.

2). As each era got underway, miracles faded. In each of the eras of revelation, after establishing the truth of the revelation, we see the Biblical accounts of miracles become less and less. In fact, there is much, much more time in Bible history represented as being devoid of miracles than not. The miracles of Moses became fewer and further between, and almost never happened under Joshua. Elisha saw pretty much the end of the miraculous for the prophetic era. As the church begins to develop and the new revelation is spread and formalized, thru the life of Paul and the other apostles, miracles fade away, so that by the end of Acts they're not much happening. Another writer traced stories of the miraculous in the early church, and ran out of credible instances by about the end of the 2nd century, as the church was being well established throughout the known world.

3) To say that the sign gifts have served their purpose does not mean that all miracles and healings have ceased. Does God still heal? Surely. Does God still perform miracles? He certainly is no less powerful now than He was then. But if we follow the apparent pattern of the miraculous in the Scriptures, we must say that the next time God brings about an era of miracles is the next time He has a new revelation for mankind.

-- Anonymous, November 03, 1999

Sam here is a question... could it be that a new era of revelation be the second coming of Christ? Peter alluded to it in Acts 2 that is Joel 2. Many would say that as we get closer to that escatalogical event we will see more and more of God's mighty wonders being displayed. Could all that many are experiencing be a fulfillment of prophecy? I like anyone question people if they truly have a life changing experience, but should we write them off as demon possessed as some would definately say?

-- Anonymous, November 03, 1999

Peter alluded to what? Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he said (not alluded)that Joel's prophecy was being fulfilled AT THAT VERY MOMENT....

And where are these "miracles" today anyway? Funny the only thing the psuedo-charismatics can come up with is so-called "tongues" which is nothing more than gibberish that always seems to start with the word "shandelly". Let one of them go into a morgue and raise the dead. It won't happen. Or how about sending one of these deceivers (or deceived) into a room of people of various languages and speak to them in such a way that ALL of the folks hear them in their own language. It won't happen either.

Regardless of what you think "the perfect" is, you can't show me one miracle today that comes close to what was going on in the first century.

-- Anonymous, November 03, 1999

By the way, my guess is that the reason the professors refused to debate some tongue-speaking yayhoo is simple...they didnt want to cast their pearls before swine. I however, have enough pearls to go around. Find that student and ask him to visit this forum. Have him post a message, typing in tongues. We will email it around the world to folks of various languages. If they all understand him, he will have won the debate.

-- Anonymous, November 03, 1999

AKelley wrote: "here is a question... could it be that a new era of revelation be the second coming of Christ? Peter alluded to it in Acts 2 that is Joel 2. Many would say that as we get closer to that escatalogical event we will see more and more of God's mighty wonders being displayed. Could all that many are experiencing be a fulfillment of prophecy?"

I must reject this idea, AKelley. Every reference to the Second Coming indicates that it will happen in an instant, with no prior notification. "Like a thief in the night." God in past revelation didn't give signs for years as warning of some impending message or revelation. It simply began. Moses brought the message with power -- "Let My people go." Elijah brought the message with power -- "Turn back to Me, My people." Jesus brought the message with power -- "Today is this prophecy fulfilled in your ears." The apostles brought the message with power -- "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." When the next revelation happens -- the final return of Jesus, and the culmination of time -- there will be no mistaking it. The trumpet shall sound, the archangel will shout, Christ will descend, the dead will come forth, and we shall be caught up with them to meet Him in the air. As John Madden might say, "Right there! Boom! That's it!"

AKelley goes on : "Many would say that as we get closer to that escatalogical event we will see more and more of God's mighty wonders being displayed. Could all that many are experiencing be a fulfillment of prophecy? I like anyone question people if they truly have a life changing experience, but should we write them off as demon possessed as some would definately say?"

I respond:

AKelley, it feels funny to call you AKelley. Should I call you Kelley, or Mr. Kelley, or Mrs. Kelley, or Miss Kelley, or just A?

Anyway, I don't mean to sound officious or diatribe-al or anything like that. Heaven forbid that anyone should see something Saffoldian in my argument. I'm trying to work through these ideas just like you are, and come up with the best answer my feeble mind can find.

But on this matter, whether right or wrong, I stand strongly. I work at a radio station that airs "Christian broadcasting", many, many teachers and preachers and "pastors" and "apostles" and "prophets" and the like, all of whom claim to be "annointed by God to" do whatever they're doing or saying. A lot of what airs over our station just turns my stomach, and makes me grieve for the ones who will be led into expectations of God that simply won't be for them.

I have a simple test for "healers" -- if they can heal someone who doesn't want to be healed, or someone who has no faith that they will be healed, then I'll believe. The line is always that you've got to have enough faith, or you won't get your healing. Jesus did such a thing, with the man born blind, in John 9. The man did not know who Jesus was, did not have faith, did not even afterwards know who had touched him. Yet he was able to give the most convincing sign -- "I was blind, and now I see." Peter and John did much the same with the lame man at the gate of the temple. He wasn't looking for healing; he wanted cash. They gave him not what he wanted, but what he needed. His faith came AFTER his healing.

When on eo f the modern-day miracle workers does that, then I'll give them another look.

What I see in today's "outpouring" is a self-centered, self-serving quest for power, in which all manner of idiocy is blamed on the Spirit. People stuck to the ground, barking like dogs, waving and falling, being thrown across the room, going into spasms and jerks and fits and the like. I can't find anyplace in the New Testament where anything resembling any of this happened, and yet it's being proclaimed as God's sign that a new time has arrived. In the New testament church, the power was one of declaration, of speaking boldly, of living boldly in a holy manner. When the emphasis of the "new revelation" begins to be manner of life and boldly proclaiming God's truth, rather than manner of worship and boldly proclaiming power for me to show off the signs of my anointing, then I'll give some credence to the message.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 1999

What seems to bother me the most, is that I do agree that there is an abuse of the gifts today. But, I do believe that they DO also exist today. In fact I have witnessed some personally. My father in law told me that he was praying for me to speak in tongues. He asked what would I do if I did. I answered, if it is the biblical tongues then I will praise the Lord. But, many in our movement would say that my father in law is decieved and may not be a christian, because he practices them... this type of thinking is wrong. In fact he is an immersed charismatic Christian.

I would also disagree, with those who say that as we get closer to the second coming that there will be no signs. This is false theology. In fact Paul did say that we would clearly know when the season of Christ return would be. I Thess. 5:4 tells us that Christians would know unlike the world. It will be the world mainly who will be caught like unaware and surprised as a theif breaking into the home. Even, much of Joel 2 has not been fulfilled yet... look again at that passage "Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my spirit in those days- I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be darkened and the moon to blood before the coming of the great day of the Lord..." (Joel 2:29-31). So again my question is this, are the gifts that some say they have are all fake or could they be real? If we conclude that the gifts died out with the Apostles then they are fake and those who claim to have them are all decieved by Satan. Or, if then we conclude that they did not die out with the Apsotles then Christians can and do possess them as God gives them to each according to His will.

Just working it out.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 1999

But, I do believe that they DO also exist today. In fact I have witnessed some personally.

Please tell us about it.

In fact Paul did say that we would clearly know when the season of Christ return would be. I Thess. 5:4 tells us that Christians would know unlike the world.

Wrong. Paul says that as Christians, since we are not living "in darkness", Jesus will not come to us as a "thief" but as a welcome guest. Nobody knows the day nor the hour. He will come unexpectedly. But for non-Christians, it will be a negative experience, (like a thief) For Christians, it will be our bridegroom.

Even, much of Joel 2 has not been fulfilled yet... look again at that passage

I did.

"Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my spirit in those days- I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. The sun will be darkened and the moon to blood before the coming of the great day of the Lord..." (Joel 2:29-31).

Read Josephus on the destruction of Jerusalem.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 1999

Many would totally reject that Matthew 24, and Joel solely are prophecies of 70AD, but are futuristic in nature. I recognize that within these passages are historical fulfillments that came to pass during the events in 70AD but much is still futuristic. Perhaps, we disagree Duane regarding escatalogy, which is fine. We also disagree on the interpretation of I Thess 5:4, which many would agree with me- even in our movement. But, getting back to the issue at hand. God still has a work to do. But, to deny the very existance of God's gifts of the Holy Spirit is to deny the very core of Christianity. Christ sent us the Holy Spirit to dwell within us and the be our comforter. He is our paraclete and enables us for works of the Kingdom. These works are the special gifts that each Christian possess. But, also equips according to the will of God certain supernatural gifts. For example if a person has never learned a language- and God gives the ability to speak a language that has never been previously learned then that is the gift of tongues (glossia). The exercise of the gift is for the unbelievers who come into the fellowship and for personal edification. I have personally witnessed this in my life with those who are a part of the last church in which I ministered. Also, there just are so many cases that I have heard from reliable witnesses that it cannot be denied. You may personally believe that they do not exist- that is your opinion. But, you cannot prove their disappearance through the scriptures- no one can. Why, because maybe, just maybe, they do exist. I would agree that they do not exist in the extreme as they once did (such as raising the dead- which was by all evidence only an apostolic function, but to deny that God does not work by using certain gifts that way anymore is absurd. Let us take our favorite Restoration passage of Mark 16:16, after Peter dictates to Mark the passage, "he who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe shall be damned," we read, "And these signs will accompany those who believe, In my name they will drive out demons, they will speak in a new tongues, they will pick up snakes with their hands, and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all, they will place their hands on the sick people, and they will get well." I agree, as with my hemeneutics, that this passage was fulfilled in the apostolic works. But, can we totally say that this passage only applies to the Apostles? If so then the section on Baptism in this passage too is just for the early church- which would run with the context. I am trying not to get into left field here, but my point is this... we cannot say that all the gifts died out. Maybe the appropiate answer is maybe that God can and does give gifts whether suprnatural or not to people according to His divine will. Perhaps, before we deny something, let us truly look at it, question it, and examine it. But, let us not write off somehting that we fully do not understand.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 1999

"So again my question is this, are the gifts that some say they have are all fake or could they be real? If we conclude that the gifts died out with the Apostles then they are fake and those who claim to have them are all decieved by Satan. Or, if then we conclude that they did not die out with the Apsotles then Christians can and do possess them as God gives them to each according to His will."

-- Mr. Kelley (wwjdkelley@hotmail.com), November 04, 1999.

You have set up here a false dichotomy, an insufficient either/or. In addition to the two choices you allow (that God is the source and that Satan is the source), there is at LEAST a third -- that man is the source.

It goes by different names, which show different possibilities or perspectives -- wish fulfillment, self-fulfilling prophecy, unconcious psychological response to intense stimuli, giving in to the pressure to perform (whether that pressure comes from another or from oneself), outright human fakery and deceit. But whatever you call it, you cannot discount the possibility that the source may well be within one's own self.

Which is the source (God, Satan, or self) for the thing you have personally experienced, I do not dare to declare (still waiting to have my deity officially recognized by a Power higher than myself). But please, also, remember this: Experience is not always to be trusted. We have all experienced things that were not true (ever see a good magician/illusionist?) Our minds are amazingly susceptible to being fooled, even by ourselves. And which of us has not felt some great love or desire for another person, and been convinced that he or she was The One, and knew in our heart of hearts that it was true love, when it was something far less? We even sometimes SEE and HEAR things taht are not, because we are conditioned to see or expecting to hear or did not pay close enough attention.

And, of course, you have to allow for the fact that Satan often uses experience to deceive. He excels at that art. Paul spoke to that -- "If we or an angel from heaven tell you anything other than the Gospel you know, he is to be accursed."

The nig message here is, don't be too much swayed by experience. Do not judge what is true by experience . . . rather, judge experience by what is true.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 1999

"For example if a person has never learned a language- and God gives the ability to speak a language that has never been previously learned then that is the gift of tongues (glossia). The exercise of the gift is for the unbelievers who come into the fellowship and for personal edification. I have personally witnessed this in my life with those who are a part of the last church in which I ministered."

Do tell. A person spoke in a language they did not previously know, and another person there said, "I recognize that! He's speaking ___________ (fill in language here)." That's what happened in the New Testament church. If you've got the story, please fill us in.

The Corinthians were scolded by Paul because they were using the gifts improperly. The "show gifts" were given to be signs, not as ends unto themselves. The Corinthians didn't care about the signs. they just wanted the gifts. Paul wrote to correct that. But what I see the most of in the church today is the gifts being sought for the sake of having gifts, rather than as signs of something else. In the New Testament, the gifts were much like the Holy Spirit Himself, who never pointed to His own glory, but rather pointed to the glory of the Father and the Son. Likewise, the gifts never pointed to themselves; they always pointed to something else. In the church these days, they don't much do that.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 1999

Sam, what do you think. Can God still use the gifts today to either draw men to Himself or edify the church? I would agree with you 99% of what you are saying, but CAN the gifts today exist? Do we really know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not allow the Holy Spirit to operate that way today? I think as you do that today there is a real abuse going on. Many of the abuses are psychological and satanic. But, the key question is... can God and does God, still use them if it is according to His will? For sure, we cannot establish that they do not exist- at least according to the scriptures. My argument is a little black and white (ok maybe more) but, either they do or they don't. Either God allows the Holy Spirit to uses them or not. But, if not where is the evidence? I do not expect everyone to lean toward my view, but I do think that we need to reevaluate what we believe and why? Can the charismatics be all wrong? I know many immersed charimatic Christians who practice their gift- not to glorify themselves nor the gift- but to genuinely edify the body or to bring people to Christ.

I guess, through all the many years in Bible College, there are always still new things to be learned. When I was a student and even sometime after- I thought I had all the answers, but during my ministry I learned that I did not know all answers. And there are still somethings that exist or that happen that have blown the way I look at things away.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 1999

AKelley... I will write more later... I appreciate your questions... But here are the problems I am having.... The question "CAN God do so and so" is irrelevant... It makes those who disagree with you to say that He can't. God can come down everyone's chimney tonight in a velvet jumpsuit if He wanted to... But that is not the issue here... Please don't cloud the issue by asking the question. It is NOT the "key question" It is specious.

Your question, "does God, still use them if it is according to His will?" is somewhat closer to the mark, but still off base, because you qualify it with "IF" it is according to His Will. Once again, If it is God's will He can again don the velvet Jumpsuit. You cloud the issue with many words. The question is, "Is this so-called tongues phenomena God's doing?"

Then you seem to say that it IS, simply because you feel that Scriptures cannot prove that it is NOT. Or, just because you believe that the phenomena DOES exist, you conclude that it must be from God.

I do agree with you that "Either God allows the Holy Spirit to use them or not."

You then "appeal to the masses" with the following statements:

Can the charismatics be all wrong?

Well, er... yes...but that is not relevant.

MANY would totally reject that Matthew 24, and Joel solely are prophecies of 70AD...,We also disagree on the interpretation of I Thess 5:4, which MANY would agree with me- even in our movement...> I know MANY immersed charimatic Christians....

Your point being? That we measure truth by counting heads? "MANY" will also say unto Him "Lord, Lord..."

I recognize that within these passages are historical fulfillments that came to pass during the events in 70AD but much is still futuristic.

Again, Peter said, "THIS is what was spoken of by the prophet Joel" He did not say "This is PART of what Joel was talking about..." Are you suggesting Double fulfillment of a prophecy? Or just using it to bolster your unfounded belief in the modern glossalalia movement?

God still has a work to do.

Oh that sounds so very spiritual, but also not very weighty for your argument.

But, to deny the very existance of God's gifts of the Holy Spirit is to deny the very core of Christianity.

Please give us Scripture to support this.

For example if a person has never learned a language- and God gives the ability to speak a language that has never been previously learned....

Once again your putting too many assumptions into it...How do you know that it is GOD who is giving the ability? How do you know it is not SATAN? Gee, by your logic, if you cannot prove to me that it is NOT Satan from Scriptures, then it must be SATAN!

I would agree that they do not exist in the extreme as they once did (such as raising the dead)

Oh how convenient... Are you saying that God CANNOT raise the dead today? Or that He chooses only to display gifts which can easily be faked... -

Maybe the appropiate answer is maybe that God can and does give gifts whether supernatural or not to people according to His divine will.

Well, maybe we can say also that God does NOT choose to do this, and it is from the Angel of Light, old Lucifer. Ludicrous? Maybe, but consider it, OK? After all, as AKelley has said,

"before we deny something, let us truly look at it, question it, and examine it. But, let us not write off something that we fully do not understand."

Amen to that!

-- Anonymous, November 04, 1999

"Sam, what do you think. Can God still use the gifts today to either draw men to Himself or edify the church? I would agree with you 99% of what you are saying, but CAN the gifts today exist?"

As Duane said, of COURSE God CAN use the sign gifts today, if he so chooses. It does not follow from that, however, that He actually DOES. He spoke to the world for hundreds of years by speaking to individual people. He stopped doing that, almost entirely, when hebrought in the written Law. He spoke to the world for hundreds of years through the prophets. He stopped doing THAT about 400 years before John the Baptist was born, and then began again for a short time through John. He stopped doing THAT when He gave the world Jesus, God in the flesh, and began to speak to the world by way of a human body taken on himself. He stopped doing THAT when he left the earth from the mountaintop, in the sight of the apostles. He then began to speak to the world as the Spirit gave inspiration to the apostles and writers of the New Testament, and gave the miraculous gifts of healing, miracles and languages as confirmation of the message.

"But, the key question is... can God and does God, still use them if it is according to His will? For sure, we cannot establish that they do not exist- at least according to the scriptures. My argument is a little black and white (ok maybe more) but, either they do or they don't. Either God allows the Holy Spirit to uses them or not. But, if not where is the evidence?"

In each of the earlier times of revelation, he stopped the method when the method had achieved what it was supposed to do. To make a point by asking a question in the way you have chosen to, why would He not do that again?

Does God use the miraculous signs today? If he does, then their purpose is completely different than it was originally, because what they were supposed to do, they did. With the establishment of the Scriptures, the confirming signs were out of a job.

"but I do think that we need to reevaluate what we believe and why?"

I do that constantly. I am the "token non-Pentecostal" as the radio station where I work, and am forever having these conversations. I have to stand on solid biblical principles when arguing with these folks. I think I do.

"Can the charismatics be all wrong?"

Can all the Mormons be wrong? Can all the Muslims be wrong? Or, more to the point of this forum, can all the "baptism-is-a-sign-of- grace-received-and-not-a-requirement-of-receiving-grace" believers be wrong? There are exponentially more of them than there are of us. But that doesn't make them right.

"I know many immersed charimatic Christians who practice their gift- not to glorify themselves nor the gift- but to genuinely edify the body or to bring people to Christ."

Again, not being deity ourselves, we know not the origin of these things, even tho we may believe the intent on their part is honorable. However, I would challenge anyone to give up a story of how a non-believer came to Christ because he heard someone speaking in tongues.

"I guess, through all the many years in Bible College,"

(question unrelated to discussion) Where did you attend?

"there are always still new things to be learned."

I try not to give the impression that I think I know it all. But there are a few things that I feel pretty certain about.

"When I was a student and even sometime after- I thought I had all the answers, but during my ministry I learned that I did not know all answers. And there are still somethings that exist or that happen that have blown the way I look at things away."

Again, don't judge truth by experience. Judge experience by truth. If we look to the miraculous to determine what we believe, we'd better get down and worship the lord of darkness; either that or completely discount all those stories about the supernatural happenings surrounding pagan religions. We could play "dueling miracles" all day long, but in the end the question has to be "What saith the scriptures?" I understand the scriptures to indicate that the sign gifts were a short-term thing for the confirmation of the message of God.

-- Anonymous, November 05, 1999

Duane, it seems that we have come to an impass. Can one prove the gifts existance and their origin? I would say that yes. Can one prove their nonexistance? I would say no. Satan is a counterfiet and a deciever. He would love to make a mockery of God and His workings through the Spirit. But, one thing we must consider, if Satan were to empower someone with a gift that was not benifical to him or his workings then why give it? It is just like what Jesus said, "If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? And if I drive out demons by Beelzebulb, by whom do your people drive them out?" (Mat. 12:26-27a). If Satan empowers a person to have a gift and they intern glorify God for that gift- then Satan has lost. What would it benefit him? But, if God through the Holy Spirit gives a person a gift and they use it to glorify God, then as Jesus said "the Kingdom of God has come upon you." Can you see my logic? We cannot assume that the gifts have ceased, why?, because there is no biblical evidence to say this. Then, if then the Bible is silent we must conclude that God does allow them to be used. To what extent, perhaps we will never completely know. Maybe that is why we will see fully as we are fully known in heaven.

-- Anonymous, November 05, 1999

"The exercise of the gift is for the unbelievers who come into the fellowship"

Oh and by the way, this is eaxctly OPposite of what Paul says in Corinthians. he says, "If an unbeliever comes in and everyone doing the tongues thing, he's gonna think you're all nts. but if he comes in a hears the word of God being proclaimed, he can believe and turn to the Lord."

-- Anonymous, November 05, 1999

To All:

I was surfing the net today and happened upon your little discussion again, of which I was a very brief part about a month ago. (By the way, I'm still receiving email at my address, and for your convenience opened another email account on yahoo). This is probably a waste of my time since I run the risk of having my posts deleted again, so I will make it short.

2Tim.3:1-5 I don't have time to type the whole thing out - basically the Holy Scriptures warned me about individuals who would be "high-minded" "having a form of godliness, (Bible studies, Water Baptisms, Sunday Services, etc) but denying the power thereof: from such turn away".

What is the power of God? According to Jesus, Acts 1:8 "Ye shall receive power, after the Holy Ghost is come upon you" What was the sign of the Holy Spirit coming upon them? Acts 2:1-4 They all spoke in tongues.

How obvious is it? We have the Holy Scriptures spoken by Jesus himself declaring what the power of God is - the Baptism in the Holy Spirit - and we have people such as yourselves denying it!

According to the Holy Scriptures I'm living in perilous times!

Listening to all you people talking reminded me of another Scripture I put to memory a long time ago, (to which I am sure you will all explain away) 1 Cor.4:20 "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power."

What kind of power is Jesus and the Holy Scriptures talking about? (Read one of your most favorite passages Mark 16:16-18) According to the Holy Scriptures, Jesus is talking to believers, of which I am one. Therefore, since I am a believer these signs follow me.

ARE YOU A BELIEVER?

Hope this post stands (if not I am content to go elsewhere as I have for the past month),

-- Anonymous, November 05, 1999

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappearsAnd now these three remain: faith, hope and love but the greatest of these is love.

My question is thisIf the perfect is the second coming of Christ, where is the interim period between the passing of tongues, prophecy, & knowledgeand the passing of faith and hope. When Christ comes again, we will not have to hope  it will be fulfilled. When Christ comes again, we will not have faith - Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This also will be fulfilled in His coming.

If I understand this correctly, isnt Paul saying that some gifts will passbut faith, hope, and love will remain (until He comes).? So if you consider the perfect to be the Second Coming, why wouldnt he have said only love would abide? Why would he have just picked out a few and said they would pass, because at His coming they will all pass. Will we still have any of the following when Christ comes again?

1 Cor 12:8-10 To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.

-- Anonymous, November 05, 1999

Mr. Kelley and Sam Loveall,

I appreciate the discussion. It is good to see that the discussion is not taboo, as is in many realms. I am interested to hear from some other minds on this subject though. Where is Sheridan, Gabbard? Come on guys, even though your pneumatology is quite limited I still would like to see you debate your view.

I do not accept the "2nd coming" interpretation of teleion as you do Mr. Kelley. I see it contextually much more a reference to the individual's maturation. Look at all nine other uses of teleion and particularly focus on its historical evolution. I think a cursory study will lend itself to such a conclusion.

This interpretation is to be preferred simply because it "fits" contextually with Paul's overwhelmingly negative discussion on the use of these gifts.

Unfortunately, many in the pulpits of our movement preach an anti- pneumatological message that is largely the result of "parrot knowledge" from what they learned at Bible College and a reaction driven out of fear of being like the charismatics. Both of which are a good equation for bad hermeneutics.

The Chamber's view of Joel's usage in the synoptics being largely judgemental is not totally off-base but it does not exclude the reality of the workings of God in like manner contemporarily. Joel's quote obviously was still applicable much later in Paul's day, but the gifts were still present.

Grammatically, as well, if we follow the pronouns in Greek from Acts 1 through Acts 2, one has to do some heavy shifting to make the event solely applicable to the 12 (the event being the day of Pentecost).

Again, I appreciate the discussion. I have absolutely no desire to speak in tongues or to have any other supernatural gift. I just don't preach they have been exhausted (as I don't preach the baptism of the Holy Spirit is either).

-- Anonymous, November 06, 1999

Here is what I believe to be the simpliest and most balanced approach to the issue. I do not yet know fully as I am fully known. But I do believe that our human nature is to polarize our views and then defend them carelessly. Therefore we should avoid both; being wicked and perverse people seeking a sign, and having a form of godliness but denying its power.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 1999

To Randy:

I was just wondering. You stated that you believed the "most balanced approach to the issue" is to avoid polarizing to one view or another, haven't you then "polarized" to your own point of view? I believe the "simpelist and most balanced approach" is to let the Holy Scriptures say what they say and not interject my own opinion. I realize we all think/believe this is our approach and if that is the honest attitude of our heart I believe there is room for the differences. I do not look down on anyone else because they do not speak in Tongues just as I expect not to be looked down upon for speaking in Tongues. I am not of the devil, I am not in some hypnotic trance, and I am not emotionally out of control. I have studied the Holy Scriptures, followed them since my youth and have come to what I believe is a moderate position in Scripture. For example: (in my mind) I have heard arguments made from different denominations concerning Salvation. One group says you must speak in tongues to be born again, which I do not believe, and the other group says you must be water baptized to be born again, which I do not believe. I do believe you need to be water baptized and that the Holy Spirit baptism is available to all who believe, but I do not polarize to either extreme.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, November 17, 1999

From my studies and what the Holy Spirit has led me to, I Cor. 13 was written in past, present and future tense. Example: "when I was a child I spoke as a child" (past tense); "for now we see through a glass darkly" (present tense); "when that which is PERFECT is come" (future tense). I believe "that which is perfect" is The Lord Jesus Christ and not the New Testament. He is THE ONLY THING that has ever been absolutely 100% perfect! Why do I belive this? Because Paul gives three conditions for knowing "when that which is perfect is come": 1. prophecies shall fail; 2. tongues shall cease;, and 3. knowledge shall vanish away. For one to occur and not the other two, or for two to occur and not the third, says "that which is perfect" has NOT come. Also, I believe that vs. 12 tells why it is Jesus and not the New Testament: "For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face." Face to face with what or whom. Not face to face with the New Testament, but face to face with Jesus when He comes. "but then shall I know, even as also I am known." Known by the New Testament? No; known by Jesus. Throughtout Paul's Epistles he writes about the "mysteries of God." We won't have any need to know when we are with Jesus; and, as stated above, prophecies will fail, tongues will cease and knowledge will vanish because in Col. 2:3 we are told that in Christ are "hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Finally, in Mark 16, Jesus said "these signs shall follow those that believe." I have yet to see, or be shown, where a date for those signs ending is given. I personally have been in meetings, both large and small, where The Holy Spirit took charge and great manifestations of The Spirit occured, including prophecies in tongues and in our natural language, demons cast out, healings, and many other miracles. In some cases the Spirit manifest so strongly that we couldn't even stand on our feet. I believe as Paul said "desire spiritual gifts" and if we do, God will give them to us. Love in Christ, Claude Spink

-- Anonymous, November 22, 1999

To Claude:

Excellent! When I was fresh out of Bible College I joined an "Old Fashioned Tent Revival" ministry. I was the tent crew :o) I would travel to the city the evangelist would be preaching at and set up the Old Gospel Tent a few days ahead of his arrival. The day the revival was to begin he would roll up to the tent with his family and we would host weeks of revival meetings for that city. I remember one revival when we were in Sarasota, FL the miracles under that tent, for 3 weeks on end, changed my life forever!

It was good to reminisce with you, but praise the Lord, He is the same Yesterday, Today and Forever!

Sincerely

-- Anonymous, November 23, 1999

"That which is Perfect" How can you read Christ into that. My understanding is that "That which" refers to something neuter, which Christ is not. Some thing was in the process of coming to COMPLETION, so that at the same time those things which were in part would fade away, and or fail (That which is in part SHALL BE DONE AWAY) There appears to be, in context, the gradual ending of these spiritual gifts as the "Perfect" (complete) is accomplished. These considerations need to be attended to more carefully, then merely brushing them aside with a "Verbal dismissal." More as time allows.

-- Anonymous, November 25, 1999

You wrote: "'That which is Perfect' How can you read Christ into that." Shortly after I became a Christian in 1974, and I remember the conversation just like it happened yesterday, one of my mentors told me that spiritual gifts as described in the early days of the Church in the Book of Acts, ceased when The New Testament was produced and available for believers. He told me "that which is perfect" had come--it is The New Testament. Mostly, what he and others in this very, very large Southern Baptist church were telling me is that speaking in tongues, healing of the sick, casting out demons, etc, were not happening because they WERE NOT HAPPENING IN THEIR MINISTRIES!! If they were not happening anywhere, then the statement that Our Lord made in Mark 16 is totally inaccurate: "And these signs shall follow those that believe: in my name they shall cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." I my years as a Christian, and especially in my few years as a Pentecostal Christian, no one has ever shown me where Jesus said these signs will end. However, I CAN show you with confidence that when "that which is perfect is come", "that" being The Lord Jesus Christ, then we won't have need of the spiritual gifts that He spoke of. "Then, face to face; now I know in part, but then shall I know even as I am known." I WILL go face to face with Jesus and I WILL know, as I am known by Him. I won't have need of anything, including the gifts of The Spirit, when I am with Him. Sincerely, Claude Spink

-- Anonymous, November 30, 1999

Thanks Claude, But my basic premise about "How can Christ be neuter? was not attended to. In context following those things (neuter)that we only KNEW in part would be done away. What (Neuter) was coming to completion that the "in part" would be done away? Also we see the power of love enduring through it all, as it never fails. Yet we see that those other things mentioned would, fail and pass away. Thanks for listening. More as time allows.

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1999

Bringing Mark 16 into this thread is irrevelent to the discussion. That is a good one tho for another thread. We must not get deviated from the original question and Scripture posed. I would love to discuss with you the application or mis-application of Mark 16 with the current day. As the Lord wills.

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1999

Hey Claude, Raised anyone from the dead lately? Oh, and IMO the "they shall speak in new tongues." Doesn't say "Miraculous speaking in new tongues". Couldn't it simply be the natural by-product of becoming a missionsary? (In keeping with Christ's commandment to "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel"?)

Just thinking out loud...

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1999

To Nate:

Is that a serious question? It is difficult to get the spirit behind an electronic message. If it is a facetious question I think it is inappropriate, if sincere, my question would be to you; when was the last time you saved someone?

Next you are asking if Tongues today are simply a learned language of a missionary? If so, were the Tongues at Pentecost and subsequent Baptisms a learned language as well? My understanding of Tongues at Baptism is that it is a supernatural Gift of the Holy Spirit. If you have evidence to the contrary I would like to see the evidence in the Holy Scriptures.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1999

Nate: I don't understand your questions/comments. If you are asking me if I, by the laying on of hands, commanding "In the Name of Jesus, arise or come forth", have raised someone from the dead, the answer is "NO". Do I believe it is happening in places around the world? The answer is "YES!!"

To believe otherwise is to believe that God, Himself, has changed, and we all KNOW that is untrue.

To your second point:"miraculous tongue speaking". Where's the miracle? It is a language given By the Holy Spirit for two distinct purposes: 1. as shown in 1 Cor., tongues are a sign for the unbeliever. This specific type of "tongues" are for prophetic messages to the body of Christ. I see it occur, with interpretation, nearly every Sunday in the Church of God where I attent. I know two people who operate in these specific gifts of the Spirit, I speak with them regularly, I have been with them when the gift came over them and have experienced these manifestations first hand. I have seen the Power of God hit a service (ie, The Holy Spirit "fell" on the body, which IS Scriptural) and no one present could stand, totally overcome by the presence of The Lord. 2. For prayer. I have personally experienced the gift of "tongues" in prayer, a language that I do not understand because "we do not know what we should pray for, but the Spirit Himself" prays for us, Romans Chapter 8 (along with many other verses in the New Testament on "praying in The Spirit"). Tongues is also manifest in intercessory prayer. I HAVE SEEN AND HEARD intercessory prayer in tongues for specific needs and I HAVE SEEN AND HEARD intercessory prayer in tongues against spiritual adversaries; ie, I have seen spiritual battle between a Spirit filled believer and a demon spirit, all taking place in languages that I didn't understand, but they appeared to be in Far Eastern, perhaps Chinese, dialect.

Nate: you can accept these statements as fact or fiction. It matters not to me. I spent 19 years in a legalistic demonination and have, in the past two years, experienced the Baptism of The Holy Spirit (Acts Chapter 19: "Have you recieved the Holy Ghost SINCE YE BELIEVED?", and I am now a Spirit filled believer. I believe in the gifts of the Spirit being in operation today in the same manner and degree that they were in Peter, John, Paul, and the other disciples' day.

God bless you. Sincerely, Claude

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1999

CORRECTION: I spent 24 years in a legalistic demonination (my own opinion).

My head was somewhere else at that moment. Sorry.

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1999

Jack, You wrote: In context following those things (neuter)that we only KNEW in part would be done away. What (Neuter) was coming to completion that the "in part" would be done away? Also we see the power of love enduring through it all, as it never fails. Yet we see that those other things mentioned would, fail and pass away. Thanks for listening. More as time allows.

I have to keep in mind that the basis of our discussions and different interpretations is the very same reason why there are nearly 200 denominations of the Church, so, even though I may vigorously debate a point it will probably remain mute because the counter point is buried in doctrinal belief from your own denomination. But, here goes:

Question: Have tongues ceased? Question: Have prophecies failed? Question: Has knowledged vanished?

Those three conditions MUST occur for "that which is perfect" to have come. Not one, or two, but all three of them. We all KNOW the answer, because knowledge has not vanished, but, rather has greatly increased.

Final question: Do you, as I do, and as Paul did, still "see through a glass darkly"?

My conclusions are that the "mysteries of God" which are to be revealed to all of us when the blessed appearing of Our Lord Jesus takes place, are what "we see through a glass darkly". But, then, at His appearing, we will see Him face to face, and we will know (those mysteries) even as we are known.

THEN AND ONLY THEN, knowledge will vanish because "the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Col. 2:2-3. Hallelujah!!

When He appears, we won't have need of knowledge, because we will be with Him.

Love in Christ,

Claude

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1999

Thank you for the response and the manner in which you responded. In all honesty I did not see here a response to the initial thoughts and questions I posed, which you quoted back to me. There are many matters relative to the subject which I would like to deal with that you mentioned, but as I said before we must needs stick to the subject. PLEASE RESPOND TO MY INITIAL QUERY. It is so easy to get off the track with emotional responses of what we feel or experience.You did make a comment I must respond too however,having to do with a denominational bent. Praise God that I have never belonged to a denomination. I was called by God to be an "Evangelist" for the Lord, and doing my best to remain faithful to that calling. First of all I am JUST a "Christian" I have my hands full just following the Word of God without the denominational bias I have to deal with each day. I do my best, and still fall far short. So my friend please know that I have many downfalls but the following of any man-made religions is not one of them. I know that everyone talking about being a Christian is not necessarily one, in the Biblical sense of the word. God help us to be objective so that we may "Plow a straight line." Most of the bias I run into is because of emotional bent people get themselves into, rather than Rational and Objective. Please put a tread on here that the Christian Preachers can attend to that deals with some of these matters you raise.

Contextually but limitedly, let me respond to at least part of what you postulate, but please dont let this side-track us from the main query I put forth before. These three items you called attention to in verse 8 were not suddenly to cease when the sudden "completion" arrives. The syntax of this verse shows these were in a process of fading away as something else was coming to "Perfection" (Completion) at that time. They were only in part anyway, to accomplish Gods purpose in Gods time. At that time (When the completed was done)they would have vanished away. We need some greater discernment here about that which I understood was the initial Authors query. I hope what I have said makes sense, as I am not the best with words. Just want to add something of value. I look forward to your OBJECTIVE RESPONSE TO MY INITIAL QUERY? In Good Faith.

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1999

Jack,

You are correct, and I apologize. I was going off in a couple of different directions, but, like fishing with a net, trying to bring it all back into the boat when I finished.

I am going to try and compose a more lengthy explaination of why I believe "that which is perfect" is The Lord Jesus Christ, but first, to lay a foundation, consider this:

"That which" referring to something neutor as you stated, could easily be "Christ", because "Christ" means "the annointed of God".

If I said "that which" referred to Jesus', then you are right. To say that I am referring to "Christ" or "The Lord", then I am right.

The reasoning behind this is simple:

"thou shalt call his name Jesus." His NAME IS JESUS.

At the moment that Jesus was baptized by John, and the Spirit in the form of a dove descended and sat upon Him, He became The Christ: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because He hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor;" Luke 4. HIS TITLE IS CHRIST.

Upon His taking His position at the right hand of the Father in heaven, He became LORD. Philippians Ch. 2. HIS POSITION IS LORD.

For me to say "that which" refers to "Christ" is an absolutely correct pronunciation of referring to Jesus's Title as "The Christ".

Now, you and others may have a problem with this, but I don't; and I don't have time to expound on it further right now, but I will.

I hope that this is a more objective answer which I didn't give earlier.

sincerely and Love In Christ,

Claude

p.s., KIM, I am not a person schooled in Theology from a Bible University. I am just relying on the Holy Spirit leading me into all truth and teaching me what I need to know to be an effective witness for The Lord.

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1999

Jack,

My follow up to your previous request:

You wrote: "That which is Perfect" How can you read Christ into that. My understanding is that "That which" refers to something neuter,

1. Regarding something neuter:

Matthew 16, Peter proclaimed "Thou art THE CHRIST".

In 1 Cor. 13:10 I insert the following: "when THE CHRIST which is perfect is come"

or, "when THE LAMB OF GOD which is perfect is come"

or, "when THE ROSE OF SHARON which is perfect is come"

All signify the same to me.

2. you wrote: Some thing was in the process of coming to COMPLETION at the same time those things which were in part would fade away, and or fail which is in part SHALL BE DONE AWAY) There appears to be, in context, the gradual ending of these spiritual gifts as the "Perfect" (complete):

"prophecies shall fail"

"tongues shall cease"

These denote an immediate occurrance, not a process. At least that's the way I see it.

I don't know if I have answered you sufficiently, but my position remains the same: "that which is perfect", IMO, is THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, whom I will see "face to face" 1 Cor. 13:12.

Love in Christ,

Claude

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1999

Hi All, I usually do not do this, especially since up until today I was not aware of any site like this. Scott Sheridan contacted me and, because of my background, asked me to comment upon this discussion. I have downloaded the entire file and have read it with interest. Let me begin by saying that I am no stranger to this topic. I was a Pentecostal / Charismatic preacher for 18 years before becoming a Christian. I saw and did it all - slayed folks in the Spirit, saw visions, had words of knowledge, prophecied often AND spoke in tongues more than you all. Since becoming a Christian 10 years ago I have maintained ties with old friends and often speak with Charismatics on various topics. I am now an Evangelist, serving the Lord in Northern Ohio. When I became a Charismatic in 1971 the old Assembly of God preacher told me one thing - "read the book, son, and always follow the word". It was his admonition that caused me to walk away from the muddled thinking of the "Spirit-filled follies" in 1988. My Bible which tells me that the word is God is forever settled in heaven also tells me that the heart of man is decietful above all things. That being the case, I have adopted the philosophy for spiritual learning of asking "where is that in the Bible.?" I like Book, Chapter, and Verse for there is safety in that. The muddled type of thinking that I encountered as a Charasmatic has been properly represented in your discussions by quotes such as "while not everyone who practices the gifts is necessarily a Christian"[Vicki Sparrow]. Book, chapter and verse please. As for the challenge to the professors to debate the issue of tongues with a student at FCC, I was there on campus during this time. I know the several different reasons why this challenge was not taken up by the faculty and must say that I respect them for it. However, I should also say that as an ex-Charasmatic I forwarded an offer to debate this subject with the student in question but never heard back from him. Brother Kelly [Ed, I assume - Hi Ed!]has made several statements and asked a few questions that I would like to try and address. But, oops, I've got a study to do now... more tomorrow... Tom

-- Anonymous, December 01, 1999

Dear Brother Tom,

I am sorry to hear that you consider yourself and ex-charismatic, I have learned in my short time on earth that any thing I have learned should be used as a building block in my life. No matter where I go or whatever else I may learn in my remaining days it is all built upon the Holy Scriptures and the revelation of and my love for the Lord Jesus Christ, my Rock and my Salvation. If I find a Scripture I do not understand I pray and ask the Holy Spirit to lead me and guide me. This has been the greatest adventure of my life and praise the Lord for all that He has shown me and continues to show me!

Faithfully His,

-- Anonymous, December 02, 1999

Barry, "This has been the greatest adventure of my life and praise the Lord for all that He has shown me and continues to show me! "

HALLELUJAH!!! AND, A DOUBLE "AMEN"!!

I wouldn't trade ANYTHING for what I have experienced over the past 22 months.

In March of this year The Lord dealt with me in a special way: 34 hours on my face before Him, visions, prophetic words, many other aparitions. First time in my life I actually heard His voice and knew without a doubt that He was speaking to me. As the song goes "You will never be the same again".

May God continue to bless you and may we, together, witness the Truth in our emails on this board.

Eph. 1:17-21 KJV

Love in Christ,

Claude

-- Anonymous, December 02, 1999

Thomas,

You wrote: "I saw and did it all - slayed folks in the Spirit..."

Did YOU slay them in the Spirit? Just curious.

"I saw and did it all - slayed folks in the Spirit, saw visions, had words of knowledge, prophecied often AND spoke in tongues more than you all. Since becoming a Christian 10 years ago I have maintained ties with old friends and often speak with Charismatics on various topics..."

Were you NOT saved during this period of "Spirit filled follies" as you described it? And, was anyone saved under your ministry during that period? When I asked "saved", I mean born again, a new creature, ie, a new creation?

During this period of ministry was anyone ever delivered from demonic possession or oppression: drugs, alcohol, anger or rage leading to violent behavior, etc.? Did you ever seen someone under your ministry receive deliverance from generational curses?

Was anyone ever healed in a miraculous way that led to others being "born again" from witnessing the healing? (by "miraculous" I mean, the blind suddenly receiving sight, the lame suddenly receiving wholeness, etc.)

I know that's a lot, but, again, just curious.

Thanks and Love in Christ,

Claude

-- Anonymous, December 02, 1999

I'm back. Sorry for the delay - we had a 36 year old husband who suffered a heart attack this morning. Anyway, back to it...

As I said, brother Kelly has made a few statements and asked a few questions I'd like to try and address. > You have said, "There is insufficient evidence to say that the gifts had died". But this is exactly the testimony of the Post- Apostolic Fathers. Read their commentaries on 1 Corinthians 12-14. They say, "and the exact nature of such [tongues, etc.] is unknown to us since they have ceased".

> You have said, "we cannot assume that the gifts are completely gone or that the Holy Spirit does not function that way anymore". Here your logic is flawed. Any completely honest approach will not begin with an apriori assumption. Paul says to test the spirits to see whether they are of God. I personally have been around Charismatic phenomina for almost 30 years. I have tested the spirits against the Sword of the Spirit and found them wanting.

> As for you concern about Mark 16:16-18. The Greek word translated "will accompany" in your Englsih text is "parakolouthasei" [sorry, this format will not recognise the Greek text]. This is a special word occuring only three other times in the NT [Luke 1:3; 1 Timothy 4:6; 2 Timothy 3:10]. In all the other instances it is translated correctly "having followed". It is speaking of an event or events in the past that are historically completed but whose benefits are still continuing. The NKJV come close to getting the sense of this, but it still falls short in the English. The implications are clear - there would be a historical period of the miraculous, the benefits of which would continue to bless others. Now, if the linguistic argument does not make this clear to you, try the acid test. And please know here that I am not mocking anyone's faith. But IF your postion is that ALL of these signs will "accompany" ALL who believe then prove [test this to see if this is true] it. I am dying of a terminal blood disease. If you have the ability of coming and laying your hands on me and healing me like Mark 16:18 says, please, I am like the Macedonian man begging, come and help me! Don't make excuses about my lack of faith, because I believe that God can heal me. But IF you take this verse as a literal promise to ALL believers today then you MUST heal me because you are a believer!

> You have said many times that because the scriptures do not clearly [in your opinion] state that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit have cease that therefore that have not. Brother this is an argument from silence. Using your logic the Bible NEVER says that the church stopped meeting in Solomon's Portico, so it still must be meeting there; it does not record the death of the Apostle John, so he still must be alive; it never record anyone other than an ethnic Jewish man baptizing someone, so if you haven't been immersed by a Jewish man then you are not really baptized. See what I mean? Arguments from silence can lead one into all kinds of error.

> You have asked, "can the Charismatics all be wrong". Of course, no one but God alone can properly answer this question. But let me give you the benefit of my nearly 30 years of experience and observation. The official position of every orgainized Pentecostal and Charismatic denomination [and I was a member of the Assemblies of God & the Church of God, Cleveland, TN] is "faith only". Baptism, if practiced at all, was NEVER for the forgiveness of sin and was certainly NEVER to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Aside from this I have been aquainted with many independant "fellowships" over the years, I have been to National Charismatic meetings and have read extensively the Charismatic writings. I have NEVER heard or read one biblical message on how a person is to become saved! The closest that I have ever come to seeing a Charismatic group get it right about salvation is a small church which preaches Acts 2:38 and says that salvation IS at the moment of immersion but then they ADD "if your don't speak in tongues then you are not really saved". My point is this: if the teaching of any group is WRONG concerning salvation then it does not matter if they are able to raise the dead! So, can all the Charismatic be wrong? I don't know. But, all of the ones I have known were. And the acid test with them came when I taught the word to them concerning salvation and they told me, "I don't care what the Bible says, I know what... a)"I feel"; or, b) "the Spirit had told me", pick one.

> Closely related to this, you asked, "if Satan were to empower someone with a gift... why give it". This is easy: if folks are secure in their "gifts and experience" then they are secure in their theology. And if they are secure in a faith only theology then they are hellbound. This is Satan's purpose. In fact the Bible speaks of God's part in this in 2 Thess. 2:9-12, "The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." God help us!

> Barry Henson said, "Jesus himself declar[ed] what the power of God is - the Baptism in the Holy Spirit". I would like for you to consider Romans 1:16 - "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek." BTW, from reading your responses in this "string" I assume that Barry will be the one coming to heal me. ARE YOU A BELIEVER, Barry?

> Claude had written, "in some cases the Spirit manifest[ed] so strongly that we couldn't even stand on our feet". Where do you find this happening to the saints in the Bible? I'd like Book, Chapter and Verse. Now, I must admit this happened to folks when I would call them out of the audiance and "prophecy" over them, but even as a Charismatic I never saw this behavior in the Bible. So I would tell them to get up. They got up everytime I told them to.

> As for "tongues" in general: I have studied German, Latin and I have banged around in Greek for 26 years. The latter two languages are both "parent languages", that means that a LOT of modern day languages descent from them. In my nearly 30 years of listening to tongues speakers I have NEVER once heard a discrenable Earthly language. This seems remarkably unlike the biblical accounts. I have also put modern "interpreters" to the test and gone in and spoke in Greek to an assembly. I must report that their "interpretation" left everything to be desired.

> Let me share with you all a current situation here at Shelby. We have a young mother who became a Christian last Spring. She had gotten sick and the diagnoses was Cancer. She went to a Charismatic "healing service". She was told, "Thus saith the Lord, you are healed!" Guess what? She wasn't. Now her faith is a wreck. I am planning on going to the place where she was lied to and read to them the following: 'But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' 21 "And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'; 22 "when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." I will then propose that the false prophet be stoned to death - as prescribed by the Law. What do you think? Now I know all of the excuses - she didn't have enough faith; she doubted God's word and lost her healing; the "prophet is growing in his prophetic spirit and we cannot expect him to be right all of the time". Yeah, right.

> Barry, don't be sorry that I am an ex-Charismatic, I'm not. God can still heal and I've seen the miraculous from Him! But not from anyone with the "gift of healing". God has given a name by which His people are to be known and it is CHRISTIAN, not Charismatic.

> And finally, again Claude, no, I was NOT saved when I was a Charismatic. I had not followed the teaching of Christ and command of the Apostles to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. I had been told to pray and ask Jesus into my heart and was taught that that act saved me. And, no, no one was saved under my ministry for I preached a "faith only" gospel. Yes, people were freed from behavioral actions, but when anyone follows the word of God on a particular area - say dealing with anger - they will receive a blessing. But that does not mean that they are saved.

Whew, my fingers are tired. Hope this helps.

In Him,

Tom

-- Anonymous, December 02, 1999

Thomas,

1. "For by grace are you saved THROUGH FAITH, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, and not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph.2:8. "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou SHALT BE SAVED." Romans ch. 10 "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house (ie, family)." Acts 16:31 "Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Rom. Ch. 10.

IMO, NO WORKS, including baptism brings about salvation. Did the thief on the cross get baptized. NO!! But Jesus carried him into heaven with Him 3 days later.

Can anyone on their deathbed call upon the name of the Lord today, with true repentance, and be saved? YES!!

If they did so and then immediately died without being baptized are they actually saved? YES!!

2. There's no such thing as the "healing service". God heals whenever and whomever He choses, to bring glory to Him. My wife was healed while sitting in bed reading the Bible. I can still remember the Saturday morning that it happened. Like a bolt of electricity went through the house. AND SHE' STILL HEALED. Also, read James Chapter 5 "and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord SHALL raise him up." The woman with an issue of blood, Jesus said "Thy faith has made thee whole."

(Factually, we have ALL BEEN healed ALREADY, of every infirmity known to man.)

Since you have 30 years going for you, and with all that knowledge, you are, no doubt, familiar with the Scriptures that I recite.

3. More to come on the manifestions of the Spirit when He "falls" on a group of believers (or non-believers for that matter).I will have Scripture references to my statements.

God bless you and may He enlighten you. Ephesians 2:17-21.

Sincerely,

Claude

-- Anonymous, December 02, 1999

Claude,

"For by grace are you saved THROUGH FAITH, and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, and not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph.2:8. > Amen, preach it!

"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou SHALT BE SAVED." Romans ch. 10 > Amen, preach it!

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house (ie, family)." Acts 16:31 > Amen, preach it, BUT dont stop here, read on! Acts 16:32- 34, Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household. Shalt is future tense, what happened? They spoke the word of the Lord to him and IMMDEIATELY he and all his family were baptized. I wonder why they were baptized? Could it be that the need for immediate baptism and the word of the Lord were related?

"Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Rom. Ch. 10. > Amen, preach it. BUT, understand it too. Paul is using a very interesting phrase, call on the name of the Lord. What does that mean? Say a prayer and ask Jesus into your heart? BTW, that would be prayer regeneration. I know that you do not believe one becomes saved by saying a prayer because THAT would be a WORK! No, no, Paul is using a phrase that has nothing to do with praying BUT everything to do with baptism. Acts 22:16, 'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'

IMO, NO WORKS, including baptism brings about salvation. > Claude, no disrespect, but I am not interested in your opinion. I am interested in what the Bible says.

Did the thief on the cross get baptized. NO!! But Jesus carried him into heaven with Him 3 days later. > The thief on the cross lived and died under the Old Covenant! First of all you ASSUME that he was not baptized. This is an argument from silence! He well could have been baptized since, all Jerusalem and Judea were coming to John to be baptized". But more to the point, how could the Thief have been baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ since He has not died and resurrected yet? Oh, and carried him heaven 3 days later? Jesus said TODAY you will be with me in Paradise.

Can anyone on their deathbed call upon the name of the Lord today, with true repentance, and be saved? YES!! > Book, Chapter and Verse, Please?

If they did so and then immediately died without being baptized are they actually saved? YES!! > Book, Chapter and Verse, Please?

2. There's no such thing as the "healing service". God heals whenever and whomever He choses, to bring glory to Him. My wife was healed while sitting in bed reading the Bible. I can still remember the Saturday morning that it happened. Like a bolt of electricity went through the house. AND SHE' STILL HEALED. > Amen, glory to God! He is able to heal.

Also, read James Chapter 5 "and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord SHALL raise him up." The woman with an issue of blood, Jesus said "Thy faith has made thee whole." > This is a whole other string. The original language is specific and it had been very poorly rendered in English. Suffice it to say if you understand this as presented in the English then the results are 100% guaranteed all of the time. Here again, this verse is written to Elders & the supposed promise is that ALL of the Time the sick WILL be healed. Does this happen all of the time? No. Why not? The answer lays in a poor translation. Like I said, another complete string.

Since you have 30 years going for you, and with all that knowledge, you are, no doubt, familiar with the Scriptures that I recite. > Amen, and I believe them all.

3. More to come on the manifestions of the Spirit when He "falls" on a group of believers (or non-believers for that matter).I will have Scripture references to my statements. > I cant wait! But dont bother with the Spirits falling on non-believers, unless of course the application is to be made for non-Christian who are reading this forum and who also have the Spirit falling on them.

> My question to you, Claude, is this: I believe all of the Scriptures you have sent to me are true. The Bible says that we are saved by faith, saved by the blood, saved by grace, saved by Gods mercy, saved by calling on the name of the Lord, etc. It also says that we are saved [forgiven, redeemed] by baptism. So my question is this  what supernatural insight do you have to throw out certain verses and keep others? Where does the word EVER say that the Necessity of immersion for the forgiveness of sins is going to cease?

Contending for the faith once delivered,

Tom

-- Anonymous, December 02, 1999

To Tom:

You state:

"You have said, "we cannot assume that the gifts are completely gone or that the Holy Spirit does not function that way anymore". Here your logic is flawed. Any completely honest approach will not begin with an apriori assumption. Paul says to test the spirits to see whether they are of God. I personally have been around Charismatic phenomina for almost 30 years. I have tested the spirits against the Sword of the Spirit and found them wanting.>>>

I have completely honestly approached the Holy Scriptures, for you to accuse me of doing anything else in my mind makes EVERY comment you made suspect to my sincerity! You use the word apriori: I believe you mean a priori, there is a space between the "a" and "priori", and no this is not an assumption but the common sense that God Himself has given me as a person and a believer. I believe this is the very argument that Paul himself uses a few times within the Holy Scriptures themselves! Romans 1:19,20 and 1 Cor.11:14. So Tom, YOUR logic is flawed!

You have been around for 30 years and "tested" the "Charismatic phenomina". Well I guess I have to take YOUR WORD for it - I have been around the Pentecostal message for 20 years and have "tested the spirits against the Sword of the Spirit and have been very satisfied" and I guess ALL YOU CAN DO is to take MY word for it.

NEXT. Your exegesis of Mark 16:15-20 is nothing new to hear except if you read the verses IN CONTEXT. Jesus is speaking to the disciples concerning people who are yet to believe. If YOU THINK that verse 17 is past tense so is verses 15 and 16. Only an insincere person biased by his denomination would consider that verse 17 and 18 are not applicable for today.

I don't presume to speak for any one else but I do know Romans 11:29 (CHAPTER AND VERSE) states the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. I'm not sure what Bible you read, but my Bible tells me that God has given Gifts and Callings and He does not withdraw them.

Isn't this an ignorant statement?:

<<< I assume that Barry will be the one coming to heal me. ARE YOU A BELIEVER, Barry?>>>

Tom YOU claimed that your wife was healed? Did YOU heal her, did any man heal her? Obviously not, so please refrain from the sarcasm, it does not become a self proclaiming Christian. I simply quoted CHAPTER AND VERSE "these signs shall follow them that believe" and I believe the Bible as it is stated. How about you? Apparently not, you have stripped it of its meaning because it is convenient for you to do so.

Another statement:

<<< Barry, don't be sorry that I am an ex-Charismatic, I'm not. God can still heal and I've seen the miraculous from Him! But not from anyone with the "gift of healing". God has given a name by which His people are to be known and it is CHRISTIAN, not Charismatic.

You totally missed the point, which I am getting the impression, happens with you a lot.

FINALLY:

<<< Whew, my fingers are tired. Hope this helps.>>>

NOPE.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Now Tom to respond to your next post:

Tom, no disrespect, but I am not interested in your opinion. I am interested in what the Bible says.

If someone dies without being water baptized do they go to Hell? PLEASE SHOW CHAPTER AND VERSE.

You ask for chapter and verse:

<<< Can anyone on their deathbed call upon the name of the Lord today, with true repentance, and be saved? YES!! > Book, Chapter and Verse, Please?>>>

Romans 10:9,10

<<< If they did so and then immediately died without being baptized are they actually saved? YES!! > Book, Chapter and Verse, Please?>>>

Romans 10:9,10

NEXT. You state:

<<< There's no such thing as the "healing service".>>> PLEASE SHOW CHAPTER AND VERSE.

You state:

<<< Where does the word EVER say that the Necessity of immersion for the forgiveness of sins is going to cease?>>>

Where does it say that water baptism is necessary for salvation?

Contending for the faith once delivered,

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Tom

Thank you for your response to my comments. I will respond in like manner, but only as time permits. Some of the verses that I "quote", you and the other readers will be familiar with, so you will have to keep your Exhaustive Concordance handy.

1. Was the thief on the cross saved? Yes. Romans Ch. 10. WHOSOEVER is an all-inclusive word. It doesn't limit anyone based on anything, or any condition. Therefore, my father, who passed on in 1995, professing The Lord Jesus as his Lord and Savior, but, to my knowledge due to his deteriorating health, was never baptized is in heaven with Jesus, and I WILL SEE my dad in heaven.

2. You are correct on Jesus carrying the thief into Paradise with Him that same day. But I said that He carried the thief into HEAVEN three days later. Three days later, on the resurrection day, when Jesus made his FIRST ascention into heaven as our High Priest, Jesus "led capitivity captive" and carried the thief along with Abraham and Lazarus, and all the other Old Testament Saints into heaven with Him. At that point Paradise was emptied and "hell hath enlarged herself" (Isaiah Ch. 5), Paradise became a part of Sheol. That left a total of 4 worlds "under the earth" (Phil.2). Three of them were visited by Jesus during the 3 days that His body was entombed: "He that ascended, first descended into the lower most parts". He did not carry the thief with Him to those other areas. He had specific things to accomplish in those 3 days. Those 3 other areas that Jesus went to are: Sheol, the pit, and the prison. The fourth world under the earth is the lake of fire which is awaiting the Great White Throne Judgement Day when Satan, his angels, demons and unbelievers will be given their punishment.

3. You said the thief was under the Old Testament Coventant. I don't think so. At the Last Supper Jesus proclaimed the New Covenant, or New Testament, which is His Blood. I need nothing else for redemption. "for you were not redeemed with corruptable things like silver and gold, but with the precious Blood of Christ." The New Testament or New Covenant began the night before the cross in the Garden of Gesthsemane. This was the first of 7 places that Jesus shed His Blood. Each time He shed Blood, He repurchased (redeemed/ransomed) humanity from one of the curses brought on by the first Adam's fall. The fact that the New Covenant was in force at the time of the crucifixion is sufficient evidence to convince me that the thief was under the Blood of Jesus and not under the blood of goats, bullocks, etc.

4. Tom, it was either you or someone else that challenged me to show one place in the New Testament where people were saved and baptism did not occur immediately. I refer you to Acts Ch. 3:19 "Repent, therefore, and be CONVERTED, that your sins may be blotted out." And, Acts 4:4 "But many of them who HEARD the word BELIEVED, and the number of the men was about five thousand." As you know, this was the second large addition to the church, the first being on the Day of Pentecost where 3,000 were saved. In neither verse does Peter say they must be, or does it say that they were, immediately baptized.

Thank you for bearing with me.

Love in Christ,

Claude

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Brother Claude:

OUTSTANDING OBSERVATION!

5000 people Born Again and not a single inference to Water Baptism!

John 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that BELIEVE ON HIS NAME:"

Notice it doesn't say to them that believe on His name and are Water Baptized!

Standing for Truth

Barry Hanson

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Barry,

You have your experience and I have mine. One is just as legitimate as the other, but the word of God is the only sure thing. I am sorry if my experiences with Charismatic phenomena disturb you. I just got tired of seeing the sincere faith of sick folks attacked when the person with the gift of healing or the gift of prophecy or the gift of knowledge failed to get it right and blamed the innocent party.

I am sorry that you did not like my spelling of apriori, but that is how my Websters dictionary spelled it. As for Common Sense, I have observed that Sense is the least common commodity of the human condition. Again, as for your understanding of Mark 16, if you believe that this verse applies to you then please, in my deepest pleading  for I am dying, speak the word and it shall be so. Dont tell me you believe this about yourself and withhold mercy from a dying man. If you are unwilling to do this for me then please explain why. I have the faith to be healed!

>>I don't presume to speak for any one else but I do know Romans 11:29 (CHAPTER AND VERSE) states the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. I'm not sure what Bible you read, but my Bible tells me that God has given Gifts and Callings and He does not withdraw them.<<

Yes, this was historically true to the folks it was written to who DID have the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Again, if it is true of you, then exercise your gift on my behalf. So far all you are giving me are Words and I want to see the Power you possess.

>>Tom YOU claimed that your wife was healed? Did YOU heal her<< No, I did not say this. It was someone else on the string whose home was hit with something like an electric shock and his wife was healed. >>You totally missed the point, which I am getting the impression, happens with you a lot.<< Sorry, you feel this way. Please be patient with me.

>>If someone dies without being water baptized do they go to Hell? PLEASE SHOW CHAPTER AND VERSE.<< I think that for the moment I will be like Jesus here and say that if you answer my previous question that I posted yesterday, then I will answer this question. My previous question was: I believe all of the Scriptures you have sent to me are true. The Bible says that we are saved by faith, saved by the blood, saved by grace, saved by Gods mercy, saved by calling on the name of the Lord, etc. It also says that we are saved [forgiven, redeemed] by baptism. So my question is this  what supernatural insight do you have to throw out certain verses and keep others?

<<< Can anyone on their deathbed call upon the name of the Lord today, with true repentance, and be saved? YES!! > Book, Chapter and Verse, Please?>>> Romans 10:9,10 How does one call upon the name of the Lord? Acts 22:16. If you are going to reject this verse that PLEASE explain to us why.

<<< There's no such thing as the "healing service".>>> PLEASE SHOW CHAPTER AND VERSE. Excuse me, Barry, but that would be Claude who said that. Perhaps you should pursue this with him, it would be an interesting exchange Im sure.

>>Where does it say that water baptism is necessary for salvation?<< Well lets see (Mark 16:16 NKJV) "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. This verse says that both belief AND baptism are necessary for salvation. If you can throw out baptism then I can just as easily throw out belief. I chose to keep both, how about you? If you reject baptism here please explain to us why, how do you pick and chose?

(Acts 2:38 NKJV) Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Here Peter [through more than his common sense] says that baptism if FOR the remission of sins. If one refuses baptism then one refuses remission. If you reject the gospel here clearly proclaimed by an Apostle, please tell us why.

(1 Pet 3:21 NKJV) There is also an antitype which now saves us; baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This clearly says that baptism saves a person. Now can baptism without faith save someone? No! The Bible teaches that faith is necessary too. Salvation is a package, not a prayer. If you reject this verse as well please explain to us why.

Barry, please understand that I am not trying to be contentious, but I lived too long in denominationalism which insisted in pitting one verse against another. I have not rejected a single verse that anyone has quoted to me, please dont reject these verses above. Oh, and BTW, I do not belong to any denomination. I am just a Christian.

Tom

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Claude,

Since your #1 & 3 both deal with the Thief on the cross I will answer them together. Im not sure where you are going with WHOSEVER being an all-inclusive word. I believe the key here is understand in what it means to call upon the name of the Lord. In the OT this was always accompanied with actions. Jesus told the Apostles to make disciples of all nations, and then to immerse the disciples. Are you saying that folks do not need to be taught the word to become saved? And again, how did Paul [the writer of Romans] understand that phrase. To understand this you must go back to Acts 22:16 where calling on the name of the Lord was fused with the act of immersion. As for the Thief dying under the Old Covenant, I believe that you are entirely wrong. Observe Hebrews 9:13-17, For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh [the Old Covenant], 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Here the Bible clearly says that the New Covenant began after the death of Christ, not when He began to bleed.

As to #2, I will have to leave this for others. You may very will be correct.

As for #4. Scripture is a compressed record. We do not have all of the details of all the accounts  thats why the details in the Gospels are different. Claude, again, I would say to you an argument from silence is no argument at all. Did Saul believe in his conversion in Acts 9? Yes, of course he did! Does this account make the statement that he believed? No, it does not. So should I therefore make an argument from silence and say that he was not saved? Of course not! Beside, it says her was baptized. There is a technique used by writers so say them from endlessly repeating the same words. We use it in English today and the writers of the Greek NT used it too. It is called synecdoche  the mention of a part to indicate the whole. E.g. If I were to use the phase, that liar, when speaking of our current President, I would be correct. Now, the question begs is he JUST a liar. No, he is an adulterer and a convicted perjurer as well. But my synecdoche of liar is enough for you to understand the whole package. The writers of the NT did the same thing with many words, believe being one of them. Besides, think about it. Did Peters message of Acts 2 change? Was he mistaken at Pentecost? No, not at all. Missing details prove nothing. Again, if they did then Saul was NOT saved in Acts 9 for it does not say he believed. And on top of all of this, and here I am assuming, it does not say in Acts 3 or 4 that anyone said a prayer and invited Jesus into their hearts.

Tom

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Dear Tom,

Again you state:

<<< Yes, this was historically true to the folks it was written to who DID have the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Again, if it is true of you, then exercise your gift on my behalf. So far all you are giving me are Words and I want to see the Power you possess.>>>

I do not possess power to heal, read your Bible, God heals as testimony by your own mouth, I quoted the Word of God CHAPTER AND VERSE. "These signs shall follow them that believe" It is up to YOU to believe the Word of God YOURSELF!

NEXT:

<<< I think that for the moment I will be like Jesus here and say that if you answer my previous question that I posted yesterday, then I will answer this question.>>>

Isn't that conveinent!

NEXT:

<<< <<< There's no such thing as the "healing service".>>> PLEASE SHOW CHAPTER AND VERSE. Excuse me, Barry, but that would be Claude who said that. Perhaps you should pursue this with him, it would be an interesting exchange I'm sure.>>>

You seem quite confused as to what you do and do not say, On Dec.2 point # 2 you say and I quote: (I love the internet)

<<< 2. There's no such thing as the "healing service". God heals whenever and whomever He choses, to bring glory to Him. My wife was healed while sitting in bed reading the Bible. I can still remember the Saturday morning that it happened. Like a bolt of electricity went through the house. AND SHE' STILL HEALED. > Amen, glory to God! He is able to heal.>>>

I as well am not being contentious, IF as you say have downloaded this post and catching up on all that is being said then you will discover that the other "Christians" here believe I am going to hell (quite presumptuous to say the least).

I believe this is your position as well, as YOU have said YOURSELF, YOU were not Born Again when you were in our seats, I Defy YOUR fagade of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

The 1Peter 3 debate has occurred on another post entitled "1Peter 3 and Baptism" in that post I explain at LENGTH the meaning of Baptism as a "figure".

I am not pitting one verse against another, I believe the word of God to the letter, I believe what it says. If Peter or Paul or any writer of the New Testament has said at any one time in which way one is Born Again they must of NECESSITY provide the listener with a full explanation in the event that that individual may never hear the Gospel again. Therefore, when I see the Gospel presented to 5000 people and the "so called" necessity of water baptism neglected it IS telling me Water Baptism is not essential.

When I read Colossians, which is doctrinally FULL of the Gospel message and see not one reference to water baptism, I do not believe it is essential to salvation.

When I read Galatians, which is doctrinally FULL of the Gospel message and see not one reference to water baptism, I do not believe it is essential to salvation!

I do not want to read anything into your posts other than what you intend, but my friend, I am just a Christian, as well.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Tom,

You wrote: "Are you saying that folks do not need to be taught the word to become saved? "

"How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom. 10:14.

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Rom. 10:17

Tom, not to wrestle with semantics, but I accept the fact that "hearing the word" and being led by the Holy Spirit will bring conviction which leads to repentance, then to salvation (with or without baptism! I am through with that one. You have your understanding and I have mine, so now we can move on.).

My God richly bless you,

Claude

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Dear Barry,

Not that I think this is going to go anywhere, or that I stand the slightest chance of changing your mind

Thank you for admitting that you do not have the Mark 16 sign of they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover. Because you are not able to do this does not surprize me, nor do that indicate to me that you are not Christian. I am not a judge, I am a messenger.

NEXT:

<<< I think that for the moment I will be like Jesus here and say that if you answer my previous question that I posted yesterday, then I will answer this question.>>> >Isn't that conveinent! > It is just as convenient for you, my friend.

You seem quite confused as to what you do and do not say, On Dec.2 point # 2 you say and I quote: (I love the internet). "2. There's no such thing as the "healing service". God heals whenever and whomever He choses, to bring glory to Him. My wife was healed while sitting in bed reading the Bible. I can still remember the Saturday morning that it happened. Like a bolt of electricity went through the house. AND SHE' STILL HEALED. > Amen, glory to God! He is able to heal." > Yes, Barry, I said that QUOTING Claudes point #2 to me on December 2nd. Check the String! Claude said there in no such thing as a healing service, so get your facts straight attack him.

I believe this is your position as well, as YOU have said YOURSELF, YOU were not Born Again when you were in our seats > Yes, thats right. I was not born-again when I was a Charismatic. I have NOT said that you are not saved. I do not know you, I do not know what you have done in response to the gospel. God is the judge, so stop putting words into my mouth.

When I read Colossians, which is doctrinally FULL of the Gospel message and see not one reference to water baptism, > TRY Colossians 2:11-14, baptism is there.

When I read Galatians, which is doctrinally FULL of the Gospel message and see not one reference to water baptism > TRY Galatians 3:26-27, baptism is there.

Tom

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Tom,

You wrote: "When I read Colossians, which is doctrinally FULL of the Gospel message and see not one reference to water baptism, > TRY Colossians 2:11-14, baptism is there.

When I read Galatians, which is doctrinally FULL of the Gospel message and see not one reference to water baptism > TRY Galatians 3:26-27, baptism is there."

I ask sincerely, can you explain these two passages that you mention from Galatians and Colossians? KIM, that I am NOT a schooled Theologian, just a Born Again Witness for The Lord Jesus Christ, ready and eager, like a sponge, to soak up all I can get!!

Thanks, and Love in Christ

Claude

ps. Barry WAS referring to WATER baptism in his comment.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Tom,

Another one if you don't mind: you wrote to Barry:

"Thank you for admitting that you do not have the Mark 16 sign of they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover. Because you are not able to do this does not surprize me,"

Do you not believe that the laying on of hands is significant for: 1. healing the sick; 2. casting out unclean (demonic) spirits; 3. Baptism in The Holy Spirit.

In the same vein, do you believe that the transfer of the annointing power of The Holy Spirit through other objects such as in Acts 19 is available to the church today, and if not, why not?

Thanks,

Claude

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Tom,

Answering one of your earlier comments: "Im not sure where you are going with WHOSEVER being an all-inclusive word. I believe the key here is understand in what it means to call upon the name of the Lord."

We were discussing/debating the validity of whether a person on their deathbed could be saved not having experienced water baptism, and, frankly, we can debate it until the sun ceases to shine and will not know FOR CERTAIN until we are with HIM. But, where I was going with WHOSOEVER, is the same as the word FOREVER. WHOSOEVER has no boundaries, just as FOREVER has no boundaries. WHOSOEVER means anyone under any circumstance at any time, WHATSOEVER, who calls upon the name of The Lord.

Next, concerning what does it mean to "call upon the name of The Lord", I don't think there are any specific words that have to be used to get His positive response. The example we were discussing was "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom". Another example might be: "JESUS, PLEASE SAVE ME." SPLAT!!, as he hits the ground; his parachute didn't open. Was he saved? I think so. To you, probably not because he didn't land in a pond.

Well anyhow, I don't get hung up on words, like a canned type of speech or prayer. It has to come from the heart with sincerity and with a spirit of repentance, and He knows!!!

BTW, just to open up another thread on a prayer matter, Jesus said to His disciples pray like this "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done." We all know that His Kingdome HAS COME, don't we?!

Love in Christ,

Claude

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

HA!HA! "His KINGDOME"

You knew that my fingers were moving faster than my brain was, didn't you?!

NOT KINGDOME,(like in AstroDome), BUT KINGDOM!!!

Sorry!

Claude

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Tom,

This thread that I started- as of yet cannot be fully answered. Deep down- you as well as everyone else in this room knows that this answer can never be fully resolved. Why? Because it is due to the lack of biblical evidence. When I was a student at FCC, I heard all of the excuses for the "traditional" reasoning about the cease of the gifts- none of which have any real weight. Much of what we interpret are mere assumptions and not real facts that show us a "thus saith the Lord". We cannot assume too much. Sometimes, our restoration tradtions cloud the issue. But, even Barton W. Stone at the Cane Ridge Revival could not even understand what was going on as people became "slain" by these strange occurances. Please do not get me wrong- I am not Pentacostal- but, what I point out is this... we cannot and should not say that the "perfection" is the canon of the NT- because there is insuffiecent eveidence for that. We, cannot assume that due to hermeneutics that the gifts have ceased. Why? Because you can equally deduct that they still exist on the same assumptions. There is just not enough evidence. But, what we can say is that if God so chooses that a person can have that gift if it serves His overall purpose. I am not God, nor is anyone in this entire room. We must allow room for God to work. Many, in this room will say that the gifts ceased when the apostles died, which is a pure assumption. Yet, others may say that the gifts will continue till Christ returns. Is there a right answer? We cannot know for sure. Due to the fact that the evidence is ambiguous. John Locke, said that all knowledge must come through the senses, which Alexander Campbell uses to develope his hermeneutic. If John Locke is correct in his thought, then a person can test a spirit to see if it is from God when they experience it through the scriptures. Does what I am experiencing glorifing God or the flesh? The Holy Spirit will never contridict the Word of God. THus, if a person has been given a true gift of glossia- then let him use it according to the scriptures laid out in the NT.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Claude, I read your above post and it sounds that you are faith only. Well, have you ever considered that Baptism is not a work. Consider this, in baptism God cleanses you from sin and you receive the Holy Spirit ( Acts 2:38), thus you die and arise a new creation (Romans 6:1-6). Also, do you go under yourself... no someone lowers you to a spiritual death and lifts you up to a new birth. We do nothing in Baptism- God does it all. My faith in Christ and my penitent heart will lead be to be born again. But I cannot even be born again on my own it is God who does all the Work. But, I have to receive His promise of salvation - which is offered through the grace and mercy of God when I Beleive, Repent, and am baptized. Every conversion in the NT reflects this... not once will you read about a "sinners prayer" for salvation. UnLike the argument for the "perfection" where there is not much evidence either way- you do have the very weighty evidence that Baptism is needed as an essential part of salvation. You cannot be saved without faith. You cannot be saved without repentance. And you cannot be saved without baptism!

One thing I do have an argument with some charismatic circles is that they want to turn every case of water baptism into the Baptism of the Holy Spirit which is entirely different. I consider myself a spirit filled Christian, because when I beleived, repented, and was baptized I became filled with the Holy Spirit. Now I continue to pray that God's Spirit will further to fill me beyond comprehension so that I might grow mightier in Him.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 1999

Dear A. Kelley,

You wrote: "Consider this, in baptism God cleanses you from sin and you receive the Holy Spirit"

That is not what happened to me at all. I was saved, ie, "born again", John, Ch.3, I became a new creature, "old things passed away, behold all things become new.", and at that VERY MOMENT I received and was "sealed with The Holy Spirit", Who is "the earnest (ie, deposit) of my redemption" Eph.. I was baptized 1 week later.

My salvation occured the 1st Sunday of March, 1974, my act of obedience in baptism was the following Sunday night (by immersion) at the First Baptist Church, Jacksonville, Florida. It had nothing to do with washing away my sin or my sinful nature. That was done by The Blood of Jesus at the moment of salvation. That's called "justification" one of the 3 stages of salvation (read Paul's epistle to the Romans). I becamed "justified" in the sight of God because I had been redeemed by the Blood of Christ. That and that alone saved me from eternal damnation.

Love in Christ,

Claude

-- Anonymous, December 04, 1999

Claude,

Why play God? Are you God? No you are not. Why then do you rewrite the Bible. Acts 2:38 plainly states, "Repent and be Baptized each and every one of your in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." again, Mark 16:16 states, "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved and he who believes not, shall be condemned." Read Romans 6:1-6 about Baptism. Our new birth is not upon faith alone. Nowhere in the Bible does it state this. You receive the new birth when you accept the whole message and respond to it. For example I cannot get a homerun in baseball unless I run all the bases. Even in the World Series, one of the players hit a homer but they did not count it due to him not running all the bases. Salvation is the same... you cannot hit a homer with God unless you Believe, Repenent, Confess, and buried with Christ in Baptism (immersion). I admit one can go down a dry sinner and still come up a wet sinner. It is a matter of the heart. But, if we say I am saved when I only believe... well even the demons believe and are still hell bound (James). If we refuse to do what the Lord commanded all to do (baptism) have we truly believed and repented? I say no... why? Based on the authority of God's Word. You must be immersed, why? Romans 6 states that we have the spiritual seal of the cleansing of our sins when in Baptism to arise a new creature in Christ. I Peter 3:21 also tells us this as well for a good conscience, not the removal of physical dirt- a bath.

If you teach that baptism is not needed for slavation... then you are on dangerous ground. Every case of conversion in the book of Acts records that Baptism is an essential part of the salvation process. Even the disciples of John where immersed in John's baptism for repentance. But, they did not have the Holy Spirit... why? It was because in Christian Baptism we receive the Holy Spirit. And in John Jesus said without that Spirit we have not eternal life. Yes, some teach baptism exclusively without and emphasis on faith or repentance- with is a shame for them and doctrinally wrong. We must teach one to accept the Lord through faith and repentance for thier sins- but also to do what Christ commanded and all the apostles taught.

I am sorry that I took away from the topic of the "perfection" to clear the issue of salvation up. But, if we cannot resolve what the Bible says about salvation, how can we teach properly about the gifts? Brother Staffold has wisely put it that we must preach about salvation (true biblical salvation) regardless of what people think or the consequences.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 1999

Dear Tom,

I will respond, perhaps because I am an eternal optimist and that when I find error, truth should be shared, I have attempted and am attempting to allow the Holy Scriptures to speak for themselves, to help you see the truth. I am sorry to say that to this point most have been unwilling to let the Holy Scriptures speak, all I can say is that I have done my best and that your blood is on your own hands.

A few points I would like to address: You state:

<<< Thank you for admitting that you do not have the Mark 16 sign of "they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover". Because you are not able to do this does not surprize me, nor do that indicate to me that you are not Christian. I am not a judge, I am a messenger.>>>

For one who has asked not to put word in your mouth you certainly go out of your way to do the same! I said, and I QUOTE:

"I do not possess power to heal, read your Bible, God heals as testimony by your own mouth, I quoted the Word of God CHAPTER AND VERSE. "These signs shall follow them that believe" It is up to YOU to believe the Word of God YOURSELF!"

This is a far cry from myself admitting that the signs in Mark 16 do not follow me. IF you can understand, I SAID I do not possess the power to heal. IF this is your understanding of what Pentecostals teach no wonder you're so confused! ONLY GOD heals, it is up to YOU to BELIEVE and JESUS said signs would follow! Just let the Holy Scriptures speak for themselves PLEASE.

NEXT: You said:

<<< <<< I think that for the moment I will be like Jesus here and say that if you answer my previous question that I posted yesterday, then I will answer this question.>>> >Isn't that conveinent! > It is just as convenient for you, my friend.>>>

The problem you have is that YOU asked Claude the question TO BEGIN WITH. So YOU are avoiding MY question because I am not answering a question you asked of Claude? Perplexing?! IF YOU ask ME a question I answer it, but when I ask YOU a question you refuse because I'm not answering a question YOU asked someone else? ISN'T THAT CONVENIENT.

I'll quote you you're question so you won't be further confused:

<<< > My question to you, Claude, is this: I believe all of the Scriptures you have sent to me are true. The Bible says that we are saved by faith, saved by the blood, saved by grace, saved by God's mercy, saved by calling on the name of the Lord, etc. It also says that we are saved [forgiven, redeemed] by baptism. So my question is this - what supernatural insight do you have to throw out certain verses and keep others? Where does the word EVER say that the Necessity of immersion for the forgiveness of sins is going to cease?>>>

THEREFORE, since YOU asked CLAUDE to answer this question of yours, I am not obligated to answer and your little ruse of avoiding my question has been brought to light. I'm not sure what nit wits you're used to talking with, but so far you're right, with the type of logic YOU present this isn't going to go anywhere. MAYBE, YOU could NOW answer my simple question?

Where does it say that water baptism is necessary for salvation?

Perhaps I can get a straight answer for once? Still waiting..

I would like to address this somewhat valid point you made:

<<< Yes, Barry, I said that QUOTING Claude's point #2 to me on December 2nd. Check the String! Claude said there in no such thing as a healing service, so get your facts straight attack him.>>>

You were correct, you were quoting Claude. BUT if you read my posts you will quickly see that I go to lengths to make sure YOU know when I am quoting someone else, if you go back to your Dec.2 post I think you will agree with me that it does not look like you are quoting Claude but simply making a statement of fact. I am sorry for the mix up, I will take the responsibility on my end for not checking completely with the post. I would ask that you attempt to make it clearer when you are quoting someone else, thanks.

Next you state:

<<< I have NOT said that you are not saved. I do not know you, I do not know what you have done in response to the gospel. God is the judge, so stop putting words into my mouth.>>>

This was not an attempt to put words in your mouth, it was a perception I had made, I am sorry if I did put words in your mouth that was not my attempt. I am very glad to see you do not take the hard line that most others on this board have taken and consider me a brother in Christ since you DO NOT know me and my response to the Gospel. My testimony is that I am Born Again not by corruptible seed but of incorruptible by the Word of God which liveth and abideth forever!

FINALLY, you give me a couple of references to look at, which have many times:

<<< TRY Colossians 2:11-14, baptism is there.>>> and <<< TRY Galatians 3:26-27, baptism is there.>>>

REALLY? In either of these references you have provided can you show me, apart from your denominational bias, where WATER Baptism is mentioned?

I see the word "baptism" but there are a few different baptism's mentioned in the New Testament, WHEN I am HONEST with the Holy Scriptures I allow the CONTEXT of the verse explain to me what is being said. Along with the overall CONTEXT of the Holy Scriptures.

I appreciate the comments made by A.Kelly. I did want to mention that not every place it mentions baptism does it strictly refer to Water nor does it strictly refer the Holy Spirit baptism, we MUST allow the CONTEXT to let it say what it means!

Faithfully His,

-- Anonymous, December 04, 1999

Mr. A.Kelly,

I definitely appreciate the manner of communication you are using in your posts, I will do my best to reciprocate the same honest dialog. I agree 100% salvation is the utmost concern in any conversation you would have with a non-believer. Therefore, I would turn to such Scriptures as John 3:16,17; Romans 3:23-26; 5:8,19; 6:23; and 10:9,10.

After sharing these Scriptures I would confront the non-believer with this question: Do you understand Jesus' sacrifice for your sin? And, Will you make Jesus Christ Lord of your life at this time, thereby removing yourself as Lord of your own life? If the answer comes back YES to both of these questions, the above Scriptures indicate to me that the non-believer is now a BELIEVER!

What does it mean when a person is a believer? It means they are "saved" Rom.10:9-13 or "born again" John 3:7.

What does it mean to be saved? The Holy Spirit has come to INDWELL the life of a person who lives by faith Gal.2:20,21.

But how do we KNOW this person is not just saying a bunch of words, or if it is heartfelt and sincere? WE DON'T.

All we can do is now witness this person's life, does it produce the fruit of righteousness? Does this individual walk in obedience to the commandments of Christ?

The first step of obedience in the life of a new BELIEVER is water baptism. Water baptism being a COMMAND is an ACT of obedience on the part of a new believer MAKING it a WORK.

James 2:20 indicates that faith without works is dead. Therefore the work of Water Baptism indicates that a person possess an active faith as oppossed to the devils who do not.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, December 04, 1999

MY LAST POST!!!

God bless each and every one of you. I feel that the divisions on doctrinal issues so great that it is futile and a waste of time to carry on here. I will spend my time CONTINUING in sound doctrine and sharing with unbelievers the marvelous love of Jesus and what He can do for them just as He has done for me.

**************** Final response to Mr. A. Kelley and anyone else on this board.

I WAS saved in March 1974 from the ultimate penalty for my sin by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I WAS born again, just like Jesus told Nicodemus in John Ch. 3.

The ONLY THING that saved me from the "wages of sin", ie, the wrath of God, ie, eternal damnation, was the Blood of Jesus. Romans 5:9 "being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."

I STAND ON THIS DOCTRINAL PRINCIPLE. IT IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR MY REDEMPTION (1 Peter 1:18-19).

There are three stages to salvation: Justification, santification, and glorification.

1. Justification is being saved from the penalty of sin. That takes place when a person becomes born again. In the eyes of God I was JUSTIFIED BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS AND THAT ALONE RESCUED MY SOUL FROM HELL.

2. Santification is being saved from the power of sin and occurs over time in the walk of the believer, as he/she grows in the faith. "Sin shall not have dominion over you." Rom. 6:14.

3. Glorification is being saved from the presence of sin, when I will receive a glorified body and am in His presence.

I will never preach any other gospel than the Blood of Jesus. It is all that is required for redemption/justification for the lost soul.

Sincerely,

Claude Spink

-- Anonymous, December 04, 1999

To Claude:

Will miss you here, come back any time! Thanks for your contribution to sharing the Truth of the Gospel!

I will never dilute the Work of Christ with the necessity on my part to be water baptized. As 1 Peter 3:21 states, water baptism is a figure of the actual baptism we have into Christ.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 1999

As much as a dont want to get off the track of the subject, I feel I must because of what Barry and Claude had to say. If you attempt to rely on your Faith to be with God forever, it wont work. You dont have the EVIDENCE needed. Read I John 5:8. It always amazes me how people take verses out of context or imply a word in context that is not there, nor implied. So many are misled because of thinking that the word "Only" is there where "Belief or Faith" is used> They use it about Faith, Repentance, Confession and yes, sometimes about Baptism.

The only way salvation is made available to us is through the death of Christ. Romans 6 makes it very clear where and when we contact the blood of Christ following Faith, Repentance and confession. Baptism is passive (NOT A WORK OF MAN). but, it is a work of God. Man submits To the work of God by being buried into Christ in Baptism. (It is a burial!) The Roman Christians forgot what had transpired in their life and needed a reminder. They could not continue in sin and expect the Grace of God rendered at Baptism to cover them indefinately in such circumstance. The Bible has many Salvation Similies describing what happens when they are Baptised into Christ. JUSTIFICATION, SANCTIFICATION, ADOPTION, ELECTION, SALVATION, REDEMPTION, etc. They are not different steps in some man-made consecutive order. They all speak of our Salvation describing various aspects involved. It is painful to hear people leaving out what God has put in. If God would have wanted a sinners prayer put in there somewhere, he would have done it. Here the Apostle Paul. "For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be OBEDIENT in all things." Written out of deep love and concern.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 1999

Dear Jack,

I sincerely ask you to re-read Romans Chapter six, the entire chapter if you wish, and then explain to me where in chapter six it mentions WATER baptism. I have re-read the chapter myself, if I am missing it here please point out where Paul even uses the word "WATER". I am being as sincere as I can possibly be.

When I read Romans chapter six, I see the Holy Scriptures explaining that I am immersed, BUT when I allow them to say what they are saying without imposing any denominational bias upon them, they say to me that I am Baptized INTO CHRIST! NOT INTO WATER!

If I am miss reading something here please correct me. But Romans 6:3 says, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized INTO JESUS CHRIST (NOT WATER) were baptized into his death?"

Therefore, I conclude that water baptism is a figure (1Peter 3) of the actual baptism into Christ. The Holy Scriptures are replete with the revelation that I am IN CHRIST. This baptism into Christ happened at salvation and water baptism is a figure of the supernatural work of Christ to baptize me into His body Colossians 2:10-13!

Faithfully His,

-- Anonymous, December 04, 1999

Barry, I have a deep respect for you by reading your posts, but I have to say that you are wrong on the Baptism issue. The very Greek word of Baptism or Baptize is the word baptizo which means to immerse totally or to plunge. Every Greek scholar will agree that the original word for baptize is to refer to water baptism. I am not trying to see with denominational eyes, in fact I reject all denominations on their bias toward the scriptures. What many try to do is to make baptism like a magic trick- which it is not. Yes, it is an act of ones true faith and penetent heart towards Christ.But also it is more spiritual and has more meaning than just a rite of the church. I studied Greek for two years in College and in my Masters degree program- and I can honestly tell you that Romans 6:1-6 refers to water immersion. Every case in the NT of conversions all refer to water immersion. Yes, belief and repentance come first but one MUST be baptized because there is no option. Baptism is commanded by Christ. Why? Because we meet the blood of Christ in Baptism that washes away our sins. I feel so strongly about this matter that I am willing to stake my life and soul on this issue. I believe the Bible when Peter declares in Acts 2:38 that you must repent and be immersed. Why? Peter says not me that it is for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter did not say believe and repent and as a sign of your obedience go and be immersed when every you can... no it was said in one simple statement. What I encourage you to do is to truly soul search. Read the bible and all the conversion examples in the scriptures. Pray over them and listen to the Holy Spirit. He will lead you and guide you. There are many voices in the world and even on Christian TV- listen instead to God who will speak to you. Then answer me these questions. Why does God truly desire one to be immersed? What do the scriptures all say about it? What do many people teach about it? I hear all the time from television preachers... say this simple prayer of faith then you are saved... does this go against what the Bible teaches? Let the Bible speak for itself.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 1999

 We all must use logic consistently. If you are rejoicing that 5000 people were saved and no one was water baptized in Acts 3 & 4, which again is an argument from silence and proves nothing. Again, the facts have been misrepresented: Acts 2:41 says about 3000 were saved, 2:47 says that more were added daily. Then Acts 4:4 says the number of the men came to be about 5000. That would be the total number of the entire church about that time, not just the new converts of Acts 3. But for arguments sake lets say that you are right. Now lets apply your logic again to this case and what do we have? The scripture does not say that any of the 5000 were Spirit baptized. Now that is no problem for Barry since Pentecostals generally believe in an initial evidence of the Baptism of the Spirit which is tongues, then after that the gifts of the Spirit, then after that the anointing of the Spirit. But, this absence of any kind of baptism in Acts 3 & 4 presents a devastation problem for Claudes Baptist theology, for if he applies logic consistently then these 5000 people did not receive the Spirit when they believed because the text does not specifically say that they did. Therefore, they did not have the Spirit.

 Closely related to this is the whole question of Baptism. I think we have come to understand that in the Acts, Romans, Galatians & Colossians passages that we are either speaking of Water or Spirit baptism. Now in Matthew the Lord COMMANDS people to go, make disciples and baptize them. This is obviously referring to Water baptism since People are the one who administer that. It cannot be referring to Spirit baptism since Jesus alone is the one who administers that. In Acts 2, Peter Commands the repentant Jews to be immersed; in Acts 8, Philip baptized the Samaritans when they believed; in Acts 8, Philip also immerses the eunuch in water; in Acts 9 & 22, Ananias immersed Saul to wash away - not pray away, not believe away  his sins; in Acts 10, Peter Commands the gentiles to be immersed in water; in Acts 16, Paul immerses the Jailer and his family; in Acts 18, Paul immersed Crispus; in Acts 19, Paul immersed Ephesian disciples. In all of these cases the people were obedient AND passive. The Command for believers is to Go and Baptize [in the Active voice]. The Command of the Apostles, et al, are literally PASSIVE, that is allow yourself to become immersed. The problem in understanding any of the above passages as Spirit immersion is that Jesus Himself is the administrator of this and the Apostles at Pentecost and the Gentiles in Acts 10 did not have to do anything  either ACTIVE or PASSIVE  for Christ to work. He just did it.

 Claude, as to explaining immersion in Gal. 3., again, if the choices are Water or Spirit, then the sentence structure of verse 27 makes it clear. It says, for as many of you as were immersed into Christ have put on Christ. Now if this were referring to Spirit immersion it would read, for as many of you as were immersed BY Christ have put on Christ, or perhaps, for as many of you as were immersed with the Spirit have put on Christ. The fact that the preposition into is employed instead of by indicated an external agent, not Christ, acted and as a result of that action the Galatians came into Christ. The Greek preposition here is eis and it means into or unto. If Paul had meant to indicate here that Christ has been the administrator of a Spirit immersion then he would have used another preposition [en with a Dative; hupa with a Genative; or dia with a Genative]. The external agent is the person immersing a believer INTO Christ.

 Claude, as for you question to me of Mark 16, all I can say is look at the context of this passage. It says, they will lay hands on the sick and they will recover. This passage does not speak about the laying on of hands to cast out demons, not does it deal with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. My contention here was simply that Barry claimed that the ability to heal the sick was a sign that must of necessity Accompany those who believe today. After much give and take he finally admitted that this ability certainly does not accompany his faith. It says they, that is believers, will lay their hands on the sick and that the sick will recover. If this is understood for today, is this not the gift of healing of 1 Corinthians 12? And BTW, Barry, unless Pentecostals have radically changed their doctrines in the past few years, they taught that people could have the gift of healing today.

 Clause, you asked me, in the same vein, do you believe that the transfer of the anointing power of the Holy Spirit through other objects such as in Acts 19 is available to the church today, and if not, why not? No, I do not believe this is happening today for two reasons. First of all the hankerchiefs and aprons were coming from the Apostle Paul, who definitely did have the power to heal and work miracles. And since there is not a person alive today who is biblically qualified to be an Apostle, we do not have the beginning criteria. Secondly, I do not believe it because I have not seen it. I have a HUGE file here in my office with is overflowing with pieces of the cross, blessed pieces of gospel tents, prayer cloths and aprons, blessed mustard seeds, Revelation prayer Rubies, etc. All of these were sent to me by various Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists and were guaranteed to heal me and make me rich. I am sorry to report that none of them have thus far worked. Now, can God heal me? You bet! Is that His will? I dont know, but I keep praying.

 Oh and Barry, you are putting words into my mouth again. Here is your quote >>>>> I am very glad to see you do not take the hard line that most others on this board have taken and consider me a brother in Christ since you DO NOT know me and my response to the Gospel. <<<<<<< Barry, I did not say that I considered you to be a brother in Christ. I simply said that I am not the judge. We are to be judged by the word of Christ [John 12:48]. To consider you to be either a pagan or a saint is for me to engage in judgment. God is the Judge, I am a messenger.

 And finally here is something for us All to thinks about. If I and my fellow nit wits are wrong about the necessity of immersion for salvation then we are just wet nit wits who are still going to heaven because we have believed. If on the other hand we are right and immersion is necessary for salvation then we are wet / obedient nit wits who are bound for heaven. And you, who are not nit wits at all, will be having a very interesting conversion with Christ explaining to Him why you taught people to ignore His commands.

Tom

-- Anonymous, December 05, 1999

Dear Brother Tom,

You have given only two options for the text in Galatians, Water and Spirit. I believe, if you read the Holy Scriptures, you will see that it says "immersion" INTO CHRIST, not WATER and not SPIRIT! Is this really that hard to see or read? Let the Holy Scriptures say what they say without imposing your own bias upon them.

At the outset of this dialog Tom you stated:

<<< Scott Sheridan contacted me and, because of my background, asked me to comment upon this discussion. I have downloaded the entire file and have read it with interest. Let me begin by saying that I am no stranger to this topic. I was a Pentecostal / Charismatic preacher for 18 years before becoming a Christian. I saw and did it all - slayed folks in the Spirit, saw visions, had words of knowledge, prophecied often AND spoke in tongues more than you all. Since becoming a Christian 10 years ago I have maintained ties with old friends and often speak with Charismatics on various topics. I am now an Evangelist, serving the Lord in Northern Ohio.>>>

Are you sure you were a Pentecostal preacher for 18 years? I only ask for clarification, seeing how as I can only take you at your word, but your word is becoming less credible to me. One tip off that I had right away is the wording you used to introduce yourself to us all.

<<< "I saw and did it all - slayed folks in the Spirit, saw visions, had Words of knowledge, prophesied often and spoke in tongues "more than you all".>>>

This is not the wording of any Pentecostal minister friends that I know, they are familiar words of self appointed and ego centric "messengers" who feel "they" have "a word from God" for "the people". Apparently, these Gifts of the Spirit that you mention so casually were not all that incredible to you! I have wept when the Word of Knowledge was operating through me to touch the lives of God's precious people. When anyone was "slain" I stood in amazement as people testified of being delivered from drugs, and then seeing them months, years later serving the Lord in their local Church. The Few "visions" I have from the Lord have affected the way I live my life up to this very moment. I live in the inspiration of a picture the Spirit gave me 6 years ago of the Last Days, and even today as I pioneer a Church as a result of a vision for reaching my generation with the Gospel of Peace! And indeed a day does not go by when I do not "build myself up on my most holy Faith by praying in the Holy Ghost"!

Without belaboring to many points:

<<< Barry, I did not say that I considered you to be a brother in Christ. I simply said that I am not the judge. We are to be judged by the word of Christ [John 12:48]. To consider you to be either a pagan or a saint is for me to engage in judgment. God is the Judge, I am a messenger.>>>

I put that statement in my last message on purpose to see how you would respond (definitely knew you wouldn't let that go by) I wanted to see what you would say. Although I am surprised that as a "messenger" God didn't appoint you as the messenger to "judge me", which is the overall impression I get from this whole site.

Lastly:

<<< And you, who are not nit wits at all, will be having a very interesting conversion with Christ explaining to Him why you taught people to ignore His commands.>>>

I have never diminished the obligation of CHRISTIANS to follow the commandments of Christ. To attempt to teach non-believers to obey the commandments of Christ is nonsensical. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I do not believe you were ever a Pentecostal preacher for 18 years. IF you were you would know that we teach people to observe all of the commandments, and the first one that should be observed is water baptism.

Faithfully His,

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

A.Kelly,

I much prefer your less confrontational method of discussion, and I appreciate your sincerity when presenting your case. I however, have spent so long in prayer concerning this whole matter and have been so brutally honest with myself and the Holy Scriptures that I have to say that I cannot agree with you folks. Perhaps the only place we will "get together" is in glory (even though you folks do not think I am going :o).

I know the Holy Scriptures, and realize the first Believers baptized new believers immediately FOLLOWING salvation. In every situation in Acts, with the exception of Acts 4:4, these people were water baptized AFTER they believed! It only takes a moment to believe, and water baptism is a figure of the actual immersion we have into Christ through Faith. In the Greek there are upwards of 5 different words for baptism and only one of them refers specifically to immersing in water, which is baptiso. Not every time the word "baptism" is mentioned in the Holy Scriptures is it talking about immersion INTO WATER! There is immersion into the Holy Spirit and there is immersion into CHRIST and there is even an immersion into SUFFERING that the Holy Scriptures allude to.

I have been obedient to Christ as a believer and have been immersed into water. This was a beautiful event that 1) displayed my obedience as a born again believer in following Christ's command, 2) produced fruit of righteousness, 3) was an ACTion on MY part, a WORK to indicate that my faith was not dead being alone, and lastly 4) a testimony to all who witnessed that I was in Christ.

Mr. Kelly, you make a statement I wish you could elaborate on:

<<>>

How can you tell me this? I am not trying to be being belligerent, I want to know where it says WATER baptism and HOW you arrive at this understanding?

A couple more questions, I have seen this concept mentioned more than once:

<<< Because we meet the blood of Christ in Baptism>>>

Is this a Biblical term? We meet the blood of Christ in Baptism? Just curious.

Lastly, if we are born again at water baptism, how is it in Acts 10:44 -48 Cornelius and company were speaking in Tongues BEFORE they were water baptized? My doctrinal understanding is that a person must be born again for Christ to immerse them in His Spirit. Christ does not immerse nonbelievers in His Spirit. That being the case, Cornelius and company were obviously born again BEFORE water baptism.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

I apologize for the italics, it is a by-product of a quote I was attempting to make.

Mr. Kelly, you make a statement I wish you could elaborate on:

+++ I can honestly tell you that Romans 6:1-6 refers to water immersion.+++

How can you tell me this? I am not trying to be being belligerent, I want to know where it says WATER baptism and HOW you arrive at this understanding?

A couple more questions, I have seen this concept mentioned more than once:

<<< Because we meet the blood of Christ in Baptism>>>

Is this a Biblical term? We meet the blood of Christ in Baptism? Just curious.

Lastly, if we are born again at water baptism, how is it in Acts 10:44 -48 Cornelius and company were speaking in Tongues BEFORE they were water baptized? My doctrinal understanding is that a person must be born again for Christ to immerse them in His Spirit. Christ does not immerse nonbelievers in His Spirit. That being the case, Cornelius and company were obviously born again BEFORE water baptism.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

How many baptisms are there? My Bible says one (Eph 4:5). ISTM that for someone to uphold more than one baptism, they could just as well uphold more than one Lord, more than one faith, etc. I am not accusing anyone of claiming that, but it would seem to follow.

Since there is only one baptism, it behooves us to figure out which one. We know it is not John's baptism for when Paul met those from Ephesus (Acts 19) that had been baptized by John, he told them there was a difference and that John's did not go far enough.

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is only mentioned as happening twice in the NT (Acts 2 & 10). It evidently had not been happening in the 10 years between those two chapters because when Peter goes back to the Church at Jerusalem to tell them about the events that happened, he said that it (the baptism of the Holy Spirit) fell on the Gentiles "just as He did upon us at the beginning" (Acts 11:15). Even if someone holds that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is what happens when baptized for forgiveness (as Demastus does) you still only have one baptism. It follows that if the one baptism is not John's and is not the Holy Spirit baptism, then the one baptism left is the one of the Ethiopean Eunuch ("Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" Acts 8:36). It is the same water Jesus said we must have in order to be born again (John 3:5) (Unless someone is willing to make the silly proposal that Jesus is speaking of amniotic (sp?) fluid). Peter stated in Acts 2:38 to "repent and be baptized (water)...for the forgiveness of sin and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

If baptism occurs at the moment you believe, then the people in Acts 2, once they believed would have been spiritually baptized. They then asked Peter what they had to do. Peter tells them to repent and be baptized. Why, if they had already been baptized?

It has been said that a person is baptized BECAUSE they have been saved (if not on this thread, I've seen it on anohter). If we follow that thru then Peter tells them to repent BECAUSE they were already saved. ISTM that salvation is not something I want to repent of.

Romans 10 keeps getting brought up as a means of salvation. Does it matter that Paul addressed this letter to the Church at Rome (1:7 - "to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints"). Saints are already Christians so Paul would not be telling them HOW to become one, he is reminding them of WHO they are are what priveleges they have AS CHRISTIANS (I'm not yelling, just emphasizing).

Just thought I'd stir the pot some more.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

Barry, again I appreciate your kindness toward me in this discussion. I am not the great crusader of truth, justice and the american way. But, I do wish to tell you what I believe and why. First I would like to say that I do have great respect towards someone who can travel and hold "tent revivals", indeed it is a calling that not everyone can answer and fill. My prayers are with you.

As for my understanding of Romans 6:1-6, note whom Paul is addressing. The Christian Church was already established there, thus in the first chapter Paul desires and longs to be there one day to give them a spiritual gift. Paul's whole letter is to assure them of their faith and standing in Christ Jesus... "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus..." (Romans 8:1). But, in chapter 6 Paul tell the church there in Rome that through their baptism into Christ their sins where buried and they died to sin. THus, when they come up from the baptismal waters they are resurrected as Christ is. Now you may ask, "How do we know this was water baptism?" Well, according to my Greek NT, the Greek word is the aroist passive form of the "baptiso" which means to literally immerse or pludge under water. What aorist passive indicates, is that not only was this something that already happended in the past but it was not a work that they did in fact it was something that they did not do. If you consult any linguistic Greek work this will confirm what I said. What I understand is that baptism is not a work but a beautiful union with Christ. In water baptism we are immersed into Christ death, thus being covered by His blood. We are identified with Christ, so seal our faith in Him. THus, as we are born from water and the blood, we can have the assurance of eternal life... "Now if we died with Christ, we beleive that we will also live with Him" (Rm 6:8). Our faith in CHrist will naturally lead us to repent of our sins and be baptized in water. Thus, we the whole process is complete then we are assured of salvation. Our initial act to go down in the water kills the old sinner, and God does the cleansing and I come up a Son of God, and a coheir with Jesus.

I am sorry for some in this room who may present a very arrogant view on this topic or on the topic of spiritual gifts. In my personal view, we need to learn from the Pentecostals about the gifts. In fact one day I forsee a Christian Church that can be exciting and dynamic using the gifts, which I feel do still exist, but also hold true to our understanding on salvation.

Well I have to go somewhere with my elders... more later.

A Kelley

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

Scott,

I have heard the question about Eph.4:5 brought up before, you are correct, which Baptism is Paul talking about? Since it mentions only one Lord and Spirit and one faith etc We must determine which baptism it is discussing. Since it is discussing the Body of Christ, His Lordship, the Holy Spirit and faith, I (and I emphasize the I) take it to be talking about the "one" baptism that is relevant to the Body of Christ, His Lordship, the INDWELLING presence of the Holy Spirit and the "one faith" for that "one baptism". Which baptism is it that would refer to all of this? It would be the baptism INTO Christ that we read about in Colossians 2, Romans 6, and Galatians 3, not water baptism which is but a "figure" 1 Peter 3 of this actual baptism into Christ.

I am not sure why you make this statement:

<<< The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is only mentioned as happening twice in the NT (Acts 2 & 10).>>>

Acts 8:17; 9:17; and 19:1-7 all refer to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Acts 19 being long after the Day of Pentecost and the experience at Cornelius' house, indicating that the Holy Spirit Baptism was still a major part of the Gospel well into the first century.

If your trying to make the argument that the Holy Scriptures teach only one baptism exists, which I have heard before, you need to read Hebrews 6:1-2. One of the last books written in the New Testament, Paul is telling us (if you believe Paul is the author) there is a Doctrine of Baptism's, plural! He goes on to say that this Doctrine of the Church is foundational and is really quite elementary! It amazes me the confusion to this simple Doctrine of Baptisms.

Therefore, Ephesians is not teaching ONLY one baptism, merely that there is only ONE baptism that is integral to salvation. I believe this is the same point you are attempting to make with water baptism. Since only one baptism can save you folks argue that it must be water baptism. I believe you think Ephesians is teaching only one baptism exists today, which is clearly not the case in Hebrews 6.

Obviously, we are not going to agree, but hopefully you can see that other believers have put as much prayer, thought and honest searching into the Holy Scriptures as yourselves. My salvation is as real to me as you claim yours is to you. I am not on my way to hell because you folks interpret a few Scriptures in a different manner than I do. When I am honest with the interpretation you folks present I must admit I have a hard time accepting that you are trusting Jesus apart from works to save you. I will however give you the benefit of the doubt since you say that Jesus is Lord.

Another question I would like to answer and then ask a follow up question:

<<< Peter tells them to repent and be baptized. Why, if they had already been baptized? >>>

I am not sure if I understand your question 100%. Water Baptism is a figure (1 Peter 3) of our baptism into Christ that happens at salvation. You're asking me why Peter encourages these people to be baptized? Because Jesus commanded them to baptize new believers, also it is an act of obedience on the part of a new believer to show his faith is not dead.

Next:

<<< It has been said that a person is baptized BECAUSE they have been saved (if not on this thread, I've seen it on anohter). If we follow that thru then Peter tells them to repent BECAUSE they were already saved..>>>

I don't follow your logic, sorry, again I'm not trying to be difficult. I read this passage in this light; Peter tells them to repent, once true repentance has taken place one is water baptized because of their remission of sins. The meaning of verse 38 can be taken 1 of 2 ways. (You can accuse me of playing linguistic gymnastics, to which I can only reply, I am being as honest with the meaning of this verse within the CONTEXT of all of Scripture as I can possibly be.) Water baptism follows true conversion, I see Peter saying this, because of the remission of sins "be baptized". I think I am making myself clear, you may have heard this argument before, unfortunately all I can say is that I hadn't heard it until after I had studied the verse out on my own. (It was actually kind of funny because I thought I had come upon an understanding no one had as of yet only to find it was commonly understood this way :o)

Lastly:

<<< Does it matter that Paul addressed this letter to the Church at Rome (1:7 - "to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints"). Saints are already Christians so Paul would not be telling them HOW to become one, he is reminding them of WHO they are are what priveleges they have AS CHRISTIANS (I'm not yelling, just emphasizing).>>>

It matters as much to me as EVERY letter Paul wrote was addressed to Christians. Therefore, to carry your argument to its conclusion, not a single verse could be telling them HOW to become born again, only that he is reminding them of WHO they are(?) Obviously at any point in a conversation (particularly within the context of Chapter 10) a discussion by Paul concerning his desire that Israel be saved, he could interject his thoughts on HOW anyone would become saved. I believe this discussion was carried on in length on another post where my messages have been deleted. Nevertheless, the entirety of the New Testament was written to believers and, in my mind, makes that suggestion nonsensical. (sorry).

(I hope I haven't carried on too long) I have to run and I was not able to post until this time (server was busy) sorry Mr. Kelly, I will not be able to respond until tomorrow.

Faithfully His,

-- Anonymous, December 06, 1999

Mr. Kelly,

I have read your message in detail and appreciate your time and explanation of your interpretation of Romans 6. An aside to the main point of this message. It has been pointed out that Romans 10 could not be referring to HOW one is born again because the book was written to Christians, and yet, here in chapter 6 it is OK for Paul to discuss HOW one is born again? Do you see the problem I have with the position you folks take? On the one hand Paul can talk about HOW one is born again in chapter 6 but he is definitely NOT talking about how one is born again in chapter 10, there is not consistency in thought here. Again I would like to point out that verses 9,10 in the context of chapter 10 very much relate to HOW one would be born again seeing that Paul is stating that his desire would be for Israel to be saved! (Am I making myself clear?)

Back to Romans 6:3. I follow your thoughts concerning the Greek text "to a point". I admit freely that I did not get the best of grades in my 2 semesters of Greek, but did learn that there are reference books and materials that I can go to that will help me decipher the original languages. Again I would like to interject a personal thought that has helped me greatly in understanding the Word of God and His Will for my life. Since God inspired the original text and was able to keep human error from muddying His message I also believe He was fully capable of keeping the translation into English from being muddied by human error! In other words, although I love to "go back" to the "original" and discover the rich meanings of words, I believe that by simply reading the translation I hold in my hands the Holy Spirit is capable of relating the proper meaning to me!

If, to gain a clear understanding of the text, I cannot accept what I can comprehend by simply reading what God has preserved for me to read up until today; then the Gospel is NOT "Good News" but "Confused News" based upon key translations of certain words in a hand full of verses (in my opinion) taken out of context.

When I read Rom.6:3 specifically says "baptized into Jesus Christ". This really is not a new concept, throughout the Holy Scriptures we are told, that we are "In Christ". Is this figurative language? I believe it means exactly what it says! Colossians is a tremendous book when it comes to this whole concept. At salvation, I was delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God! I became a part of the body of Christ Col.1:18. In so doing His death was my death, His burial was my burial, His resurrection was my resurrection Gal.2:20. I am saved not because of anything I do, but because of what Christ HAS done, and I am identified with His Work!

You make this statement that I wanted to take a closer look at:

<<< according to my Greek NT, the Greek word is the aroist passive form of the "baptiso" which means to literally immerse or pludge under water.>>>

Again, all I can do is go to the Greek study helps. I find that indeed "baptiso" means literally to immerse OR plunge under water, actually it has a variety of meanings. It does not necessarily ALWAYS mean to "plunge under water". I am sure you are well aware of this information. IMHO the CONTEXT of the verse is of greatest importance. When I read verse three there is no possible way I would feel right or justified telling a sincere seeker in my Church that this is without question referring to Water Baptism. When the verse is allowed to mean exactly what it is saying I understand it to say, I am baptized "into Jesus Christ".

One last comment about something I know you did not mean to say, but nevertheless said it, and I feel is a good point to be made:

<<< Our initial act to go down in the water kills the old sinner, and God does the cleansing and I come up a Son of God, and a coheir with Jesus.>>>

You said, "OUR initial ACT", earlier you said, "it was not a work that they did in fact it was something that they did not do.". I know you folks go through a lot of explaining to get across the idea that water baptism is NOT an act/work of the individual, and yet in a moment of describing water baptism you state, "Our initial act". As I said, I know you probably did not mean to say it exactly that way, and yet, that to me makes most sense. I make a decision to OBEY God's command in water baptism and therefore ACT upon that decision. This is a description of a work, to me. No one coerced me into the water, God did not undress me and carry me into the water, I chose to enter the water and be baptized, it was effort and a WORK on my part, and I did it all as a believer. As an unbeliever I never would have been water baptized, and I believe that is the whole point of Noah and the flood. Only Noah and his family were "IN CHRIST" (in the ark) when they went through the water, just as I am ALREADY in Christ BEFORE I pass through the water. I have to be walking in obedience BEFORE I pass through the water, otherwise I would not have passed through the water.

I guess we are not able to agree at this point in time.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, December 07, 1999

Barry, please do not get me wrong. I feel you are right in some points and I feel I am right on some points. In some cases we can agree together as brothers in Christ, then other points we can simply agree to disagree. I have no doubt that you teach people to be immersed but, it is what immersion means that we disagree. And also we would disagree in the theology of when a person is saved.

Now, I will agree that we need to call upon the Lord to be saved but what does it mean cf. Acts 22. Also, when I come to faith in Christ, I must repent and then be water baptized. Can we agree on that? If, so then we must look at some key issues that I think we in time can learn to agree upon. Please answer these questions. Can a person be saved without being obedient to Christ? If baptism is indeed an act of obedience, then if one refuses to be immersed in water does this make him/her disobedient? If so then why does God place baptism as an important "act" that we must go through? Do you follow my logic? I will agree on two counts, yes faith is an important issue in salvation- in fact it is more important than Baptism. But, we must consider the role of water baptism in the salvation process. Second, Baptism is an act in the physical nature by man- but in the spiritual realm it is an act of God. Of course we could and should agree that works alone will not save a person any more than eating eggs makes me a chicken. But, what does works refer too. Does it refer to water baptism.... no. Why? Because if it did then baptism would not be needed. But, throughout the scriptures it is needed. It is not what we do in water immersion that counts it is what God does. Please do not confuse me for a water regenerist. I am not!!!! But, we must make baptism a more special part of our salvation as the NT reveals, just like communion is a special part of the believers worship experience. In baptism like communion it is a picture of what Christ did on the cross and how God raised Him from the tomb- for example do you have a picture of a loved one who is dead. Does it not remind you of them and how they looked or even the good times you shared. Well, Baptism is the same it reveals to us how Christ loved us so much that He died for our sins, and in the same way we too are dead to sin and we have been washed by His precious blood. Acts 2:38 says we receive the Holy Spirit once we have repented and been baptized. Not before not after.

I place a high view of baptism- not because I am a Christian Church minister but because it is something that is meaningful to me and special. If think we would be lesser without baptism due to the dramatic role it plays to remind us. Yes, I can like you remember the day I first believed in my heart. But, I can also remember the day that I identified myself with Christ in water Baptism it was June 15, 1985 (I was 14).

Also, Barry please do not refer to me as you folks. I know what you mean, but please call me Anthony. Thanks.

AKelley

-- Anonymous, December 07, 1999

Mr. Kelly,

I in no way intended to offend you with the term "you folks", sorry. I do believe as I have stated before there is room in the Body of Christ for believers to disagree to some extent. I believe I will see "Church of Christ" people in heaven just as I will see "Catholic" people there and "Baptist" and "Lutheran" and "Methodist". Simply because this is not the way Jesus sees His body. He sees believers. Can I agree to disagree and still remain a brother in Christ? Without a doubt, I am doing it to this very day! I don't lose any sleep over it, I accept that I see things differently than others and vice versa and that is part of the way God made us.

When it comes to water baptism, I agree with you: (and I hope you do not feel I am quoting you out of context)

<<< yes faith is an important issue in salvation- in fact it is more important than Baptism.>>>

Do I feel that obedience is necessary for salvation? Qualified NO. If I look at the Holy Scriptures, that I believe, as absolutely necessary for salvation or that if I had to share the Gospel to a dying man, which ones would I choose to preach Christ unto him?

John 3:16 Acts 16:31 and Romans 3:23; 5:8; 6:23; 10:9,10,13. Out of these Scriptures that I have memorized they tell me that all a person need do is believe! Romans 10:9,10 clarify to me that they must also confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus. To me that is even a by-product of the Lordship of Christ in a life. How can any truly call Jesus Lord without the Spirit of Christ? In other words I would view even confessing Christ as Lord bordering on a Work. I do not mention this too often because I do not believe it is really all too important and opens myself up to a lot of questions and criticisms. I am just being as honest as I can. If a person has truly surrendered their life then they will freely admit the Lord Jesus and will be water baptized for that matter. You ask me this question, which is fair:

<<< Can a person be saved without being obedient to Christ?>>>

I have quite a lengthy teaching on obedience (without getting into it) I believe that Faith and Obedience are not the same, to make a very long point into a very short point, Obedience is not an essential INITIAL response to the Gospel. The initial response to the Gospel is Faith not obedience. Obedience is a subsequent response to salvation.

I am not trying to be difficult, but you make a statement I want to comment on:

<<< we must consider the role of water baptism in the salvation process.>>>

Water baptism does not play a role in the salvation process. I believe salvation is instantaneous, the moment one believes! The process I can agree upon is after salvation, as you "work it out". As you said there is a spiritual work being done, I believe it happens when we are baptized into Christ at salvation, making us righteous. Then after we are children of God we have a desire to please Him and walk in obedience, hence, PART of the reason for water baptism. I believe as you, that it also presents us, and the rest of the world, a picture of our union with Christ (that spiritual baptism into Christ). Could that union happen AT water Baptism?, I believe it can AND does for those people who at their water baptism believe on Jesus as Lord. But it is not because of water baptism or obedience. What obedience does is give one a clear conscience, it does not remove sin (1 Peter 3).

Also, obedience in water baptism IS essential to a clear conscience and right relationship with God. If a believer refuses to be water baptized, they display a spirit that is not from Christ and are producing a fruit of unrighteousness. To me this presents the case Jesus spoke about when the seed falls on shallow/stony/thorny ground and is then choked out. When a believer submits themselves in obedience to Christ in water baptism it indicates a wholly surrendered life. I know of believers who were not presented with the teaching for water baptism and they were not baptized for months/years after their salvation. Would they have gone to heaven? Without a doubt. Only they hadn't the opportunity to walk in obedience due to ignorance. I am not saying this is an excuse only a reason.

In Christ,

-- Anonymous, December 08, 1999

Mr. Hanson,

Since it is not until our sins are forgiven that we can be in Christ why do you choose to believe in some spiritual baptism of Colossians 2 rather than the one were told is for the forgiveness of sins? And the I Peter 3 passage you have it backwards. The flood was a figure of baptism. I have seen your argument for the reverse, but it still is backwards. Antitupon means a foreshadowing (lit. a before type). The NASB has the better translation (as usual) when it says, and corresponding to that. Just as the flood removed sin so does baptism. Dont imply by that that it is just the act itself. It must be accompanied by faith, repentance and confession. Romans 6 tells us that we are buried (not immersed) with Christ. Through immersion we are buried into His death. Christs death was for forgiveness of sin  so is baptism. The only baptism that still exists  that of being buried under water. You muddy the waters when you try to distinguish between different baptisms, when the Scriptures clearly teach there is only one. I am not trying to link you with the Mormons, but they use a very similar argument. If you ask them how many gods there are they will say one. If you push the matter, they will admit that they believe that there are thousands of gods but there is only one which we have dealings with. One means one. At baptism (water) we are buried into Christ, into His death, clothed with Him, a spiritual circumcism (having the sign of Gods people). Is baptism a sign? Yes. Is it only a sign? No. If its just a sign of our faith, its not a very good one, for people tend to dry off. If the Etheopean was baptized for a sign, you would think he would have waited until he got to town and everyone could see his outward act of faith. But he didnt. The Scriptures read that Philip preached Jesus to him. His immediate response was to confess and be immersed into water. He had learned about Jesus, about his sinful state, and he wanted to change things.

I maintain that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (BHS) only occurred twice in the Scriptures. The verses you site to show otherwise said nothing of the BHS. First, nowhere in the book of Acts do we see anyone performing the miraculous that was not an apostle or had the hands of the apostles lain upon them. Luke, in Acts, seems to go out of his way to demonstrate this (Acts 2:43; 5:12; 6:6; 8:6 Philip had hands lain; 19:11). Acts 8:17-19 is very revealing. Simon had seen Philip use the miraculous and he saw that it was only thru the apostles that these gifts were acquired. Simon did not offer Peter and John money to buy the gifts, he offered to buy the authority to transfer them to others. Philip could not transfer them, he had to call home to Jerusalem for some apostles to come down. Another foundational point I would make is that I see a clear distinction between the Holy Spirit being upon someone and He being in someone. While the Temple/Tabernacle was in use the Holy Spirit took residence in the Holy of holies above the arc. There were several under the old covenant that the Holy Spirit fell upon, but He never took up residence within them. Why? Because the old covenant sacrifices only pushed sin back for one year. When Christ died, the Temple became of no use (except as a Church building) and Christians became the Temple. Why? Because sin had been removed for the believer (the complete believer, that is). Now as to the verses you gave in attempting to show several occurrences of the BHS lets look at them. The first you give is Acts 8:17. These people had become Christians by believing Philips preaching and they were baptized 8:12. At their baptism they received the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit, for Acts 2:38 says they did (the purpose of repentance and baptism is forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit). Peter and John had to go down and lay hands on them before the Holy Spirit would fall on them, vv. 14-16. This says nothing of the BHS. It only states that the apostles had to be there to give them the gifts.

The next verse you used was Acts 9:17. Sorry, but we are filled with the Holy Spirit the moment we are baptized into Christ (in water), remember 2:38. Ananias was there to 1) give Pauls sight back to him and 2) get him filled with the Holy Spirit. What happened? Ananias laid hands on him and 1) and he regained his sight, 2) and he got up and was baptized (v. 18). Now before anyone says the silly thing that he was spirit baptized lets look at the parallel account in Acts 22. If you will read vv 12-16 you should notice that Ananias went there to get Pauls sight back and then in 16, get up and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name. In both places we see Paul seeing again, and as I understand these Scriptures, we see him in both accounts receiving the Holy Spirit  thru baptism just as 2:38 says. You see, Pauls sin was removed when he was immersed into Christ, which allowed the Holy Spirit to enter. NOTHING is said of the BHS here either.

The third passage you use in defense of your position is Acts 19:1-7. Once again, NOTHING is said of the BHS. Because of your position you insert it there. Paul ran across some believers in Ephesus. We wants to lay hands on them to give them the Holy Spirit. They did not even know there was such a being. Paul backs up a step and asks, Into what then were you baptized? Could this be referring to spirit baptism? It certainly doesnt mention water. That last question probably sounds as silly to you as your saying that Col. 2, Gal. 3, Eph 4, et al, refer to non-water baptism. They had been baptized by John the baptizer and he did not teach the same as Paul and the other apostles (2:38). Before he laid hands on them to have the Holy Spirit come ON them (v. 6) he had to immerse them in water (2:38) for the forgiveness of sin and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Once again, no mention of the BHS.

Even if I am wrong in my understanding of these three passages, there still is NO MENTION of the BHS other than Acts 2 and 10.

I reread Heb 6 again and ISTM that you are pulling this passage a bit out of context. This letter was written to Hebrew Christians that were abandoning the faith going back into Judaism. The Hebrews had their own baptisms which is why the plural "baptisms". To use this passage to say there are multiple baptisms for the Christian is quite simply, sloppy contextualizing (a.k.a. prooftexting). If I understand one of the many points the Hebrew writer is making in this text, it is that what we have in Christ is so much greater than what the had in the old covenant that they should not be arguing about the comparisons. This does not teach a plurality of baptisms.

If anyone goes to Hell then they go because they disregarded the Word of God. Neither your nor anyone else will be there because I THINK they ought to be. They will be there because they rejected the Word of God, and thereby rejected His Son.

Concerning your last full paragraph addressed to me, We must understand that all Scripture was written FOR us. It was not written TO us. If it was written TO me or you, it would say so. Since it was written, e.g., to the Church at Rome, we must understand it in its context. It DOES matter. If I take the words of Scripture that say curse God and die as being TO me, then I, as Ricky Ricardo says, got some splainin to do when I stand face to face with God.

Nothing Ive said here was intended to be a slam, jam, poke or nuclear bomb (well, maybe a poke here and there;o) ).

-- Anonymous, December 08, 1999

There needs to be a slight correction to one statement I made above. It should say, "Paul backs up a step and asks, Into what then were you baptized? Could this be referring to spirit baptism? It certainly doesnt mention water. That last question probably sounds as silly to you as your saying that Col. 2, Gal. 3, Eph 4, et al, refer to non-water baptism does to me.

I left out the last three words of my thought. Sorry

-- Anonymous, December 08, 1999

To Scott,

I do not have the time to reply to the degree that I would like. However, I do not like a message to go "unanswered", unfortunately there are more of "you" than there are of me. On top of that I am a part of 3 other discussion groups that I have found excellent in keeping my Scripture knowledge sharp. I will only be able to answer in brevity, please understand I did not have the time to attempt to make myself as clear as I usually do on most of my posts, thank you.

You make the statement (if at anytime you feel I have quoted you out of context, please say so):

<<< Romans 6 tells us that we are buried (not immersed) with Christ.>>>

If you read Romans 6:3 it does not say WITH Christ it says INTO Christ! Once we are buried, immerse or baptized into Christ we are then identified with him in His death, burial, resurrection and glorification.

Sometimes I get lost as to what I have posted on various message boards. For clarification, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (BHS) initially came upon believers via heaven, there were no "Spirit Filled Believers" at the time to "lay hands on" believers to receive the BHS. After the initial BHS (Act 2:1-4) believers were then able to pray with other believers for the BHS as a "point of contact". This is not always the case although I had hands "laid on me" for the BHS, it wasn't until 3 days later while alone I began speaking in a fluent language I had never learned. IT IS MY understanding (emphasis added for clarification) that the BHS is received by the believer either by laying on of hands Acts 8:17; 9:17; 19:1-7 or via heaven Acts 2:1-4; 10:44-46.

Point of clarification the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are not the same. The BHS is a baptism into the Holy Spirit, the Gifts of the Spirit are gifts given to the believer by the Holy Spirit. To further clarify, at Salvation the believer is INDWELT by the Spirit of God and the BHS the believer is IMMERSED by the Spirit of God.

I am sure that there will be a great number of people who disagree with me, and perhaps as many posts, I do not have the time to "argue" the point, I believe I have come to an understanding that is consistent with the Holy Scriptures as a whole. I have experienced the reality and power of them in my personal life resulting in a greater clarity of understanding concerning Scriptures that before hand were difficult to understand. In the "working out" of these gifts in my personal life as well as within the Church the instruction by Paul, specifically in 1 Cor. 12-14, has become a reality and a handbook for the guidelines of Tongues and the Gift of Tongues.

An interesting observation I made one time when I was talking to an acquaintance who had been bunjee jumping. I was listening to him describe the experience and I wanted very much to be able to enter the conversation and share about bunjee jumping. Except I had NEVER been bunjee jumping. (Interesting) I heard about jumping out, yet I had never done so, I heard about "flying" and the exhilaration and feeling the wind and the excitement, but had never felt it or done it myself. After the conversation I found others who had been through the same experience and I told about what I had heard. This happened again on a couple of occasions until one day I was at the "Coal Festival" and saw the "Bunjee Ride". I thought now is the time to finally find out what all this talk was about and took "the plunge". After experiencing the bunjee jump FOR MYSELF realized I hadn't had the slightest idea about what I had been talking about BEFORE I experienced jumping for myself. Did I sound like I knew what it was all about BEFORE I jumped? Without a doubt. Did I actually know? NO. The illustration could go on and on, the same discussion could very well be taking place concerning salvation. I know a lot of "lost" people who think they know what salvation is, except they have not made Jesus Lord of their lives (by their own admission) and yet they believe they are going to heaven. They even have Scripture to back them up! (To a point). Then there are those people I talk to who subsequent to their salvation admit they had no idea what they were talking about.

I realize illustrations cannot always cross over exactly but have found individuals who identify with this story a lot. They tell me, BEFORE they were Baptized in the Holy Spirit they talked about the experience and some even attacked it. Then they explain that AFTER they were Baptized in the Holy Spirit admit they had had no idea what they had been talking about.

Admittedly, the Holy Scriptures we are discussing is of great importance. However, (in my mind) they are secondary if the Father has given us this promise and He does not retract it. A question I have for you:

Can you show me anywhere in the Holy Scriptures that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not for today?

Once again my post is going a lot longer than I intended. Your exegesis of Acts 9:17 I knew would be to the effect it was, yet when you study Paul's life we know He spoke in Tongues, when was He Baptized with the Holy Spirit? If we are honest with the Holy Scriptures it says specifically in Acts 9:17 "and be filled with the Holy Ghost". At no other point, in the Scriptures, are we given at which point Paul could have been "filled with the Spirit" or "Baptized with the Holy Spirit" (same thing). Obviously, Paul was filled/baptized with the Holy Spirit at this point in time. Subsequent to his salvation, which is totally consistent with the Scriptures.

I don't have time to go into the other references suffice it to say we don't agree. If there are specific questions, perhaps one at a time, I will not run into creating such large messages, sorry.

Lastly, you say:

<<< We must understand that all Scripture was written FOR us. It was not written TO us. If it was written TO me or you, it would say so.>>>

I still don't follow your logic, you are attempting to make a distinction between "TO" and "FOR" concerning the Scriptures. I take it to mean that Scripture relating to Salvation is FOR you but not TO you. In the same way the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is FOR you but not TO you.

Besides, Context WAS my whole point concerning Romans 10 as well as chapter 6. The point is made that chapter 10 cannot be talking about HOW one is saved because the book is addressed to Christians but then you say that chapter 6 IS talking about HOW one is saved, nullifying your own position on chapter 10.

I really hope I am making myself clear, attempting to respond to these posts at the job I am at is difficult at times.

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, December 09, 1999

Scott [J],

Just a little note concerning the last posting to you: As to the Bunjee Jumping argument I must say as one who HAS been there and done that, that I am able to discuss Charismatic issues with full understanding BECAUSE of my experiences. You know me and you know that I took the plunge and preached a parched gospel for many years. Finally, as a result of all of the failed words of the prophets and healers I left the Charismatic movement and began to search out the Scriptures for myself. Oh and BTW youll notice that the question of what to do about the prophet whose word does not come about was never answered. I wonder why not?

What was the result of my jumping into the word of God? I understood the Gospel and my faith obeyed the commandments of Christ, kind of like Noah. You remember Noah, hes the guy who some in this room would say was saved simply because he Believed in God. He really did not have to Obey God and build the ark, did he? I wonder what the results of his belief without obedience would have been? [Gurgle, gurgle] :-O

Anyway, what was the result of my faith and obedience? HALLELUJAH! GLORY TO GOD! THANK YOU, JESUS! According to His mercy He saved me, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit! Now if that offends anyone reading this then take your scissors and cut out Titus 3:5.

And finally, brother Scott, Id like you to notice something. Because I disagree with some in this room they have said [paraphrasing, for I am too busy to look up the exact words] that it is Doubtful that I ever was a Pentecostal / Charismatic and that I would have to Prove it. This is nothing more than the polite way of calling someone a liar  a powerful argument indeed!

Tom

-- Anonymous, December 09, 1999

Scott,

REPRESENTIVE HERMENEUTICS APPLIED TO A STOP SIGN

1. A serious and educated Catholic rolls through the intersection because he believes he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn't take it too seriously, he doesn't feel obligated to take it too seriously either. 2. Average mainline denominationalists don't bother to read the sign, but will stop if the car in front does. 3. A Church of Christ member, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go. 4. An orthodox Jew takes routes devoid of stops to eliminate the risk of disobeying the Law. 5. A scholar from the Jesus Seminar concludes from the passage "STOP" was never uttered by Jesus, since he would not stifle peoples' progress. So, STOP is a textual insertion from stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot. 6. A Liberal New Testament scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark Street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Matthew and Luke streets are both copied from a sign on a street no one has ever seen called "Q" street. Extensive research has been done on the differences between stop signs on Matthew and Lukes streets, but nothing to explain the meaning of the text. 7. A Liberal Old Testament scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the STOP. The "ST" contains no enclosed areas and five line endings, whereas "OP" contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author on the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Other scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the "O" and the "P". 8. Yet another Old Testament scholar amends the text, changing the "T" to "H". The resulting SHOP is much easier to understand in context than "STOP" because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. If this is true, it could indicate that both meanings are valid, thus making the message "STOP&SHOP". 9. A Charismatic prophet notices that the square root of the sum of the numeric representations of the letters S-T-O-P-(sigma-tau-omicron- pi), multiplied by 40 (the number of testing), and divided by 6 (the six sides) equals 666, the dreaded "mark of the beast". All STOP SIGNS are therefore Satanic! And send in your money to keep their ministry on the air.

Tom

-- Anonymous, December 10, 1999

Scott,

There is a good discussion begining in "Why do we meet together". I think all that I can say here has been said. Thanks for asking me in. I will take my leave by sharing this snapshot of how the world might view us. Take care. Tom

REPRESENTIVE HERMENEUTICS APPLIED TO A STOP SIGN

1. A serious and educated Catholic rolls through the intersection because he believes he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn't take it too seriously, he doesn't feel obligated to take it too seriously either.

2. Average mainline denominationalists don't bother to read the sign, but will stop if the car in front does.

3. A Church of Christ member, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.

4. An orthodox Jew takes routes devoid of stops to eliminate the risk of disobeying the Law.

5. A scholar from the Jesus Seminar concludes from the passage "STOP" was never uttered by Jesus, since he would not stifle peoples' progress. So, STOP is a textual insertion from stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.

6. A Liberal New Testament scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark Street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Matthew and Luke streets are both copied from a sign on a street no one has ever seen called "Q" street. Extensive research has been done on the differences between stop signs on Matthew and Lukes streets, but nothing to explain the meaning of the text.

7. A Liberal Old Testament scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the STOP. The "ST" contains no enclosed areas and five line endings, whereas "OP" contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author on the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Other scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the "O" and the "P".

8. Yet another Old Testament scholar amends the text, changing the "T" to "H". The resulting SHOP is much easier to understand in context than "STOP" because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. If this is true, it could indicate that both meanings are valid, thus making the message "STOP&SHOP".

9. A Charismatic Prophet notices that the square root of the sum of the numeric representations of the letters S-T-O-P-(sigma-tau-omicron- pi), multiplied by 40 (the number of testing), and divided by 6 (the six sides of the stop sign) equals 666, the dreaded "mark of the beast". All STOP SIGNS are therefore Satanic! And be sure to send in your money to keep their ministry on the air.

Tom

-- Anonymous, December 10, 1999

Brother Tom,

IF you will allow me to call you brother?

Never did I ask you to "prove" that you were an "unsaved" Pentecostal/Charismatic Preacher of 18 years, only that it is very difficult for me to believe, by the description that you gave of yourself as a Pentecostal/Charismatic Preacher, that you ever were one indeed.

I am not here to argue, simply to challenge the concept that most of you have concerning YOUR interpretation of the Bible, and calling it the ONLY way. I suppose this challenge does lead to argument, although it was not my intent to be dragged into such a confrontation. I believe the conversation between Anthony and myself is quite civil and was one that I had been hoping for. I do however like a challenge and the forthrightness of clear bold statements based upon the Holy Scriptures. (One of the aspects of this chat room that attracted me in the first place).

It is apparent that we do not agree, that is a right each of us posses, I suppose you even have the right to say I am wrong. That does not bother me. What does bother me is that up until this year, people I have never heard of with a message I have never heard (or could have deducted from the Holy Scriptures) preaches that I am going to hell (?). I could not pass by a message such as yours without presenting another logical interpretation of the Truth from the Holy Scriptures. And I mention "logical" because I am involved in another chat room where individuals will present views (apparently) without any contemplation. At least here we are attempting to use our God given brains. Do not get me wrong, natural intellect works up to a point and then there is the need for faith, but I thank God for the point up to which intellect does work!

Finally, it appears that someone has taken out their scissors and has done some cutting out, but it wasn't me! Verse 5 is not the end of the thought! But apparently the CONTEXT of a verse doesn't matter to "some in this room". Titus 3:5,6 AND 7:

"NOT by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR SAVIOR; that being justified BY HIS GRACE, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."

It amazes me that within the VERY verse the Holy Scriptures tell us salvation IS NOT by WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS that we have done, the OPPOSITE message is being taught. If I were to yank this verse out of it's CONTEXT there might be a slight chance I could see this referring to Water Baptism. But within the CONTEXT of the thought verse 6 says, "THROUGH Jesus Christ" To me verse 6 has qualified verse 5, "the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" was "shed on us THROUGH Jesus Christ". When I believed on Jesus as Lord I was Baptized into Christ, NOW through Jesus Christ I am regenerated and renewed. Notice I do not gain entrance into Christ THROUGH regeneration or renewal BUT I gain regeneration and renewal THROUGH Jesus Christ! The exact opposite of the salvation by water message.

Once again, we teach obedience to the commandments of God is essential to a continued life of favor with Jesus Christ. NOT to gain salvation BUT just the OPPOSITE, BECAUSE OF salvation. I show that I love Jesus by doing what He has said and because He first loved me. That is the whole point of Noah, I have no idea how this can become so distorted! Noah had favor and was considered righteous BEFORE the flood (water baptism), just as we ARE righteous by grace through faith BEFORE water baptism (the flood). I am being as honest as I can possibly be here, there is no possible way Noah would have been obedient to the command of God to build the Ark if first he wasn't righteous. Just as the flood is a figure of salvation, water baptism is a "corresponding figure" (1 Peter 3) We are righteous, as well, before we go through the water in baptism (the flood).

Sincerely,

Barry Hanson

-- Anonymous, December 10, 1999