Ask a Pentecostal

[grannymh]

Stylteralmaldo;

Tiny comment on your signature
I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. (John 14:18)

I often reference chapter 14, Gospel of John as a sign that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[ltwin]

Marriage is not dissolvable by men per Jesus’ teaching. The implication that an act by a man by being unfaithful contradicts that. Therefore, the use of the English term “fornication” to translate “pornea” makes more sense than “marital unfaithfulness” since fornication is sexual relations between unmarried persons. In other words, an unlawful marriage (therefore null) in the eyes of God.

Fornication is not the only sense that porneia can be translated as. It is a general term of sexual offense in first-century Greek. Why would an unlawful marriage need an exception for divorce anyway? If it is not a real marriage then there is no need for a divorce in the first place.

The context of Jesus’ discussion of marriage is the dispute between the Hillelite and the Shammaite schools within Judaism at the time that Jesus would have lived. The debate was over an interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1, “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house. . .” The Shammaites said this meant that a husband could only divorce his wife over an “indecent matter.” However, the School of Hillel interpreted the Hebrew 'ervat dabar to mean “any matter.” Therefore, they thought husbands should be able to divorce their wives for any cause. This is the context that the Pharisees ask Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

Porneia and moicheia (adultery) were often used for the same offense. Furthermore, both the Hillelites and Shammaites understood the word “indecency” to refer to adultery.

What emerges is Jesus saying that divorce is permitted (not commanded as many Jews at the time believed) if a spouse continues to act sexually indecent within the marriage and refuses to repent. The faithful partner is not bound to someone who continually breaks the marriage vows.

Jesus says what someone taking the Hillelite position would say, “except for porneia” or “indecency.”

This was a concession for the “hard hearts” of men who stubbornly refused to fulfill their marriage vows. This reflects Jeremiah 3, where God “divorces” Israel after her chronic adultery and stubborn refusal to repent. So that Jeremiah 4:4 says, “Circumcise yourself to your God and circumcise your hardness of heart.”

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

"Itwin:

This position contradicts the plain meaning of Scripture!..

What’s plain to you isn’t plain to me. My reading of the text I come to a different conclusion. 2000 years of Christian teaching on the indissolvable nature of marriage backs me up on this as well as the teaching from the Holy Scriptures which I pointed out.

I understand that the last 500 years or so there has been a different take on the meaning of these passages regarding marriage and thus the reason there are divisions within the Christian Church on this issue and others.

…Fornication is not the only sense that porneia can be translated as…

Thus the reason that the text isn’t plain. You not only need to translate from the original Greek, you also need to take into consideration that some words, of which pornea is a great example, does not exactly translate the way you necessarily want it to because the language being translated to doesn’t necessarily have an exact match to what is being conveyed.

Porneia and moicheia (adultery) were often used for the same offense. Furthermore, both the Hillelites and Shammaites understood the word “indecency” to refer to adultery.

I know of at least one instance when these two words are used in the same sentence. Galatians 5:19 comes to mind. Unless you’re saying we are free to pick which Greek word Paul is referring to as adultery in that passage or perhaps he’s not talking about adultery at all, which it seems to me moicheaia translates as adultery as you pointed out. And if you say that neither word references adultery, then I guess it all boils down to what translation you are using to make your point regarding that text. Which to me proves you just can’t read the text and presume it is plain to see because not only does one need to translate the text to the most applicable word into English (which may not even be adequate), you also need to take in in context with the time period as well as how the early Christians that walked with Jesus and the Apostles understood those passages.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Stylteralmaldo;

Tiny comment on your signature
I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. (John 14:18)

I often reference chapter 14, Gospel of John as a sign that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Yes. I agree. It is a sign of the truth of the Catholic Church. Never has a moment gone by in human history where Jesus has left us orphans. He’s always been there and always will be. There’s much comfort in that knowledge.

 

[peace2u2]

So are you saying that the gift that is considered “ordinary” is the personal form of using tongues to pray to God and praise Him and the other gift that is considered “extraordinary” is used when praying over someone for healing?

Also I’m a little confused as to post #185 and #186 you mention that praying to God is not extraordinary anyone can pray to God in any form, I agree, but wouldn’t praying in tongues be considered “extraordinary” and why does the Church classify this gift of the Holy Spirit as “extraordinary”? Is it because when Church was first formed, everyone prayed in tongues and therefore was considered just ordinary but because most people don’t utilize this form of prayer today, is considred extraordinary?

 

[ltwin]

What’s plain to you isn’t plain to me. My reading of the text I come to a different conclusion. 2000 years of Christian teaching on the indissolvable nature of marriage backs me up on this as well as the teaching from the Holy Scriptures which I pointed out.

This is where there are drawbacks to some aspects of “tradition”. Once Christianity became a largely Gentile religion, the first century context in which Jesus was discussing marriage was lost. In fact, this context would have been lost on most Jews, since after 70 A.D. the only divorce available to Jews was a Hillelite divorce, and the debate was purely scholarly.

So yes, there may be tradition behind the traditional views, but there is no reason to believe these traditions go back all the way to Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…the first century context in which Jesus was discussing marriage was lost. In fact, this context would have been lost on most Jews, since after 70 A.D. the only divorce available to Jews was a Hillelite divorce, and the debate was purely scholarly.

However, the context about marriage that Jesus wanted to preserve was preserved.

Thanks for the conversation Itwin! It’s been a joy discussing these topics with you.

 

[ltwin]

Thanks for the conversation Itwin! It’s been a joy discussing these topics with you.

Your welcome. It’s been joy discussing them with you as well.

 

[brb3]

Let me start off by saying that there are things I appreciate about the Catholic Church. I do like the fact that Catholics have history and they know who they are. Pentecostals don’t appreciate their own history enough. Too much we focus on the “new thing” God is doing in our lives and in the church and not enough looking back to give God thanks for what he has done in history. I also appreciate that the Catholic Church has never fallen into the trap of believing in cessationism

That said the biggest problems are beliefs that don’t appear to be warranted in scripture: Apostolic Succession, the pope’s unique role, Mariology, prayers to the saints, purgatory. It’s claim that other churches are simply “ecclesial communities” and somehow less than the Catholic Church is something that troubles me as well.

Another thing I’m not comfortable with is something that I perceive from my very limited interaction with the Catholic Church (mainly discussions on this forum). This is the lack of correlation between the rites of Christian initiation and the experience of Christian conversion. From my Pentecostal heritage, the performance of any sacerdotal or ecclesiastical rites is useless unless their is a Christian experience that accompanies it.

I also believe that Catholic liturgical worship is too routinized and the authority structure is too top heavy. But that has more to do with my own Pentecostal background than it does with whether the Catholic Church is “correct” in all its beliefs.

Are you familiar with the name Tim Staples, former Pentecostal Pastor, now a convert to Catholic Church … and Catholic Answers staff member ?

Have you examined his defense of Catholic Church, and issues with Pentecostal Church?

 

[ltwin]

Are you familiar with the name Tim Staples, former Pentecostal Pastor, now a convert to Catholic Church … and Catholic Answers staff member ?

Have you examined his defense of Catholic Church, and issues with Pentecostal Church?

No. Haven’t read anything he’s written.

 

[peace2u2]

Stylteralmaldo;
Tiny comment on your signature

I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. (John 14:18)

I often reference chapter 14, Gospel of John as a sign that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Yes. I agree. It is a sign of the truth of the Catholic Church. Never has a moment gone by in human history where Jesus has left us orphans. He’s always been there and always will be. There’s much comfort in that knowledge.

Today’s Gospel Acclamation is from Jn 14:18 and I thought of you two:

Alleluia, alleluia!
I will not leave you orphans, says the Lord;
I will come back to you,
and your hearts will be full of joy.
Alleluia!

 

[ltwin]

So are you saying that the gift that is considered “ordinary” is the personal form of using tongues to pray to God and praise Him and the other gift that is considered “extraordinary” is used when praying over someone for healing?

Also I’m a little confused as to post #185 and #186 you mention that praying to God is not extraordinary anyone can pray to God in any form, I agree, but wouldn’t praying in tongues be considered “extraordinary” and why does the Church classify this gift of the Holy Spirit as “extraordinary”? Is it because when Church was first formed, everyone prayed in tongues and therefore was considered just ordinary but because most people don’t utilize this form of prayer today, is considred extraordinary?

Can I offer the Pentecostal theology on this?

Pentecostals derive their distinctive views on baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues from mainly Luke-Acts and 1 Corinthians. (Obviously, there are other places in Scripture that can be drawn on to enlighten this discussion, but these books are the places where such topics are focused on.)

In 1 Corinthians, what we see is Paul discussing tongues that some people have and others don’t. Tongues, he says, are for the edification of the church and should be interpreted, but he also says that he’d like everyone to speak in tongues and that there is a private dimension to praying in tongues for the edification of the individual. What we see in 1 Corinthians is both ordinary and extraordinary characteristics to the diverse tongues in the church.

In Acts, what we repeatedly see is the Holy Spirit falling on believers and empowering them to prophesy and proclaim the gospel. Tongues accompanies this outpouring. Furthermore, we see these same believers continually filled beyond their initial Spirit-baptism. By the Spirit, they are given boldness and courage to proclaim the gospel and are given the words to say to penetrate hearts and minds and illuminate the words and plans of God.

What we see is something that is ordinary and extraordinary all at the same time. It is available to all believers, and it empowers them to be witnesses.

This thing that is both ordinary and extraordinary all at once is not tongues, of course. Tongues are only the sign. The empowerment comes from the fullness of the Spirit.

This vision of all of God’s people being empowered to proclaim the gospel in power found in Acts is duplicated in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, where Paul says, “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.”

Pentecostals recognize that something like speaking in tongues or prophesying or a word of wisdom or word of knowledge is quite extraordinary when you think about it, but we don’t think it is extraordinary for these to be exercised by Christians. We think it is rather ordinary and is available to all believers.

 

[kimg901]

Can I offer the Pentecostal theology on this?

Pentecostals derive their distinctive views on baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues from mainly Luke-Acts and 1 Corinthians. (Obviously, there are other places in Scripture that can be drawn on to enlighten this discussion, but these books are the places where such topics are focused on.)

In 1 Corinthians, what we see is Paul discussing tongues that some people have and others don’t. Tongues, he says, are for the edification of the church and should be interpreted, but he also says that he’d like everyone to speak in tongues and that there is a private dimension to praying in tongues for the edification of the individual. What we see in 1 Corinthians is both ordinary and extraordinary characteristics to the diverse tongues in the church.

In Acts, what we repeatedly see is the Holy Spirit falling on believers and empowering them to prophesy and proclaim the gospel. Tongues accompanies this outpouring. Furthermore, we see these same believers continually filled beyond their initial Spirit-baptism. By the Spirit, they are given boldness and courage to proclaim the gospel and are given the words to say to penetrate hearts and minds and illuminate the words and plans of God.

What we see is something that is ordinary and extraordinary all at the same time. It is available to all believers, and it empowers them to be witnesses.

This thing that is both ordinary and extraordinary all at once is not tongues, of course. Tongues are only the sign. The empowerment comes from the fullness of the Spirit.

This vision of all of God’s people being empowered to proclaim the gospel in power found in Acts is duplicated in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, where Paul says, “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.”

Pentecostals recognize that something like speaking in tongues or prophesying or a word of wisdom or word of knowledge is quite extraordinary when you think about it, but we don’t think it is extraordinary for these to be exercised by Christians. We think it is rather ordinary and is available to all believers.

Maybe this has been answered, how do you know when you are speaking in tongues? Do you feel different? (mentally, physically?) My mother in law speaks in tongues but doesnt know when she does. My wife has witnessed it and says it was weird but…

 

[guanophore]

No. Haven’t read anything he’s written.

I think you would enjoy Tim Staples, Itwin.

lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/speaker/tim_staples

catholic-soe.org/timstaples.html
catholic-soe.org/timstaples2.html

 

[ltwin]

Maybe this has been answered, how do you know when you are speaking in tongues?

I choose when to speak in tongues or not. It’s like transitioning between English and Spanish, except the sounds that come out come out “as the Spirit gives utterance.”

I hear myself. It is just like what Paul says, “if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.” He also says, “one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 14). Sounds are coming out of my mouth. I hear them. However, I cannot understand them. As sounds, they are meaningless or “unfruitful” to me intellectually.

My experience has been that this is how other Pentecostals experience speaking in tongues.

Do you feel different? (mentally, physically?)

Sometimes I do. Like if I’m in a church service and the heaviness of God’s presence is in the room. Sometimes it feels like electricity running through you, a warmth or a quickening.

Or sometimes when I am burdened to pray for something or someone but without knowing what it is. There is an urgency to it all. I suppose it is the anointing and the unction of the Holy Spirit. But it is down in your gut and you know that there is an intercessory need. It is not an oppressive feeling, but it is a feeling of God’s presence and an urgency in the Spirit. You know by instinct when to begin and when to end. The burden lifts.

Then there are other times when I feel absolutely nothing. I am just praying in a language I know not.

My mother in law speaks in tongues but doesnt know when she does. My wife has witnessed it and says it was weird but…

That does sound weird. This is normative for her or happens only sometimes?

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 14:27-33,

If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. ** If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent.* For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.*

While the context may be different than the context in which your mother in law speaks in tongues, the principle Paul establishes is important and universal. Any vocal gift, whether it be prophecy or tongues, is given by God but it is exercised by us. Any “prophet” has control over his own spirit. I’m not sure what to make out of your mother in law’s case and since I don’t know her personally or acquainted with the situation, I would be reluctant to form any opinion. However, it does not seem to line up with what Paul says in Scripture.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Today’s Gospel Acclamation is from Jn 14:18 and I thought of you two:

Alleluia, alleluia!
I will not leave you orphans, says the Lord;
I will come back to you,
and your hearts will be full of joy.
Alleluia!

 

[Steveabrous]

Let me assure you that I’ve never been a part of a church that ordained women as deacons or pastors and probably never will. However, you’re pinning that only men can be deacons on that verse that says “A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well.”

An unmarried man cannot be faithful to his wife so could not be a deacon using your logic. Since you’re using the “wife” angle to be the deciding factor in someone being a deacon, that would naturally preclude unmarried men from the job. If someone that does not have a wife can be a deacon, how does this preclude women?

Now I know that JPII had stated it impossible for the church to ordain women, there must be more to it than this verse. I hope to delve more into the Church’s reasoning of all of this over the next few months.

A) I’m not using the" wife" analogy I’m using the FACT that he said “a man should…” in regards to giving instruction on choosing deacons.

B) as I stated earlier scripture is at best vague on th subject of women clergy. This is why he established the Magisterium of the Catholic church

 

[grannymh]

Can I offer the Pentecostal theology on this?

Pentecostals derive their distinctive views on baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues from mainly Luke-Acts and 1 Corinthians. (Obviously, there are other places in Scripture that can be drawn on to enlighten this discussion, but these books are the places where such topics are focused on.)

In 1 Corinthians, what we see is Paul discussing tongues that some people have and others don’t. Tongues, he says, are for the edification of the church and should be interpreted, but he also says that he’d like everyone to speak in tongues and that there is a private dimension to praying in tongues for the edification of the individual. What we see in 1 Corinthians is both ordinary and extraordinary characteristics to the diverse tongues in the church.

In Acts, what we repeatedly see is the Holy Spirit falling on believers and empowering them to prophesy and proclaim the gospel. Tongues accompanies this outpouring. Furthermore, we see these same believers continually filled beyond their initial Spirit-baptism. By the Spirit, they are given boldness and courage to proclaim the gospel and are given the words to say to penetrate hearts and minds and illuminate the words and plans of God.

What we see is something that is ordinary and extraordinary all at the same time. It is available to all believers, and it empowers them to be witnesses.

This thing that is both ordinary and extraordinary all at once is not tongues, of course. Tongues are only the sign. The empowerment comes from the fullness of the Spirit.

This vision of all of God’s people being empowered to proclaim the gospel in power found in Acts is duplicated in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, where Paul says, “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.”

Pentecostals recognize that something like speaking in tongues or prophesying or a word of wisdom or word of knowledge is quite extraordinary when you think about it, but we don’t think it is extraordinary for these to be exercised by Christians. We think it is rather ordinary and is available to all believers.

I would like to know the Pentecostal theology about Original Sin as committed by the first human being according to Romans 5: 12-21.

Thank you.

P.S. I am finding that the Pentecostal terminology regarding the different gifts of Tongues is very informative as it adds more ways of understanding.

 

[kimg901]

I choose when to speak in tongues or not. It’s like transitioning between English and Spanish, except the sounds that come out come out “as the Spirit gives utterance.”

I hear myself. It is just like what Paul says, “if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.” He also says, “one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 14). Sounds are coming out of my mouth. I hear them. However, I cannot understand them. As sounds, they are meaningless or “unfruitful” to me intellectually.

My experience has been that this is how other Pentecostals experience speaking in tongues.

Sometimes I do. Like if I’m in a church service and the heaviness of God’s presence is in the room. Sometimes it feels like electricity running through you, a warmth or a quickening.

Or sometimes when I am burdened to pray for something or someone but without knowing what it is. There is an urgency to it all. I suppose it is the anointing and the unction of the Holy Spirit. But it is down in your gut and you know that there is an intercessory need. It is not an oppressive feeling, but it is a feeling of God’s presence and an urgency in the Spirit. You know by instinct when to begin and when to end. The burden lifts.

Then there are other times when I feel absolutely nothing. I am just praying in a language I know not.

That does sound weird. This is normative for her or happens only sometimes?

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 14:27-33,

If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. ** If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent.** For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

While the context may be different than the context in which your mother in law speaks in tongues, the principle Paul establishes is important and universal. Any vocal gift, whether it be prophecy or tongues, is given by God but it is exercised by us. Any “prophet” has control over his own spirit. I’m not sure what to make out of your mother in law’s case and since I don’t know her personally or acquainted with the situation, I would be reluctant to form any opinion. However, it does not seem to line up with what Paul says in Scripture.

Only sometimes this happens to her. I can remember 2 occasions that she didnt remember but the other times she did.

 

[ltwin]

I would like to know the Pentecostal theology about Original Sin as committed by the first human being according to Romans 5: 12-21.

The same thing as Catholics (I think). Two things are meant by “original sin”: the first sin of Adam and the sinful nature possessed by every man since Adam due to Adam’s first transgression.