Ask a Pentecostal

[FabiusMaximus]

Hi Itwin, I suppose this is not just a Pentecostal question per se but I think you’ll be able to answer it since you believe in a combination of Calvinist and Zwinglian Communion views and I hope you don’t mind to do so here.

Would you say the early Church did not believe in bread and wine becoming Christ’s body and blood and Catholics misinterpret the early fathers? Or do you believe the early Church did teach this doctrine but was wrong about it and other teachings until reformers such as Calvin and Zwingli came along? If the latter, why do you believe it would have taken Christ 1500 yrs to reform His Church?

I’m not Pentecostal but neither am I overly versed in general Calvinist/Zwinglian Protestantism so I thank you ahead for helping me to understand and God bless you my Christian sibling in Christ.

The answer is that it’s irrelevant what the Church Fathers believed because I don’t think Pentecostals see that theology as something that is necessarily supposed to be traced back to the earliest Christians.

It’s not that Ignatius or Justin Martyr taught the real presence or not, it’s that it does not matter because they are not infallible, and are not considered “more knowledgeable” about proper Christian doctrine.

In fact, it is very rare to hear about the Early Christian Fathers in Evangelical sermons.

 

[Stephen168]

Hi Itwin, I suppose this is not just a Pentecostal question per se but I think you’ll be able to answer it since you believe in a combination of Calvinist and Zwinglian Communion views and I hope you don’t mind to do so here.

Would you say the early Church did not believe in bread and wine becoming Christ’s body and blood and Catholics misinterpret the early fathers? Or do you believe the early Church did teach this doctrine but was wrong about it and other teachings until reformers such as Calvin and Zwingli came along? If the latter, why do you believe it would have taken Christ 1500 yrs to reform His Church?

The answer is that it’s irrelevant what the Church Fathers believed because I don’t think Pentecostals see that theology as something that is necessarily supposed to be traced back to the earliest Christians.

What Itwin believes is what is relevant to Christian Soul

 

[ltwin]

Would you say the early Church did not believe in bread and wine becoming Christ’s body and blood and Catholics misinterpret the early fathers? Or do you believe the early Church did teach this doctrine but was wrong about it and other teachings until reformers such as Calvin and Zwingli came along? If the latter, why do you believe it would have taken Christ 1500 yrs to reform His Church?

My belief on church history isn’t worth much. My views of the Church Fathers would be just that, my view. I’ve read small portions of the Church Fathers over the years. I know a general outline of Church history: the different church councils, the relationships between bishops and empire, and the diversity among Christian sects even in antiquity. Yet, I don’t know everything. This is why I turn to Scripture and when I don’t understand something I will read what others have said to see what other Christians at other times and places have said about a text. Then I go back and compare that to Scripture again, and I compare other Scriptures that give insight into a confusing passage.

I’m not Pentecostal but neither am I overly versed in general Calvinist/Zwinglian Protestantism so I thank you ahead for helping me to understand and God bless you my Christian sibling in Christ.

Just to clarify, Pentecostals aren’t Calvinists. We’re Arminians. However, we sit on the spectrum between the Calvinist view of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper and the more Zwinglian memorial view.

Zwingli did believe that Christ was present in a spiritual way during Holy Communion. The problem was that his followers went beyond what he taught and basically reduced it to a commemorative ceremony that recalls the atoning work of Christ.

Calvin emphasized the spiritual presence of Christ. In the Calvinist view, this is a dynamic presence through the power of the Holy Spirit. The efficacy of Christ’s sacrificial death is applied and made meaningful to the believer who participates with an attitude of faith and trust in Christ.

This is what Pentecostals believe about the Lord’s Supper in the words of Aimee Semple McPherson:

We believe in the commemoration and observing of the Lord’s supper by the sacred use of the broken bread, a precious type of the Bread of Life, even Jesus Christ, whose body was broken for us; and by the juice of the vine, a blessed type which should ever remind the participant of the shed blood of the Savior who is the true vine of which His children are the branches;

The elements themselves are symbolic; they point to a spiritual reality. The Lord’s Supper proclaims the gospel, so it is didactic.

that this ordinance is a glorious rainbow that spans the gulf of years between Calvary and the coming of the Lord, when in the Father’s kingdom, He will partake anew with His children;

The Lord’s Supper is both memory and prophecy. And we participate in both.

and that the serving and receiving of this blessed sacrament should be ever preceded by the most solemn heart-searching, self-examination, forgiveness and love toward all men, that none partake unworthily and drink condemnation to his own soul.

Because of the sacred nature of Holy Communion, only Christians should partake and only in a worthy manner. Like Paul, we believe unworthily partaking of communion is “why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Corinthians 11:30).

 

[ltwin]

In the early Church, there was no controversy about whether infants should be baptized.

Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 18 “Of the Persons to Whom, and the Time When, Baptism is to Be Administered”:

The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.”

How do you conceptualize these passages? Esp Acts 22:16?

First, I look at what Acts says about baptism in other places. Acts 2:37-38,

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Repentance precedes baptism. After becoming a Christian, the believer can expect the fullness of the Spirit, the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The fact that one has received the word of the lord in faith gives reason to baptize (Acts 10:34-48).

I don’t read baptism in Titus 3:4-7. See post 263, page 18.

What does the Aposlte mean “baptism now saves you” if there is no action of the Holy Spirit at work within it?

I never limit the Holy Spirit’s work in any act of faith. “Quench not the Spirit.” The work of the Holy Spirit is not what is questioned. It is what type of work and the purpose of baptism. Peter makes it clear that this is not "as a removal of dirt from the body,"as if it is the action in water that is effective. He says, “but as an appeal to God for a good conscience.”

We know that, of ourselves, we cannot in any way “appeal to God for a good conscience”. This must be an act of the HS, washing away our sins.

This is what faith does. It appeals to God. It calls to God; “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13). In baptism, we call on God. In baptism, we appeal to God not on the basis of our own good conscience, but in His goodness and our cleansing and renewal.

If, as you say, baptism is just an outward sign of something that has already occurred inwardly, why does the Apostle say “baptism now saves you”?

Baptism is a God ordained expression of that appeal/call. It is a God ordained expression of the faith that saves. With our whole bodies and beings we say to God, “I trust you to take me into Christ like Noah was taken into the ark. I trust you to bring me through the waters of death into new life in you.”

 

[ltwin]

NEVER. EVER, CAN, MAY OR DOES
ONE VERSE; PASSAGE OR TEACHING
MAKE VOID
INVALIDATE
OR OVERRIDE ANOTHER
VERSE; PASSAGE OR TEACHING [TRUTH IS AND MUST BE SINGULAR]

Amen and Hallelujah.

Why or how [answering either will satisfy me] WHY:did God wait MORE than one thousand YEARS to make YOUR position known? HOW: can a Perfect and Good God do so?

My position is that what I believe is found in Scripture. Therefore, it is there for all to read it. If for 1,000 years people formed their own interpretations, that is not my concern. They would have to show me that the way I read Scripture is wrong and they were right.

 

[Miriam1947]

First, I look at what Acts says about baptism in other places. Acts 2:37-38,

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Repentance precedes baptism. After becoming a Christian, the believer can expect the fullness of the Spirit, the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The fact that one has received the word of the lord in faith gives reason to baptize (Acts 10:34-48).

Well yes, Itwin, back then repentance preceded baptism. But that is because grown ups, grown up Jews, were coming to Christ.

What happened in the centuries after that when the new Christians had children? Did they leave them out of the new covenant? Or did they do what they had always done and bring them into the New Covenant with God?

Taking out parts of scripture is what Oneness Pentacostals do. They hear Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. and baptize in the name of Jesus only.

Not a good idea. They took part of scripture and used it to mean too much.

 

[ltwin]

Well yes, Itwin, back then repentance preceded baptism. But that is because grown ups, grown up Jews, were coming to Christ.

What happened in the centuries after that when the new Christians had children? Did they leave them out of the new covenant? Or did they do what they had always done and bring them into the New Covenant with God?

That’s just it. What right do I have to bring my child into the New Covenant when that is predicated on faith and repentance. How can I make them a follower of Christ based on my own faith? I can teach them. I can point them to Jesus. But I can’t give them my faith. I can’t give them my repentance. They must have faith in Christ for themselves. They must repent for themselves. I can’t make the decision to become a Christian for them and neither should I have them baptized before they are able to express that desire.

Taking out parts of scripture is what Oneness Pentacostals do. They hear Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. and baptize in the name of Jesus only.

Not a good idea. They took part of scripture and used it to mean too much.

I’m not a Oneness Pentecostal. Yes, Luke used “in the name of Jesus Christ” in Acts. This is true, we are baptized into Christ. But Jesus gave us the complete formula in Matthew 28.

 

[guanophore]

Why or how [answering either will satisfy me] WHY:did God wait MORE than one thousand YEARS to make YOUR position known? HOW: can a Perfect and Good God do so?

This is an interesting question, PJM. Since Jesus taught all to His Apostles, and they committed the full measure of this revelation to the Church, we must assume that the successors of the Apostles were guided by this revelation, and by the Holy Spirit. If not, it makes Christ out to be incapable of sending forth men who would be capable of transmitting all that truth. They could not have been ignorant because Christ expounded all things to them in private, told them that they had the privilege of knowing mysteries, and promised the Holy Spirit to them, who would lead them into all the truth. Peter and the other apostles were all given the same truths. The Holy Spirit definitely led them into all the truth, since it says in Acts that He came down.

Then, even after most of the NT was written, Jesus was speaking powerfully and prophetically to His Church (as we can see in the letters to the Churches in Revelation). So what happened to that powerful Jesus, that he became sick, or weak, or somehow unable to direct His Church according to His will?

How is it that He could not find one single person, in the next 1500 years, that He could use to redirect the Church away from making the mistake of baptizing infants, or convince the Church that they had made a mistake about the nature of baptism?

And a related question, the Reformers who rejected the Apostolic doctrine on this matter never claimed that Jesus had come to them personally and that He wanted them to redirect the Church into another direction. So why did they?

 

[guanophore]

i find it puzzling that you don’t understand this-- but Oh we’ll— God understands

Perhaps you can lend a hand, or a post? That is one of the purposes of this thread, after all, to help us understand one another’s faith better?

I think it is not a case of “not understanding” but of understanding differently. Catholics understand these Scripture verses through the lens of Sacred Tradition, so we often understand them differently from our evangelical brethren.

 

[Christian_Soul]

What Itwin believes is what is relevant to Christian Soul

Actually what was relevant to me was how believers of the Calvinist or Zwinglian views of Communion relate their belief to what Catholics say about the EFC’s.

 

[guanophore]

My belief on church history isn't worth much. My views of the Church Fathers would be just that, my view. I've read small portions of the Church Fathers over the years. I know a general outline of Church history: the different church councils, the relationships between bishops and empire, and the diversity among Christian sects even in antiquity. Yet, I don't know everything. This is why I turn to Scripture and when I don't understand something I will read what others have said to see what other Christians at other times and places have said about a text. Then I go back and compare that to Scripture again, and I compare other Scriptures that give insight into a confusing passage.

That is worth quite a bit to me, Itwin. In fact, I think by this much study, you are already better educated than most Catholics on the history of our faith.

Zwingli did believe that Christ was present in a spiritual way during Holy Communion. The problem was that his followers went beyond what he taught and basically reduced it to a commemorative ceremony that recalls the atoning work of Christ.

I find Pentecostal theology in many ways very Catholic - sometimes more so that the original Reformers. I wonder what Calvin or Zwingli would have thought if they attended your service?

Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 18 “Of the Persons to Whom, and the Time When, Baptism is to Be Administered”:

The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.” Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.”

Thanks Itwin! I forgot about this passage in Tertullian. He changes directions so many times in his writings it is difficult to keep track of what he really thinks. He is good for historical interest, but he was never canonized, and joined a heretical sect near the end of his life, so his writings are not valued as much as those who stand in the tradition of the Apostles. Certainly his writing here demonstrates that the Church was quick to baptize infants, too quick in his view.

What do you think of his thoughts at the beginning of this treatise?

Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry (in mind), through ignorance, an untried though probable faith. … But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!

 

[guanophore]

 My position is that what I believe is found in Scripture. Therefore, it is there for all to read it. If for 1,000 years people formed their own interpretations, that is not my concern. They would have to show me that the way I read Scripture is wrong and they were right.

How could such a thing be shown? I mean, what evidence might you find pursuasive? For example, you side with Tertullian on waiting for children to reach the age of reason/choice to be baptized, but you reject His ideas about the Sacramental nature of baptism.

First, I look at what Acts says about baptism in other places. Acts 2:37-38,

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Repentance precedes baptism. After becoming a Christian, the believer can expect the fullness of the Spirit, the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The fact that one has received the word of the lord in faith gives reason to baptize (Acts 10:34-48).

Yes, this is consistent with what the CC does also. Regarding adults, we require repentance, and “calling upon the name of the Lord”. The adult must profess the Apsotles’ Creed and request baptism from the Church. But we also accept the Apostolic Teaching here that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, and brings the gift of the HS.

I don’t read baptism in Titus 3:4-7. See post 263, page 18.

Would it have any influence on you to know that the Church founded by the Apostles read it this way for the last 2000 years?

I never limit the Holy Spirit's work in any act of faith. "Quench not the Spirit." The work of the Holy Spirit is not what is questioned. It is what type of work and the purpose of baptism. Peter makes it clear that this is not "as a removal of dirt from the body,"as if it is the action in water that is effective. He says, "but as an appeal to God for a good conscience."

He is saying that it is, indeed, the action in water that is effective (just like Tertullian expounds in his treatise) but that the effective action is not to wash dirt from the body, but dirt from the soul. That is why he says " baptism…now saves you" (Peter 3:21). The Apostles believed that a soul was born again through the spirit “through” the water, just as the Ark saved Noah and his family “through” the water.

That’s just it. What right do I have to bring my child into the New Covenant when that is predicated on faith and repentance.

An adult convert must have faith and repentance, but by the same right that the Jews had to bring their infants into the covenant. It was assumed that the persons born into the family were intended to be brought up in the covenant.

How can I make them a follower of Christ based on my own faith?

The same way that you “make” disciples out of anyone!

I can teach them. I can point them to Jesus. But I can’t give them my faith.

You are sharing your faith, and forming them in the faith. Just as Tertullian says, you raise them in the

"Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are being taught whither to come; let them become Christians, when they have been able to know Christ. …Let them know how to seek salvation, that you may be seen “to give to him that asketh.”… unimpaired faith is sure of salvation

In fact, through your dedication you make the same commitment to raise the child in the faith that Catholics do at baptism, so there is no difference in that area.

I can’t give them my repentance.

No, but they don’t need it, either, just like the Children of Israel who were circumcised on the 8th day did not need to make a commitment to become part of the Covenant.

 

[guanophore]

They must have faith in Christ for themselves. They must repent for themselves.

Yes, they will need to do that, just as in Israel each young man and young woman had a bar mitzvah and a bas mitzvah. But as infants, what need is there for repentance? And will they not come to faith by growing up in a Christian home? Of course, some may reject it later, but most do not.

Prov 22:6
Train children in the right way,
and when old, they will not stray.

I can’t make the decision to become a Christian for them and neither should I have them baptized before they are able to express that desire.

I will respect your convictions, of course, and this goes back to the meaning of original sin, and how it is washed from us. If one does not believe baptism does this, of course there is no reason to baptize and infant!

But consider this: Parents don’t wait for their children to agree to immunizations, dental care, or any other medical things they need. We don’t wait to find out if they want to choose to go to school, or what kind of clothes are appropriate, or how to relate to other people in the world. Why would we make all these decisions for our children and neglect the one with the most profound consequences (spiritual)?

This is what faith does. It appeals to God. It calls to God; “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13). In baptism, we call on God. In baptism, we appeal to God not on the basis of our own good conscience, but in His goodness and our cleansing and renewal.

I agree that faith is, indeed, and appeal to God for a clean conscience. However, that is not what this passage says.

1 Peter 3:21-22
21 And baptism, which this prefigured, **now saves you **— not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.

The Apostle says that baptism itself is the appeal. This is why the ancient Churches offer it to infants - it is the HS who is doing the work, not the person receiving it.

Baptism is a God ordained expression of that appeal/call. It is a God ordained expression of the faith that saves. With our whole bodies and beings we say to God, "I trust you to take me into Christ like Noah was taken into the ark. I trust you to bring me through the waters of death into new life in you."

Yes, we will agree on this point.

The writer of Hebrews also references baptism:

Heb 10:22-24
2 let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who has promised is faithful.

Baptism cleanses the heart from evil. It is accompanied by a profession of faith to which we must persevere.

Sorry about getting so carried away posting. Baptism is one of my favorite subjects.

 

[ltwin]

He is good for historical interest, but he was never canonized, and joined a heretical sect near the end of his life, so his writings are not valued as much as those who stand in the tradition of the Apostles.

I’m aware he became a Montanist. However, I’ve also read that he never split from the Catholic Church and died Catholic.

Certainly his writing here demonstrates that the Church was quick to baptize infants, too quick in his view.

Yes and we can be sure that he was not alone in this views. If we assume that the Catholic position is correct and the church has always baptized infants from the very beginning, Tertullian indicates that at least by the era of his writing (he lived c. 160-c. 225) there were people disagreeing with this. Another way to look at it is that infant baptism was on among many trends that was gaining increasing dominance in the church and Tertullian is not happy about it.

What do you think of his thoughts at the beginning of this treatise?

Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry (in mind), through ignorance, an untried though probable faith. … But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!

I don’t, and never claimed to, agree with everything Tertullian said. I just used an important early Christian writer to point out that the following statement made by you was open to debate: “In the early Church, there was no controversy about whether infants should be baptized.”

 

[ltwin]

For example, you side with Tertullian on waiting for children to reach the age of reason/choice to be baptized, but you reject His ideas about the Sacramental nature of baptism.

As I said above, I produced Tertullian solely because I thought you made an overly broad historical claim. Guess I should have included some fine print in very small letters. Something like, “The views of Tertullian do not necessarily represent the views of this poster.”

Would it have any influence on you to know that the Church founded by the Apostles read it this way for the last 2000 years?

Well that would be hard to ignore.

The same way that you “make” disciples out of anyone!

Based on my confession of faith, can my 80 year old grandma receive baptism? Or will she need to stand on her own confession?

In fact, through your dedication you make the same commitment to raise the child in the faith that Catholics do at baptism, so there is no difference in that area.

Except that in our dedications, the parents recognize that it is God who has given them children and the parents promise to raise them up in a Christian home and teaching and modeling the Christian life to them, all in the hope that the child might learn to trust and have faith in Christ. We don’t go ahead and baptize the baby.

No, but they don’t need it, either, just like the Children of Israel who were circumcised on the 8th day did not need to make a commitment to become part of the Covenant.

Because a child who is Jewish by birth is part of God’s covenant to the Jewish people. A child born to Christian parents is not Christian by birth.

 

[ltwin]

Yes, they will need to do that, just as in Israel each young man and young woman had a bar mitzvah and a bas mitzvah. But as infants, what need is there for repentance? And will they not come to faith by growing up in a Christian home? Of course, some may reject it later, but most do not.

Forgive me if this sounds like I’m beating up on the Catholic Church. I certainly am not, and I realize that Protestants have the same problem with many non-practicing people who claim that they are part of the various Protestant traditions (including Pentecostals). However, you say above that “some reject it later, but most do not.” Do Catholics even make theoretical distinctions between those Catholics who actually live what the CC teaches and those who are “Catholic in name only.”

I know that the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians baptize infants and make vows similar to what evangelical parents would make in dedication. I’m assuming Catholics make similar vows? What does the Catholic Church think about the baptizing of infants from families that are not practicing Catholics and show no indication given their past history and behavior that they will even carry out the baptismal vows?

But consider this: Parents don’t wait for their children to agree to immunizations, dental care, or any other medical things they need. We don’t wait to find out if they want to choose to go to school, or what kind of clothes are appropriate, or how to relate to other people in the world. Why would we make all these decisions for our children and neglect the one with the most profound consequences (spiritual)?

By all means take your children to church and religious education and worship both in and outside the home and make it mandatory that they attend (how else will they learn). Surround them with love and a Christian environment that reinforces a correct spiritual worldview and protect them from unhealthy and dangerous people and environments. But there is a point where we have to acknowledge that we cannot make decisions of faith for our children.

I agree that faith is, indeed, and appeal to God for a clean conscience. However, that is not what this passage says.

Well on this we disagree.

Sorry about getting so carried away posting. Baptism is one of my favorite subjects.

Well, its an important topic with a lot of implications.

 

[guanophore]

Yes and we can be sure that he was not alone in this views. If we assume that the Catholic position is correct and the church has always baptized infants from the very beginning, Tertullian indicates that at least by the era of his writing (he lived c. 160-c. 225) there were people disagreeing with this. Another way to look at it is that infant baptism was on among many trends that was gaining increasing dominance in the church and Tertullian is not happy about it.

Christians brought their infants and children to Christ ever since He commanded that the shold do so. Since the Apostles taught we are baptized "into Him’ this was the best way they could think of to bring them to Him.

I don’t know about a 'trend". More of a practice passed on from the Apostles. When we read the martrydom of Polycarp, we note he professes to be a Christian from the day of his infant baptism “eighty years” ago. He is believed to have been baptized by the Apostle John. If it were a “trend” it is odd that all the Churches founded by the Aposltes have retained it, is it not? How come Jesus could not correct this, by showing everyone that Tertullians concerns were valid?

I don’t, and never claimed to, agree with everything Tertullian said. I just used an important early Christian writer to point out that the following statement made by you was open to debate: “In the early Church, there was no controversy about whether infants should be baptized.”

Indeed rightly. So I will accept this to mean that you reject his preamble for the work, which is consistent with the Apostolic faith found in all the ancient churches.

I know that the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians baptize infants and make vows similar to what evangelical parents would make in dedication. I’m assuming Catholics make similar vows?

Yes. The Church will not baptize without a profession of faith. The profession of the parents and grandparents are accepted on behalf of the child.

What does the Catholic Church think about the baptizing of infants from families that are not practicing Catholics and show no indication given their past history and behavior that they will even carry out the baptismal vows?

Baptism is not offered in these cases.

By all means take your children to church and religious education and worship both in and outside the home and make it mandatory that they attend (how else will they learn). Surround them with love and a Christian environment that reinforces a correct spiritual worldview and protect them from unhealthy and dangerous people and environments. But there is a point where we have to acknowledge that we cannot make decisions of faith for our children.

Yes, and that point comes at the age of reason, and young adulthood. When they are infants, we give them the best chance we can, by breaking the bondage of original sin into which we are all born as soon as possible.

Well on this we disagree.

The fathers teach that this passage:

1 Cor 6:11
11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Is also a reference to baptism. It reflects the apostolic teaching that the rebirth by water and Spirit sanctifies and justifies.

 

[ltwin]

I find Pentecostal theology in many ways very Catholic - sometimes more so that the original Reformers.

This is because of the strong influence of John Wesley I believe. As I understand his theological influences (I’m not an expert by any means), he was influenced by Anglican and Catholic mystical traditions.

Modern Methodists seem to gravitate more toward the sacramental side of Wesley. Pentecostals toward the more experiential side. Wesley wrote in his journal entry on November 4, 1744,

Poor Richard Jeffs who in spite of his former conviction, was now determined to renounce us, and join the Quakers, ventured, however, once more, to the Lord’s table. He had no sooner received, than he dropped down, and cried with a loud voice, “I have sinned; I have sinned against God.” At that instant many were pierced to the heart. I could hardly speak for some time. Several mourners were filled with strong consolation; and all said, “Surely God is in this place!”

I remember one my church had communion and the Lord’s presence was so sweet. Many of us were on our knees just weeping and loving God. God just moved with power and conviction in that service.

I also remember a lady in my church told my mom how her husband (who was in sort of a backslidden state at the time) had taken communion and got so sick he had to leave church early.

Another entry for October 14, 1790, reads,

l went to Yarmouth and, at length, found a society in peace and much united together. In the evening the congregation was too large to get into the preaching-house; yet they were far less noisy than usual. After supper a little company went to prayer, and the power of God fell upon us; especially when a young woman broke out into prayer, to the surprise and comfort of us all.

So, yeah there are some really great parallels between Pentecostalism and early Methodism (some others not so great). And there is definitely some Catholic influence being mediated through the Methodist heritage.

I wonder what Calvin or Zwingli would have thought if they attended your service?

Oh . . . . I don’t know. Calvin was a cessationist wasn’t he?

 

[ltwin]

Indeed rightly. So I will accept this to mean that you reject his preamble for the work, which is consistent with the Apostolic faith found in all the ancient churches.

I don’t agree with it. But I find the gnostic, antinomian heresy of the Cainites fascinating! I was not previously aware of their existence.

Though I suppose Tertullian would consider what I believe to be “venomous doctrine” as well.

 

[armyross]

“Ask a [(name removed by moderator)ut your non-Catholic religion here]” threads seem popular. So, any questions that you want to ask about Pentecostalism?

I have to say I have been to a pencostal church before and I do like the feel I got there. Not saying I belive in tounges and all that but I did like the singing I heard.