Ask a pentecostal.

[Jon_S_1]

1 Corinthians 14:1-40

The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy

This is not a quote of Jesus.

You said multiple quotes of Jesus, you provided 1. Mark 16:17 which refers to Pentecost. Could you share the others from Jesus please?

 

[Jon_S_1]

It depends on how you view it.

I’ve studied Catholicism and at once was considering it. If you follow Catholic tridition, converts and people who became Catholics had to be baptized as a process of entering the Church, and still must be baptized.

Even outside of the Catholic Church, baptisim would be used practiced. So, yes, God did use Baptism for the past 17 centuries.

Why in the world would you think Pentecostals believe it’s a 19th century thing…?

Perhaps my terminology is wrong, I thought Baptism of the Holy Spirit referred to speaking in tongues/fainting to you.

Is there an appropriate term for this? Maybe charismatic gifts?

So to clear up, again I am asking for evidence of your babbling/fainting stuff which IS. A 19th/20th century invention.

 

[KingJohn]

In the letter of correction to the Corinthians, St. Paul gave specific instructions to let a man prove himself, and then let him eat and drink. What is Paul asking be proved?

In all honesty, I do not know.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1 Corinthians 14:1-40

The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy

Okay, I see the confusion. You said, ‘Jesus said…’ This is a God inspired writing from St. Paul to the Corinthians. It is also the same chapter where St. Paul said, ‘I thank my God I speak with all your tongues.’

1Co 14:19 But in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also: than ten thousand words in a tongue.
1Co 14:20 Brethren, do not become children in sense. But in malice be children: and in sense be perfect.
1Co 14:21 In the law it is written: In other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people: and neither so will they hear me, saith the Lord.
1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to believers but to unbelievers: but prophecies, not to unbelievers but to believers.
1Co 14:23 If therefore the whole church come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned persons or infidels, will they not say that you are mad?
1Co 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not or an unlearned person, he is convinced of all: he is judged of all.
1Co 14:25 The secrets of his heart are made manifest. And so, falling down on his face, he will adore God, affirming that God is among you indeed.
1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? When you come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation: let all things be done to edification.
1Co 14:27 If any speak with a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and in course: and let one interpret.
1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him hold his peace in the church and speak to himself and to God.

When one reads the entire chapter, that you referenced, it doesn’t seem that tongues is so predominate as the Church was to be built upon that doctrine. In fact, it seem other gifts are equal to tongues.

1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit.
1Co 12:5 And there are diversities of ministries. but the same Lord.
1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all.
1Co 12:7 And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit.
1Co 12:8 To one indeed, by the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom: and to another, the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit:
1Co 12:9 To another, faith in the same spirit: to another, the grace of healing in one Spirit:
1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles: to another, prophecy: to another, the discerning of spirits: to another, diverse kinds of tongues: to another, interpretation of speeches.
1Co 12:11 But all these things, one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will.
1Co 12:12 For as the body is one and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body: So also is Christ.

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?
1Co 12:30 Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
1Co 12:31 But be zealous for the better gifts. And I shew unto you yet a more excellent way.

 

[KingJohn]

Perhaps my terminology is wrong, I thought Baptism of the Holy Spirit referred to speaking in tongues/fainting to you.

Is there an appropriate term for this? Maybe charismatic gifts?

So to clear up, again I am asking for evidence of your babbling/fainting stuff which IS. A 19th/20th century invention.

We pentecostals believe in Spiritual gifts and we look to the Bible on guidence on how to use them, yes. But, to us, Baptism of the Holy Spirit most certainly isn’t just speaking in tounges/fainting.

My babbling and fainting which IS what?

Which IS Baptism through the holy spirit? Which is false.

Which IS what?

 

[KingJohn]

Okay, I see the confusion. You said, ‘Jesus said…’ This is a God inspired writing from St. Paul to the Corinthians. It is also the same chapter where St. Paul said, ‘I thank my God I speak with all your tongues.’

When one reads the entire chapter, that you referenced, it doesn’t seem that tongues is so predominate as the Church was to be built upon that doctrine. In fact, it seem other gifts are equal to tongues.

Alright, I stand corrected.

Does it make it any of less credible that Paul said it, though?

 

[Jon_S_1]

We pentecostals believe in Spiritual gifts and we look to the Bible on guidence on how to use them, yes. But, to us, Baptism of the Holy Spirit most certainly isn’t just speaking in tounges/fainting.

My babbling and fainting which IS what?

Which IS Baptism through the holy spirit? Which is false.

Which IS what?

To make it clear, show me the evidence from history that I should be Pentecostal?? That I should commune with God through babbling (sorry I don’t know how else to refer to it). As I see it Pentecostal doctrine is an invention of the last 200 years. I am asking you to show me otherwise.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In all honesty, I do not know.

It is a discernment to accept this is His body, and His blood.

We can read John chapter 6 and see Christ was specific. So specific, that many that followed Him, left and followed Him no more. Christ did not say, ‘I am speaking a parable,’ He turned to the Apostles and ask, ‘will you go away also?’

Joh 6:53 (6:54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Joh 6:54 (6:55) He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Joh 6:55 (6:56) For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

The irony is in John 6:66.

Joh 6:66 (6:67) After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.
Joh 6:67 (6:68) Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Alright, I stand corrected.

Does it make it any of less credible that Paul said it, though?

No, it just makes it more clear that you base your entire practice on a couple verses while ignoring others.

Also since we disagree about what this letter to the Corinthians means, wouldn’t it make sense to look at the first/second century church to whom this letter was written to determine how the recipients of this letter put it into practice???

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Alright, I stand corrected.

Does it make it any of less credible that Paul said it, though?

It’s not less credible, but seems to have less importance as some place on it. Please read my post #44.

1Co 12:28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors?
1Co 12:30 Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
1Co 12:31 But be zealous for the better gifts. And I shew unto you yet a more excellent way.

All verses have to be taken in context of the entire passage, and the chapter you find it in.

 

[MJCamp]

I’l answer this to the best of my ability.

There may be some differing opinions on this but I believe most Evangelical Pentecostals would say that Communion is an act of remembering the sacrifice Jesus made, as he commanded us to do. The bread and the cup are symbolic references to Jesus’ body and blood, and not his literal body and blood.

I hope that answers your question.

Symbolic? So what would be the point of Jesus using symbolism to such a large group of followers and then allowing those who do not believe what he says to walk off without first clearing up what he means in this passage? These were disciples who had followed him and adored him. If Jesus didn’t mean what he said, then why let his followers turn on him over a symbolic interpretation?

John 6:47-66 (RSV) “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. [50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” [52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” [53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; [54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. [57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” [59] This he said in the synagogue, as he taught at Caper’na-um. [60] Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? [62] Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? [63] It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. [64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. [65] And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”[66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It is a discernment to accept this is His body, and His blood.

We can read John chapter 6 and see Christ was specific. So specific, that many that followed Him, left and followed Him no more. Christ did not say, ‘I am speaking a parable,’ He turned to the Apostles and ask, ‘will you go away also?’

The irony is in John 6:66.

Then we read things from the first century such as :

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood) from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Irenaeus Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).

And since we disagree on what the Bible says in John 6, should we not look to the earliest church to see what they thought? What was preached to them daily by the apostles?

Or do rely on the ideas of a pastor 1800 years later?

 

[KingJohn]

To make it clear, show me the evidence from history that I should be Pentecostal?? That I should commune with God through babbling (sorry I don’t know how else to refer to it). As I see it Pentecostal doctrine is an invention of the last 200 years. I am asking you to show me otherwise.

I’m going to make it clear: I’m not here to convert people. I’m not going to attempt to convert you from catholicism. I am NOT here to argue, only to answer and inform. I could ask a Wiccan to show me the historical evidence that I should be a wiccan. A hellenic believer. The thing is it’s personal preference and faith.

Pentecostalism has helped me better as a person in my faith and belief. I do not want to be apart of a Religion that says it is the only way to get to Heaven, and that if you reject the Apostles you reject any chance in Heaven. That is just me.

Once again, it is OPTIONAL to communicate to God through SPEAKING IN TOUNGES.

And the truth is, Pentecostalism is a denomination that descended from scripture, other then speaking in Tounges which is optional, it is a mainstream Christian denomination.

No, it just makes it more clear that you base your entire practice on a couple verses while ignoring others.

Also since we disagree about what this letter to the Corinthians means, wouldn’t it make sense to look at the first/second century church to whom this letter was written to determine how the recipients of this letter put it into practice???

Can’t we simply agree to disagree? I’m not going to argue with you.

 

[MJCamp]

Appearently, there aren’t many pentecostals on this forum and theres’ been major misconceptions.

So, ask me anything.

When was the pentecostal bible created? Who determined which books were to be included in the pentecostal bible? How did Pentecostal’s worship before the bible was distributed to followers?

 

[LegoGE1947]

When was the pentecostal bible created? Who determined which books were to be included in the pentecostal bible? How did Pentecostal’s worship before the bible was distributed to followers?

I was a Pentecostal, but I got over it!

 

[KingJohn]

When was the pentecostal bible created? Who determined which books were to be included in the pentecostal bible? How did Pentecostal’s worship before the bible was distributed to followers?

Many evangelical Pentecostals follow the King James Version which, I believe, was created sometime in the 1600s.

Pentecostalism, as you should understand, is much younger then the Catholic Church. We were not here before the Bible was distribute.d

As for who determined? I’m not very sure. I haven’t thought about it that much.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Then we read things from the first century such as :

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).

He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood) from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receive the Word of God and become the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported) how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord and is in fact a member of him? (Irenaeus Against Heresies 5:2 [A.D. 189]).

And since we disagree on what the Bible says in John 6, should we not look to the earliest church to see what they thought? What was preached to them daily by the apostles?

Or do rely on the ideas of a pastor 1800 years later?

The early Church fathers show us what the early Church believed. It’s the same thing as is believed today, in the Catholic Church.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either 90 by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

-St. Ignatius, @ 107AD

The term ‘Catholic’ was not new. St. Ignatius got it from the scriptures.

Act 9:31 αιG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED ουνG3767 THEN εκκλησιαιG1577 ASSEMBLIES καθG2596 THROUGHOUT οληςG3650 WHOLE τηςG3588 THE ιουδαιαςG2449 OF JUDEA καιG2532 AND γαλιλαιαςG1056 GALILEE καιG2532 AND σαμαρειαςG4540 SAMARIA ειχονG2192 [G5707] HAD ειρηνηνG1515 PEACE, οικοδομουμεναιG3618 [G5746] BEING BUILT UP καιG2532 AND πορευομεναιG4198 [G5740] GOING ON τωG3588 IN THE φοβωG5401 FEAR τουG3588 OF THE κυριουG2962 LORD, καιG2532 AND τηG3588 IN THE παρακλησειG3874 COMFORT τουG3588 OF THE αγιουG40 HOLY πνευματοςG4151 SPIRIT επληθυνοντοG4129 [G5712] WERE INCREASED.

G1577
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see’-ah
From a compound of G1537 and a derivative of G2564; a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.

G2596
κατά
kata
kat-ah’
A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.

G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective (katholikos), meaning “universal”.

thefreedictionary.com/catholic

Catholic

[Middle English catholik, universally accepted, from Old French catholique, from Latin catholicus, universal, from Greek katholikos, from katholou, in general : kat-, kata-, down, along, according to; see cata- + holou (from neuter genitive of holos, whole; see sol- in Indo-European roots).]

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m going to make it clear: I’m not here to convert people. I’m not going to attempt to convert you from catholicism. I am NOT here to argue, only to answer and inform. I could ask a Wiccan to show me the historical evidence that I should be a wiccan. A hellenic believer. The thing is it’s personal preference and faith.

Pentecostalism has helped me better as a person in my faith and belief. I do not want to be apart of a Religion that says it is the only way to get to Heaven, and that if you reject the Apostles you reject any chance in Heaven. That is just me.

Once again, it is OPTIONAL to communicate to God through SPEAKING IN TOUNGES.

And the truth is, Pentecostalism is a denomination that descended from scripture, other then speaking in Tounges which is optional, it is a mainstream Christian denomination.

Can’t we simply agree to disagree? I’m not going to argue with you.

Sorry, I do not agree to disagree. Truth is not relative, to say it is so is a logical fallacy. All roads do not lead to the top of the mountain. There is one truth revealed by God, first to his chosen people and then through Christ and the Apostles. Just as God dictated how he should be worshiped to the Jews and established a church in the OT, so too in the NT covenant through Christ and the Apostles.

I am sure you are sincere, I pray that sincerity leads you to seek the one truth revealed by God.

 

[KingJohn]

Sorry, I do not agree to disagree. Truth is not relative, to say it is so is a logical fallacy. All roads do not lead to the top of the mountain. There is one truth revealed by God, first to his chosen people and then through Christ and the Apostles. Just as God dictated how he should be worshiped to the Jews and established a church in the OT, so too in the NT covenant through Christ and the Apostles.

I am sure you are sincere, I pray that sincerity leads you to seek the one truth revealed by God.

You have your version of the truth, I have mine.

I do not believe that if you reject Humans that you are rejecting Christ and your chance in Heaven.

I do not believe you need to be in a Religion to go to Heaven.

If you do, then go ahead with that.

 

[the_phoenix]

Once again, it is OPTIONAL to communicate to God through SPEAKING IN TOUNGES.

Thank you.

Another thing I didn’t mention in my last post about the charismatic healing service. There was a portion of the evening where Sister Monica would encourage us to speak in tongues, saying something along the lines of, “If you can make noise and cheer for a football team, you can raise your voice to pray to the Lord.”

Personally, the thought of praying aloud in tongues made me feel uncomfortable, so at that point in the service, I would simply pray silently, usually in English, maybe in Spanish … either way, a language where I knew the meaning of the words I used to communicate with God.

~~ the phoenix