Ask a pentecostal.

  • Thread starter Thread starter KingJohn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am sorry to tell you, I’m sure your shocked, but the Catholic Bible has all these verses too.

We have no problem with any of these verses. We read them coupled with the entire scripture. We don’t twist or explain away, we have a systemic theology. We have a theology which correlated with the teachings of the apostles, a living historic faith that was practiced before the New Testament was written.

Think about this.

you are a professor and started teaching a class on a new field of study. Your students really love your teaching. So much so they go out to teach themselves and after a while thousands are teaching your class. As you get older, you decide to write a book on all you’ve learned and taught to aid future generations.

Now a dispute arises between a new instructor (who only read the book) and the faculty of instructors who were taught by people who went to the class. The person who only read claims the text says x, but everyone else who learned a living tradition from people in practice says y.

Who has a stronger argument?

To be clear you are the reader and the Early Church Fathers are the faculty.
God does.

Also, when I say I’m going to sleep I kinda’ mean it…

You have many questions that have been answered about “EIS”. Fully re-read my argument.

I’m going to quote my argument again while stating what I’m plainly arguing.

Baptism, I believe, is not required to get into Heaven. If someone doesn’t baptize, they don’t go to hell. Now, let me quote my argument.
They were not baptized “in order to get repentance,” but were “baptized because they had repented.” The second passage is Romans 6:3 where we have the phrase “baptized into (eis) His death.” This again fits with the meaning “because of” or in “regard to.” The third and final passage is 1 Corinthians 10:2 and the phrase “baptized into (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Again, eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage because the Israelites were not baptized in order to get Moses to be their leader, but because he was their leader and had led them out of Egypt. If one is consistent with the way the preposition eis is used in conjunction with baptism, we must conclude that Acts 2:38 is indeed referring to their being baptized “because” they had received forgiveness of their sins.
DO you understand, mr Jon…?
 
I am confused…priestly duties are reference in scripture. So is the implementation of Holy Orders. Nothing in Catholicism is not backed by scripture and early Church teachings. We’ve been blessed to have centuries of study and critique from some of the great minds of our time.

The Protestant interpretation of Hebrews 7 is contradicted by 1 Peter 2:5-9. Peter says: "like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people . . ."When Peter declares all Christians to be priests, he does not contradict Christ as our “one mediator between God and men,” which is the definition of a priest (1 Tm 2:5). The Catholic Church affirms and harmonizes both texts and both concepts.There are two keys to understanding Hebrews 7.Context: The inspired author is showing the superiority of Christ’s priesthood in contrast with the Old Covenant priesthood. He never denies the existence of a New Covenant priesthood.Distinction: Christians do not usurp or diminish the unique priesthood of Christ when they are made to be priests. Unlike Old Covenant priests, they participate in the one priesthood of Christ. So intimate is the union of the baptized with Christ that St. Paul describes it as a body (cf. Rom 12:5,1 Cor 12:12-27) with Christ as its head (cf. Eph 1:22-23). What can be attributed to a hand in the body does not somehow take away from the head. It is Christ who empowers all Christians to participate in his priesthood. Indeed, it is “Christ [and his priesthood] living in them” (cf. Gal 2:20).First Peter 2 indicates that all Christians are priests—but it does not mention the existence of a ministerial priesthood. Indeed, the ordained ministers of the New Covenant are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), presbyters (cf. Jas 5:14), bishops (cf. 1 Tm 3:1), and deacons (cf. 1 Tm 3:8ff), but never priests (Gk.hiereus). So how do Catholics demonstrate the existence of a ministerial priesthood distinct from the universal priesthood?First of all, a careful reading of 1 Peter 2, verses 5 and 9 reveals a reference to Exodus 19:6: “. . . and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This text from Exodus indicates a universal priesthood in the Old Testament. And yet, in Exodus 19:22, we read, "And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves . . . " In other words, a universal priesthood in the Old Covenant did not exclude the possibility of a distinct ministerial priesthood as well. It would be natural then to expect the same in the New Covenant. And indeed, that is precisely what we discover.We should not be surprised that the noun “priest” (Gk.hiereus) was not used as a title for New Covenant ministers: This same term was used by the more numerous Jewish and even pagan priests of the first century (cf. Lk 1:8-9, Acts 14:13). Using different titles for New Covenant priests would be one way of distinguishing them. However, the verb form ofhiereusis used for New Testament ministers. It is found when Paul speaks specifically of his ministry as an apostle, referring to it as a “priestly service”: ". . . because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service (Gk.hierourgounta) of the gospel of God…" (Rom 15:15b-16a).Here we see a central clue to the priestly nature of New Covenant ministers that becomes more and more telling as we traverse Scripture. New Covenant ministers reveal their essence as priests by their priestly functions. We do not find this priestly function ascribed to deacons, but we do in the cases of apostles, bishops, and “elders.” In this brief analysis, we will only consider apostles and "elders."In Scripture, we see our Lord definitively choosing and sending apostles to act as priests, or “mediators between God and men.” For example, after the Resurrection, our Lord appears to the apostles and says to them: “‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (Jn 20:21-23).Here, Jesus communicated the power to forgive and retain sins—just as he himself had done—to the apostles. This is apriestly*ministry (see also Lv 19:21-22).
You’re a Catholic, your Bible may say different between mine.

Can you give me a passage in the Bible I use (ESV) that says, in the New Testament, that God is NOT the meditator between Man and that Priests are.

Heck, show me that in YOUR Bible.
 
God does.

Also, when I say I’m going to sleep I kinda’ mean it…

You have many questions that have been answered about “EIS”. Fully re-read my argument.

I’m going to quote my argument again while stating what I’m plainly arguing.

Baptism, I believe, is not required to get into Heaven. If someone doesn’t baptize, they don’t go to hell. Now, let me quote my argument.

DO you understand, mr Jon…?
This argument makes no sense in passages where eis is not found.
 
I thought you said you didn’t come to ‘debate?’ Now, you’re going to ‘rip apart your argument?’ By what authority is you interpretation correct over all others?
I didn’t. But when people say “your ways are unscriptural” (Jon said something like that) then I get defensive. I was forced into this poistion.
 
Oh my…goodness.:banghead:

Do you really want me to explain this…? It’s a simple concept.
You are saying the usage of eis in Acts 2:38 means that Acts 2:38 indicates baptism is not necessary. You then apply this interpretation to your understanding of every verse that says otherwise about baptism. You can’t do that.
 
This argument makes no sense in passages where eis is not found.
BaptiEZD.

EIS. It was a greek word used when writing the New testament.

While both the meanings of the Greek word eis are seen in different passages of Scripture, such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson- let me stop this right here. Your response will be "Only the apostles can interpitate the scriptures. That’s nonsense. They were wrote a certain way, so to make sure they aren’t taken out of context they must be interitated a certain way.

EVEN J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.”

Are you smarter then him…? The apostles probably were. However, the Bible was wrote a certain way and need to be understood a certain way.

I’l re-quote parts of my argument. I almost 100% believe you’ll continue grasping at the same straws that I’l breaking. But, I’l try.
One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, it would be possible that Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins (John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14).
Peter didn’t even MENTION BAPTISM! Another quote from my argument that you have trouble understanding…
This interpretation of the passage is also consistent with the message recorded in Peter’s next two sermons to unbelievers where he associates the forgiveness of sins with the act of repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:17-26; Acts 4:8-12).
My argument is complete. Baptism is NOT required for salvation. Baptism is most certainly NOT required for repentance. I’ve made my mark, make yours.
 
You are saying the usage of eis in Acts 2:38 means that Acts 2:38 indicates baptism is not necessary. You then apply this interpretation to your understanding of every verse that says otherwise about baptism. You can’t do that.
I’m saying Baptism is not required to enter the Kingdom of heaven, which it’s not. I’m saying Baptism is not required for repentence.

To enter your Church? Yes it’s required. That is YOUR thing, but it is not required to get into Heaven.
 
BaptiEZD.

EIS. It was a greek word used when writing the New testament.

While both the meanings of the Greek word eis are seen in different passages of Scripture, such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson- let me stop this right here. Your response will be "Only the apostles can interpitate the scriptures. That’s nonsense. They were wrote a certain way, so to make sure they aren’t taken out of context they must be interitated a certain way.

EVEN J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.”

Are you smarter then him…? The apostles probably were. However, the Bible was wrote a certain way and need to be understood a certain way.

I’l re-quote parts of my argument. I almost 100% believe you’ll continue grasping at the same straws that I’l breaking. But, I’l try.

Peter didn’t even MENTION BAPTISM! Another quote from my argument that you have trouble understanding…

My argument is complete. Baptism is NOT required for salvation. Baptism is most certainly NOT required for repentance. I’ve made my mark, make yours.
To avoid complexities and moving in circles I will ask you one question.

Why did the church, who spoke Greek in their native tongue, to whom these letters were written, not practice what you preach?

(Evidence available on request)
 
You’re a Catholic, your Bible may say different between mine.

Can you give me a passage in the Bible I use (ESV) that says, in the New Testament, that God is NOT the meditator between Man and that Priests are.

Heck, show me that in YOUR Bible.
Believe it or not we agree. Christ is the mediator between God and man
 
Hi, thanks for making this thread. 🙂

Since the others have been focusing on doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Pentecostal Christianity, I would like to talk about a certain “similarity” that is shared among the two: exorcism.

It is my understanding that Pentecostal Christianity is the only (or among the very few) Protestant denomination that actually performs some sort of exorcism on people suspected to be possessed by demons (the others either ignore it, attributing it to psychological issues, or refer to a Roman Catholic or Orthodox priest). I believe the exorcism is done with a congregation of lay faithful that repeatedly chant “be rid of this demon through the power of Jesus” or something similar.

What is your take on this? Is there an official doctrine on exorcisms within Pentecostalism, or is this just a custom of the lay people? 😃
 
I’m saying Baptism is not required to enter the Kingdom of heaven, which it’s not. I’m saying Baptism is not required for repentence.

To enter your Church? Yes it’s required. That is YOUR thing, but it is not required to get into Heaven.
Thus sayeth King John !

To bad you have no authority to contradict the Church, the Bible, or the Apostolic Tradition!

I’m sorry, but I believe the Apostles and the Church Father’s over some Pentecostal 20th century scripture twister like the folks you’ve mentioned in yout “arguments”. Could all of these Greek Speakers really have read Acts 2:38 incorrectly? You really believe that?

“Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, ‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.’ Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls” (Letter of Barnabas 11:1–10 [A.D. 74]).

“‘I have heard, sir,’ said I, ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’” (Hermas, The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).

“Let none of you turn deserter. Let your baptism be your armor; your faith, your helmet; your love, your spear; your patient endurance, your panoply” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to Polycarp 6 [A.D. 110]).

“For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey his commandments. . . . [W]ith what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?’ (Second Clement 6:7–9 [A.D. 150]).

“Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: ‘In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,’ they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’” (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 61:14–17 [A.D. 151]).

“Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration—all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God” (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 2:16 [A.D. 181]).

“When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal . . . ‘and sons of the Most High’ [Ps. 82:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 191]).

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. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, 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!” (Tertulian, Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).

While I was lying in darkness . . . I thought it indeed difficult and hard to believe . . . that divine mercy was promised for my salvation, so that anyone might be born again and quickened unto a new life by the laver of the saving water, he might put off what he had been before, and, although the structure of the body remained, he might change himself in soul and mind. . . . But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of rebirth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards, through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man” (Cyprian of Carthage To Donatus 3–4 [A.D. 246]).

“If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive baptism, for the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism [Mark 10:38]. . . . Bearing your sins, you go down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down dead in your sins, and you come up made alive in righteousness” (Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 3:10, 12 [A.D. 350]).
 
Hi, thanks for making this thread. 🙂

Since the others have been focusing on doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Pentecostal Christianity, I would like to talk about a certain “similarity” that is shared among the two: exorcism.

It is my understanding that Pentecostal Christianity is the only (or among the very few) Protestant denomination that actually performs some sort of exorcism on people suspected to be possessed by demons (the others either ignore it, attributing it to psychological issues, or refer to a Roman Catholic or Orthodox priest). I believe the exorcism is done with a congregation of lay faithful that repeatedly chant “be rid of this demon through the power of Jesus” or something similar.

What is your take on this? Is there an official doctrine on exorcisms within Pentecostalism, or is this just a custom of the lay people? 😃
KingJohn may have a different experience than I have had, so I’d love to see how much our experiences match up.

I have never been in a congregation that chanted, “be rid of this demon through the power of Jesus.” Exorcisms, in my experience, are rarely if ever done by the laity. (It can be done. However, ordained ministers are usually called on to do this since they are expected to actually know what they are doing.) At the least, we would want someone who was a mature Christian, close to the Lord in prayer, and who fasts regularly.

There is no ritual. The exorcist uses simple commands in the name of Jesus. If an exorcism occurs in a congregational setting (because demoniacs who find their way into a church often exhibit their demon possession), the congregation may pray prayers of intercession. However, there is no chanting.

In my church, we don’t even let our altar workers lay hands on people exhibiting signs of demonic possession. They back off and let the ministers handle anything like that.
 
KingJohn may have a different experience than I have had, so I’d love to see how much our experiences match up.

I have never been in a congregation that chanted, “be rid of this demon through the power of Jesus.” Exorcisms, in my experience, are rarely if ever done by the laity. (It can be done. However, ordained ministers are usually called on to do this since they are expected to actually know what they are doing.) At the least, we would want someone who was a mature Christian, close to the Lord in prayer, and who fasts regularly.

There is no ritual. The exorcist uses simple commands in the name of Jesus. If an exorcism occurs in a congregational setting (because demoniacs who find their way into a church often exhibit their demon possession), the congregation may pray prayers of intercession. However, there is no chanting.
Yeah…We didn’t do excorcism in my Church.

Also, do you believe Baptism is a 100% necessity to get into the Kingdom of Heaven?
 
I’m sorry, but I do not agree when the Apostles of your Church say Baptism is required for salvation.

It’s important, yes. But I simply do not agree. I’ve laid the Pentecostal poistion on Salvation out, you’ve laid your poistion in the word of man out. Unless you have Jesus himself saying in the Bible that Baptism is a 100% necessity to getting into his kingdom, then I do not believe it’s a 100% necessity.
 
KingJohn may have a different experience than I have had, so I’d love to see how much our experiences match up.

I have never been in a congregation that chanted, “be rid of this demon through the power of Jesus.” Exorcisms, in my experience, are rarely if ever done by the laity. (It can be done. However, ordained ministers are usually called on to do this since they are expected to actually know what they are doing.) At the least, we would want someone who was a mature Christian, close to the Lord in prayer, and who fasts regularly.

There is no ritual. The exorcist uses simple commands in the name of Jesus. If an exorcism occurs in a congregational setting (because demoniacs who find their way into a church often exhibit their demon possession), the congregation may pray prayers of intercession. However, there is no chanting.

In my church, we don’t even let our altar workers lay hands on people exhibiting signs of demonic possession. They back off and let the ministers handle anything like that.
Wait a minute? You have an altar in your church? I keep learning more and more!
 
Yeah…We didn’t do excorcism in my Church.

Also, do you believe Baptism is a 100% necessity to get into the Kingdom of Heaven?
I believe that baptism is a God-ordained expression of faith in Christ, our dying and our rising to life in Christ. I also believe that it is part of the process of becoming a disciple; Jesus said in Matthew 28, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Baptism is part of becoming a disciple.

Now, I don’t believe that it is baptism itself that saves or makes someone a Christian. There must already be an inner work, an inner identification and appropriation of Christ’s death and resurrection on the part of the baptized for their to be any benefit to baptism. However, some have taken this to mean that baptism is not important or something that you don’t really have to do if you don’t want to. I’ve never understood this.

The biblical pattern is repent, be baptized, and then receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. If Pentecostals ensure that everyone in our churches is born again, baptized, and filled with the Spirit as soon as possible after being drawn to Christ all of these questions become moot points.
 
I’m sorry, but I do not agree when the Apostles of your Church say Baptism is required for salvation.

It’s important, yes. But I simply do not agree. I’ve laid the Pentecostal poistion on Salvation out, you’ve laid your poistion in the word of man out. Unless you have Jesus himself saying in the Bible that Baptism is a 100% necessity to getting into his kingdom, then I do not believe it’s a 100% necessity.
Well to be honest it disappoints me that you put faith in men of the 20th century and not the Apostles…even Polycarp who Ignatius wrote to is in the Bible. I suppose you reject all Christian teaching prior to the reformation. I won’t ever understand that. I suppose if you or your pastors are prophets like suppossedly Joseph Smith and you believe Christians were in error until your pastor rediscovered the truth, then I guess you can hold that position, but I hope you see how much faith you are putting in men.

Are we supposed to “follow” Jesus? Are we supposed to emulate his example as best we can, even to the point of “taking up our cross to follow him”?

If so, then shouldn’t we follow God incarnates example in baptism?

The Baptism of Jesus

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

Note Jesus is the one who sends in this verse:

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, On whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizes with the Holy Ghost.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top